From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 00:21:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VDKj204199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:20:45 +1100 (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 e9VDKct04195 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:20:39 +1100 (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 NAA19143; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:29:29 +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 NAA20121; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:31:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001031134155.008e9930@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 13:41:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] incomplete answer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi everybody, I have some qualms about a case from last night's duplicate. How would you have ruled ? Pairs, East is a great player, the other three are less expert, but experienced. W N E S AKxxx J9xx x Q10x x AQJ109x Kxxx xx KQxx x 109xx AJxx Kxx Jx xxx AQxxx 1S 3H* p 3NT * weak West leads DQ. South enquires to East : 'you play Rusinow, don't you ?' East : 'er, no, not against NT contracts' South now takes the lead, and his jack is played trough a little bit later. The director is summoned. He establishes the following facts : a) E/W play top of sequence against NT (exception : journalist 10). b) as an exception, from KQx, they play the queen c) from KQxx, the normal lead is the lowest card d) West played the Queen because he was afraid of the length in dummy and wished to be aggressive e) the result, 7 tricks, could have been 8 if South had ducked the lead. My questions are : 1) should East have volunteered the explanation that the Q might come from KQx, given the way the question was asked ? 2) assuming he should, he wouldn't ever have thought of mentioning KQxx. So, the real position of diamonds wouldn't be known to South, but the play of a small diamond would serendipitously be the good one and most probably produce 8 tricks. Could the missing explanation be considered irrelevant, since the actual case would never have been cited ? (after all, West *didn't* hold KQx) 3) South in fact played for the lead to be from Qx or Qxx, which is so highly illogical in this case. Is this relevant ? Thank you for your remarks. 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 Nov 1 00:47:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VDl2p04224 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:47:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9VDkut04220 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:46:56 +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 IAA09871 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:46:52 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id IAA17912 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:46:51 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 08:46:51 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200010311346.IAA17912@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson Thanks for the very clear explanations and examples. A detail: > 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". I thought that the ACBL LC adopted the WBF standard a year or two ago. Can anyone confirm or deny? > The ACBL approach is to make people "play Bridge" or lose their > redress: This is often true in practice, but it is not the official approach under either the "egregious error" standard or the WBF one. > From: "Grattan Endicott" > (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. Could someone give an example here? Perhaps David's example case would be a good one: > 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 How would the CoP lead to a different answer? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 03:41:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VGeXZ04556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9VGeMt04552 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:40:23 +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 e9VGe8F02500; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:09 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9VGe8K24376; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:08 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:08 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA01111; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:07 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA01778; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:07 GMT Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 16:40:07 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200010311640.QAA01778@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > (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. > > Could someone give an example here? Perhaps David's example case > would be a good one: > > > 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 > > How would the CoP lead to a different answer? Let me have a go: Amount due to error (doubling and letting through and overtrick) = (score obtained) - (score for 4S=) = -990 - -620 = -370 Adjusted score (at all likely) for EW = -170, add amount due to error = -170 + -370 = -540. EW gain the amount (450 = game bonus - partscore) they lost because opponents used UI; but they get to keep the scores due to doubling and making a stupid lead. 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 Nov 1 04:05:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VH4sO04626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 04:04:54 +1100 (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 e9VH4ot04622 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 04:04:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga349446 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:51:32 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-215-196.tmns.net.au ([203.54.215.196]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Swaying-MailRouter V2.9c 11/3396387); 01 Nov 2000 02:51:31 Message-ID: <01ef01c0435a$b6363f60$38da36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:50:44 +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 Ian Crorie wrote: >I post this because I thought the AC's decision was a >poor one (despite the fact that as North I benefitted from it) I don't think NS benefitted at all. It was EW who benefitted from the AC ruling. See below. >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 appealed and the AC >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. David Stevenson wrote: ::[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 PG: IMO as a peer of Scottish triallists, South's 4C, North's 5C and South's Pass of 4S were all reasonable calls which happened to work out badly. None of them IMO come close to being "bad enough to break the causal link", whether WBF, ABF, EBU or other interpretations apply. I think that the only problem in this case is determining the links between the two explanations of 3S and the various NS actions. Had NS been correctly informed, it's quite complex but is surely worth investigating: - would South still have bid 4C? Very likely, I think, but it's hard to assess. The lead-directing advantage of 4C is actually enhanced by the correct explanation because now that hearts is an unbid suit, South with three small hearts wants to negate a possible heart lead. If DQ were HQ, then this important point would be less crucial. - would South still pass 4S? Almost certainly not, I think, but again it's difficult to assess. After the correct explanation, South can infer that North's heart cards could be well-placed (the wrong explanation made them badly placed) but most of all, the limited (6-9) nature of the correct explanation makes the double exceedingly more attractive. The idea of the 4C bid was to get the best lead against 4S: West has said he doesn't have a 4S bid, and now East who has only 6-9 points is punting 4S which is exactly what you want him to do. Partner must be stopped from bidding 5C at all cost. Compare with the situation with the wrong explanation. Here, East's hand has no upper limit, and there is no such inference about 4S being a "please double me" bid. I don't think NS presented their case brilliantly but I don't hold that against them. I would have ruled 4S X -1 for both sides. I would accept that some AC members might not draw the same conclusions as me about the 4C call and that EW 140 for NS or for both sides are possible alternative rulings. By the way I am a firm believer that the AC doesn't have to rely only on the NOs to "dream up" what they'd have done if given the correct explanation, as they can never know what they'd have hypothetically done - all they can do is offer opinions. My view is that an AC for a top-level event such as the SBU Trials should include sufficient high-standard players to assess the hand adequately. I realise that in practice all the top players are playing in the SBU Trials (this principle applies at WBF events too) so my theoretical ideal is hard to achieve, but if for example one of the top seeds was knocked out in Stage 1 of the SBU Trials, I might seek their analytical skills for AC purposes. In the real world of course this is unlikely to happen, so that bizarre AC decisions like this one will alas continue to occur. 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 Nov 1 04:05:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VH5cw04643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 04:05:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9VH5Vt04638 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 04:05:32 +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 SAA17733; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:03:10 +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 SAA27059; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:05:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001031181553.008efbf0@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 18:15:53 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] incomplete answer Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 13:41:55 +0100 >To: bl >From: alain gottcheiner >Subject: incomplete answer For some, the diagram seemed incomplete too. So here is an update. I usually avoid, with my Belgian bridge correspondents, making square diagrams ; they seem to go through with some difficulty. Must remember the opposite is true for BLML. >Hi everybody, > >I have some qualms about a case from last night's duplicate. How would you have ruled ? > >Pairs, East is a great player, the other three are less expert, but experienced. > J9xx AQJ109x x Jx > > AKxxx x > x Kxxx > KQxx 109xx > Kxx xxxx > Q10x xx AJxx AQxx > 1S 3H* p 3NT > >* weak > >West leads DQ. >South enquires to East : 'you play Rusinow, don't you ?' >East : 'er, no, not against NT contracts' > >South now takes the lead, and his jack is played trough a little bit later. >The director is summoned. > >He establishes the following facts : >a) E/W play top of sequence against NT (exception : journalist 10). >b) as an exception, from KQx, they play the queen >c) from KQxx, the normal lead is the lowest card >d) West played the Queen because he was afraid of the length in dummy and wished to be aggressive >e) the result, 7 tricks, could have been 8 if South had ducked the lead. > >My questions are : > >1) should East have volunteered the explanation that the Q might come from KQx, given the way the question was asked ? >2) assuming he should, he wouldn't ever have thought of mentioning KQxx. So, the real position of diamonds wouldn't be known to South, but the play of a small diamond would serendipitously be the good one and most probably produce 8 tricks. Could the missing explanation be considered irrelevant, since the actual case would never have been cited ? (after all, West *didn't* hold KQx) >3) South in fact played for the lead to be from Qx or Qxx, which is so highly illogical in this case. Is this relevant ? > >Thank you for your remarks. > > 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 Nov 1 05:14:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VIDjj04738 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:13:45 +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 e9VIDdt04734 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:13:40 +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 ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:10:55 -0800 Message-ID: <00a001c04366$392f4be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010311346.IAA17912@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:13:04 -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 From: "Steve Willner" > > From: David Stevenson > > Thanks for the very clear explanations and examples. A detail: > > > 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". > > I thought that the ACBL LC adopted the WBF standard a year or two ago. > Can anyone confirm or deny? Look at the published minutes of the ACBLLC on the ACBL web site. I don't think you'll find it. When commenting on the WBFLC interpretations coming out of Lille, at the Orlando ACBLLC meeting, this was what was said in regard to score adjustments: "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." The Lille minute concerning this matter was difficult to understand (for me, anyway), and this looks like a simpler restatement, not a real contradiction. Rich Colker changed his policy of not making one-sided adjustments (using a PP for the OS instead) based on the Lille minute, so I presume the ACBLLC's words are in conformance with that. The second part of the Lille minute, relating to what constitutes grounds for annulment of redress, was not touched upon by the ACBLLC. I have the impression that in Orlando the ACBLLC was accepting all the Lille interpretations except those on which it commented. That there was no comment on what the WBFLC said about loss of redress ("wild, irrational, or gambling") seems to consitute tacit agreement. > > > The ACBL approach is to make people "play Bridge" or lose their > > redress: > > This is often true in practice, but it is not the official approach under either > the "egregious error" standard or the WBF one. This unwarranted (?) ACBL reputation was brought about by various ACBL NABC ACs who said that NOs had "to play bridge." It definitely is not an official ACBL approach. I really don't see any conflict between "egregious error" and the WBFLC standard. "Egregious" is defined in my dictionary as "remarkable or extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant." Evidently some ACBL AC members (at least one of whom is no longer a member) don't know the meaning of the word. As I remember, "egregious" came from Kaplan informally, not from any ACBLLC official guideline. I can't find the quote at the moment, but did find this: "When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors." (*The Bridge World*, July 1993) That doesn't seem appreciably different from the WBFLC's standard (although Grattan doesn't think revokes are irrational). > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > (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. > > Could someone give an example here? Perhaps David's example case > would be a good one: > > > 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 > Of course E/W keep the table result. Unless there is some reason to think that the defense would have been different against an undoubled 3S, the egregious defense was not a result of the infraction and N/S should get +200. The same principle applies to the play of an OS. If the overtrick had been a result of brilliant play, not related to the infraction, they get +200 even if that would be a top score. In sum, the actual play of the hand should not be changed when adjusting (assuming same strain, same declarer) unless it might reasonably have been affected by the infraction. It is evident that Grattan does not agree with this principle in regard to the OS. Why don't the LCs make this matter clear, one way or the other? We shouldn't have to argue about it. > How would the CoP lead to a different answer? Probably depends on who is interpreting the CoP. Compare the CoP's words with those of the WBFLC at Lille: CoP: A revoke [or, presumably, any egregious goof? - mlf] by the innocent side subsequent to the infraction will affect its own score but again the infractor's score is to be adjusted as before without regard to the revoke. WBFLC: ...advantage gained by an offender (see L72B1), provided it is related to the infraction..., shall be construed as an advantage in the table score whether consequent or subsequent to the infraction. Damage to a non-offending side shall be a consequence of the infraction if redress is to be given in an adjusted score. Since I don't really understand either statement very well, or even if they conflict, I can't answer the question. 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 Nov 1 05:54:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VIs3a04845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:54:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9VIrwt04841 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:53:58 +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 ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:51:19 -0800 Message-ID: <00c501c0436b$ddc96960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200010311346.IAA17912@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:52:23 -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 Big blunder by me. David Stevenson wrote, illustrating supposed ACBL practice: > > > 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 > I stupidly agreed with the -990 for E/W, not noticing that E/W could not have received a better score in 4S than in 3S, no matter what they did. If the stupidies let the contract make, not just the overtrick, that would be different and they would keep -990. As it is they get -200. I still maintain that N/S get +200 if the bad defense was not at all attributable to the level of the contract. 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 Nov 1 05:58:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VIwh004860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:58:43 +1100 (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 e9VIwbt04856 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 05:58:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VC7pt02323; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:07:51 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 12:02:16 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200010311640.QAA01778@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200010311640.QAA01778@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00103112075102.02255@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Robin Barker wrote: > > > 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 > > > > How would the CoP lead to a different answer? > > Let me have a go: > > Amount due to error (doubling and letting through and overtrick) > = (score obtained) - (score for 4S=) > = -990 - -620 > = -370 > > Adjusted score (at all likely) for EW = -170, > add amount due to error = -170 + -370 = -540. > > EW gain the amount (450 = game bonus - partscore) they lost because > opponents used UI; but they get to keep the scores due to doubling > and making a stupid lead. While I support this type of adjustment, it can unly be used in this form at total points. At other forms of scoring, the adjustments must be converted to scores first. At IMPs, if the other table was +170, then the damage from the offense was 450, or 10 IMPs, so that should be the adjustment; the table result gave a swing of 820, or 13 IMPs, so the swing should be adjusted to 3 IMPs. At matchpoints, if -170 was 9 MPs, -620 was 3 MP's, and -990 was a zero, then the adjustment should be 6 MP's. AT BAM, if -620 would have already lost the board to -170 at the other table, the adjustment should be to a push for the non-offenders, who had no chance to push after the infraction. -- 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 Wed Nov 1 07:00:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VJxZC05078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:59:35 +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 e9VJxTt05074 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 06:59:30 +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 ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:56:50 -0800 Message-ID: <013c01c04375$04b0bca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 11:58:58 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > > [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. > I believe the following principle comes from Kaplan (can't find the quote at the moment), and it looks correct to me: If an infraction should have given the NOS a better score than they would have received absent the infraction, then giving them the table result *may* be in order. Otherwise the damage was irreparable and nothing done by the NOS annuls total redress. That does not mean that stupidities or irrational acts not attributable to the infraction are erased. These (revoke, crazy defense, whatever), are incorporated into the adjusted scores for both sides, since they had nothing to do with the infraction. 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 Nov 1 09:01:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VM0I605298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:00:18 +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 e9VM07t05286 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:00:07 +1100 (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 13qjRp-00069C-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:00:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:55:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brrooww!! It has been suggested by someone of taste who shall remain nameless [meow Craig] that new pictures of me should be posted for my thirteenth birthday on 11-11-00. I am pleased to say that David has done so at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm There are also new pictures of David, Nanki Poo, and some other cats, but they don't matter. Brow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 09:01:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VM0Ou05301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:00:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 e9VM07t05285 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:00:07 +1100 (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 13qjRp-00069B-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 22:00:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 14:26:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is the latest list of cats compiled by my assistant Nanki Poo. Please check your entry and let Nanki Poo know if there are any mistakes. Let me assure you that Schroedinger's cat does not appear in this article. Unfortunately Nanki Poo has been his normal efficient self, keeping an email from a lurker in Long Island who shares a house with a cat, Ralph [and a dog, Norton] but losing the person's name. Miaouw! Please let Nanki Poo know who you are! List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother Shadow, Tipsy Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushsh Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan * Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod * RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal Albert, Cleo, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Norman Scorbie Starsky, Hutch Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 09:08:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VM8Tf05332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:08:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip137.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.137]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9VM8Mt05328 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 09:08:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4DD51D7F42 for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:08:17 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 23:08:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id e9VM8Qt05329 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the Danish teams championships, 2nd division, we have just had a case in which I - very unusually - find myself strongly in disagreement with a unanimous ruling by the DBF Laws Commission. So I'd like to hear what BLML thinks. In the actual case, there was some doubt about some of the facts. I will take the liberty here of presenting the case as if the facts were definitely established - that will put the focus on the interesting aspect. South dealer, EW vulnerable. A83 Q10964 S W N E 875 P P P 1H 72 P 2S* P 4H KJ952 10 P 4S P 5C - AK753 P P P 942 A63 K10843 AJ95 Q764 J82 KQJ10 Q6 12 tricks, -620. 2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card before bidding 2S. Please consider it established that: * W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). * W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his system. * When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A violation? -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 10:02:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id e9VN1R205425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:01:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id e9VN1Kt05420 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:01:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e9VN1n413438 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:01:49 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200010312301.e9VN1n413438@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 18:01:48 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Jesper Dybdal" at Oct 31, 2000 11:08:17 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal writes: > > In the Danish teams championships, 2nd division, we have just had > a case in which I - very unusually - find myself strongly in > disagreement with a unanimous ruling by the DBF Laws Commission. > So I'd like to hear what BLML thinks. > > In the actual case, there was some doubt about some of the facts. > I will take the liberty here of presenting the case as if the > facts were definitely established - that will put the focus on > the interesting aspect. > > > South dealer, EW vulnerable. > A83 > Q10964 S W N E > 875 P P P 1H > 72 P 2S* P 4H > KJ952 10 P 4S P 5C > - AK753 P P P > 942 A63 > K10843 AJ95 > Q764 > J82 > KQJ10 > Q6 > > 12 tricks, -620. > > 2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton > or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card > before bidding 2S. > > Please consider it established that: > * W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and > could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). > * W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his > system. > * When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and > not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the > time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. > > The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A > violation? Not according to Edgar Kaplan who mentioned a similar situation in a 1981 editorial. Quoting now: You open one spade and partner responds with a forcing one notrump - you Alert, at which point partner looks confused. You rebid two clubs and partner, at his turn, demands a review. What's going on? Very likely partner has failed to hear your opening; likely, he has a notrump *opening*, instead of a response. This likelihood, however flows from partner's manner, and from his asking for a review. So the information is extraneous, improper. In that same situation, partner, who did indeed intend to open one notrump rather than to respond with that bid, is fully entitled to base his next action on his new-found knowledge of what the auction has actually been. He need not treat your two-club bid as Stayman; he may, for instance, leap to three notrump. You, though, are barred from making a slam try over his three notrump. Partner's information, from the *reply*, is legitimate; yours, from the asking is tainted. End quote. Not everyone agrees with this. Just because Kaplan said something doesn't make it correct. More than a few people believe in effect that partner's Alert can never be allowed to wake you up. Start from this position and an adjusted score of some sort becomes inevitable. (But what? Assuming West is supposed to proceed as though the auction was 1H-1S-4H, that 4H call can't be a weak hand. Is a 5C call unreasonable? I think I'd try it but I may be resulting.) Having said that, I think Kaplan's position is reasonable and I can find no problem with West's deciding that 4 hearts is unlikely to be the optimum place to play. East follows with a cue. Makes sense to me. I didn't like that 4H bid. I doubt he'd be sorry to have a second chance now that partner's made a move. West decides this is as good as it gets. There's no indication that East had any UI (though if this is an established partnership, I have no doubt that East knew something was up. Can't see how East can know the specifics of the situation and 4S is not logically passable from the AI.) -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 1 13:19:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA12HEc05788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:17:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA12H7t05784 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:17:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13qnSa-00017a-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:17:04 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001101031701.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:17:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: <004401c0424d$569b30a0$e95908c3@dodona> References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <000c01c04185$7ae8b220$c974073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:41 AM 10/30/2000 -0000, you wrote: > >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. > well, l81 states the responsibilities of the TD and SO, i think that a misuse of this law can be appealed ; this appeal goes to another body btw; (at least in holland - you can here also appeal if th SO or TD organized a tournamnt disregarding the laws) regards, anton 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/ > 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 Nov 1 13:19:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA12J7F05797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:19:08 +1100 (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 eA12J2t05793 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:19:02 +1100 (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 NAA14308 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:13:32 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:14:24 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] incomplete answer To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:15:32 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/11/2000 02:11:08 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >My questions are : > >1) should East have volunteered the >explanation that the Q might come from >KQx, given the way the question was asked ? >2) assuming he should, he wouldn't ever >have thought of mentioning KQxx. >So, the real position of diamonds wouldn't >be known to South, but the play of a small >diamond would serendipitously be the good >one and most probably produce 8 tricks. >Could the missing explanation be considered >irrelevant, since the actual case would >never have been cited ? (after all, West >*didn't* hold KQx) >3) South in fact played for the lead to be >from Qx or Qxx, which is so highly illogical >in this case. Is this relevant ? > >Thank you for your remarks. > > Alain. My answer to Question 1 is yes. While *Do you play Rusinow?* was technically what was asked, it is obvious that what South wanted to know was *What is the lead of the diamond queen consistent with in your methods?* My answer to Question 2 is that the missing explanation is definitely very relevant. The less-than-expert South erred in not automatically ducking the opening lead. But this error would be easier to avoid if South knew that West could systemically hold the diamond king. (The fact that West had made a non-systemic lead is what is really *irrelevant*.) My answer to Question 3 is that South was told (by omission - see Answer 1) that the diamond queen lead systemically always denied the king. South therefore chose to believe that the less-than-expert West had made an inferior, but systemic, lead. Note that if West has previously chosen this falsecard opening lead, there is now an implicit EW agreement that the diamond queen is consistent with *both* KQx *and* KQxx. 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 Nov 1 13:26:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA12QlI05823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:26:47 +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 eA12Qft05819 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:26:42 +1100 (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 13qnbn-0004Wf-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:26:36 +0000 Message-ID: <6NBXxHAF63$5EwTV@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 02:23:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mise en scene: I don't often post problems from the Acol, but I found this one particularly difficult. Frustratingly so, as all 3 Internationals (who would be on any national AC) who were playing thought it was clear cut. Granted one of them was at the table. The facts are not in dispute, and I 'phoned DWS during the evening to gain his view. Initially he was for bastinado and garrotte but he saw what I was driving at. I'll give the whole story, all the discussion and my ruling. See what you think .... . DWS please feel free to join in. Your hand: QJx AQx K9xx T9x Love all, matchpoints, tough table, I'll make you South. W N E S 1S P East is a GB International (top 10 in UK) P 2C 2H 2Na West is his Customer. Youngish, enthusiastic P 3C P 3N and County "B" team standard. x End Let's say middle of road "A" Flight. North-South, strong club pair, regular This made with an partnership, who've just agreed to play 2N overtrick in competition is never natural. South agrees his 2N was intended as natural. Partner took time to alert, but the slowness didn't, itself, cause UI, although the alert did. The agreement is explained correctly. Problem: Has South got a 3N bid? Did he make use of UI? Another problem: West has doubled with a random 4 count: x J9x J9xxx Qxxx wild and gambling? My first inclination was to let the result stand (Don't scream) What has South learnt from the alert, that 3C doesn't tell him? Suppose North had said "Natural, 12-count" and bids 3C? South explains, "all my cards are working, and I'll get over to the C suit with no problem" This is a "self-serving" (USA definition) remark. Given North's explanation, what extra information does South have? Only that North has bid 3C because he was told to. Does this give South any information he wouldn't have had, except that he can't break the puppet to 3C? So all South knows is that partner can't bid 3N, which he knew anyway. DWS, when I phoned him, pointed out that you've bid 2N to play, and knowledge of the 6th club makes the shot at 3N slightly more attractive than it might otherwise have been. Yet you don't even have this knowledge after partner's alert. My ruling: Ruled back to 3C + 1, because there is a possibility (and no more than that IMO) that partner's alert has suggested 3N is an ok spot. EW to have there score adjusted by the difference between 3N+1 and 3Nx+1 because West's double was "wild and gambling". What do you guys all think? Maybe I've got a blind spot but I thought it was *very* difficult. cheers john -- 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 Wed Nov 1 13:27:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA12RNG05835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:27:23 +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.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA12RHt05831 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 13:27:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13qncQ-0001Bc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 03:27:14 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 03:27:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:19 AM 10/30/2000 +0000, you wrote: >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? > well, i think you forget one thing in your examples. The players are in the first place responsible for their entry in the tournament. If a player knows he isnt qualified for this event, he has the duty of not entering the event. It is totally his responsibility if he anyway illegaly tries to get in. So i dont have any mercy when he is kicked out during the event. I think you lean too much on situations where in the first place the entering player is responsible for the problem. i think you are a bit too lenient for players who know or should know the rules by which we play the game (although i understand your point of view, i dont have sympathy with the players hwo ougth to know what was permissible or not) 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 Wed Nov 1 16:07:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA155K106143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:05:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA155Et06139 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:05:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet01.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.1]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA05600 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:05:09 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001101000413.0123a1bc@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:04:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 In-Reply-To: References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:19 AM 10/30/2000 +0000, David S wrote: > > 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. The comments, including your own, demonstrate that there is no fixed answer to your original question: too much depends on the specific circumstances. I think that we all agree that it is at least extremely distasteful to press for the disqualification of a team over issues that have no material bearing on the game (such as the 25p overdue subscription charge described earlier). On the other hand, when a TD allows a pair/team to compete in circumstances that are clearly in violation of the CoC _and_ impose an obvious disadvantage against the competition (a professional brought in to fill out a team in a Flight B event, say), then that is clearly unfair, and the players so disadvantaged should not be blamed for trying to claim some recompense. Whether the decision of the TD arises out of misrepresentation of the facts, incompetence, favoritism, or just a bad day seems largely irrelevant. The principle that would guide me in making such a decision is just how "inherently" unfair the decision was, to borrow Steve's criterion. OTOH, I would like to put in a good word for a badly maligned figure: the much-loathed BL. Whether I would aggressively pursue my legal interests on a technicality in a particular situation or not, I am reluctant to judge too harshly those who attempt to advance their interests by rigorous enforcement of the rules. On the scale of ethical lapses, this type of behavior ranks way below the much more common bending and even flouting of legal and ethical principles that go on all the time. 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 Nov 1 16:20:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA15Jvr06175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:19:57 +1100 (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 eA15Jpt06171 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:19:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet01.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.1]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA13565 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:19:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001101001852.0123c2f0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 00:18:52 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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 11:08 PM 10/31/2000 +0100, Jesper wrote: >The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A >violation? I say no. For me, UI refers to the information itself, rather than the source of that information. In this case, the information that West has obtained is nothing more than a review of the auction, and he is surely entitled at any time to know what the auction has been. But it is a difficult case, I think. Certainly it is not completely clear that West would have discovered his mistake absent the alert (although he probably would have done when he started to lay down the green card after 4H). And of course P is an obvious LA, contra-indicated by the knowledge he has gained. So it is certainly possible that EW have gained by the effect of the alert, which they ought not get away with, maybe. 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 Nov 2 02:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1FXci07330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 02:33:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA1FXWt07326 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 02:33:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20359 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:28:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:24:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] incomplete answer Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Note that if West has previously chosen >this falsecard opening lead, there is now >an implicit EW agreement that the diamond >queen is consistent with *both* KQx *and* >KQxx. I do not believe that one instance creates an implicit agreement. Even in the ACBL. I do agree with the rest of your post. 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/AwUBOgA3yb2UW3au93vOEQKHWQCgvlE6Ic4rt/Yam6djDdNaZckhVfUAniCQ 5uOneT08L7WIaWCTLwY6mMFU =pftK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 02:57:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1Fv5k07354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 02:57:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA1Fuxt07349 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 02:56:59 +1100 (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 13r0Fr-000OFK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 00:38:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@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: > > [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. It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we were instructed *not* to follow the Burn/Colker approach. We were told that if we wished to penalise offenders then we used procedural penalties, not split scores. -- 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 Thu Nov 2 03:03:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1G3aI07387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:03:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA1G3Rt07383 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:03:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from p41s02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.66] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13r0KJ-00045v-00; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 16:01:23 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <6NBXxHAF63$5EwTV@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 15:56:40 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 01 November 2000 02:23 Subject: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol > QJx > AQx > K9xx > T9x > +=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that with North signing off there are not a good number of players of 'strong club standard' who would make no further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and a smidgen outside. Your ruling was right. Your reason not right. It is not relevant whether the alert may have suggested 3N could be an ok spot; the only question is whether the auction based on 2NT being natural does or does not allow of logical alternative(s) to 3NT. South has the UI that North has not taken the 2NT to be the natural bid it was; he must carefully avoid taking advantage of that knowledge. West is cuckoo. EW must stand the cost of his double shot. ~ 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 Nov 2 04:32:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1HW9u07598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:32:09 +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 eA1HW5t07594 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:32:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba611885 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:26:24 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-229.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.229]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Missionary-MailRouter V2.9c 1/392275); 02 Nov 2000 03:26:23 Message-ID: <00ec01c04428$b8283fc0$64d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] incomplete answer Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 04:25:23 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >How would you have ruled ? >Pairs, East is a great player, the other three are less >expert, but experienced. > > J9xx > AQJ109x > x > Jx > AKxxx x > x Kxxx > KQxx 109xx > Kxx xxxx > Q10x > xx > AJxx > AQxx > > 1S 3H* p 3NT >* weak > >West leads DQ. >South enquires to East : 'you play Rusinow, don't you ?' >East : 'er, no, not against NT contracts' I'm sure it's arguable, but I'd interpret that Law 20F2 means that when declarer asks a question about "card play conventions", he's asking BOTH opponents (the "replies should be given by the partner" bit of Law 20F1 is totally missing from Law 20F2, implying that even if he turns to ask East, West could answer the question about the lead). If leads were to be treated like calls in this regard, then the Laws should say so IMO. Thus I don't think that West is correcting his partner's explanation if he adds to it, he's merely answering South's question (and probably giving UI to his partner). My point is that IMO West can and probably should enlighten South about EW's leading agreements after East's slack answer. I'd appreciate feedback on whether I'm wrong. >South now takes the lead, and his jack is played through >a little bit later. The director is summoned. > >He establishes the following facts : >a) E/W play top of sequence against NT (exception : journalist 10). >b) as an exception, from KQx, they play the queen >c) from KQxx, the normal lead is the lowest card >d) West played the Queen because he was afraid of the >length in dummy and wished to be aggressive >e) the result, 7 tricks, could have been 8 if South had >ducked the lead. > >My questions are : > >1) should East have volunteered the explanation that >the Q might come from KQx, given the way the question >was asked ? The response is inadequate and definitely is an infraction. Although a PP would encourage East to be more forthcoming in future, I wouldn't give one mainly because it's "not the Australian way". >2) assuming he should, he wouldn't ever have thought of >mentioning KQxx. So, the real position of diamonds >wouldn't be known to South, but the play of a small >diamond would serendipitously be the good one and > most probably produce 8 tricks. Could the missing >explanation be considered irrelevant, since the actual >case would never have been cited ? (after all, West >*didn't* hold KQx) No. There has been an infraction and the question now is simply whether the infraction damaged South. >>3) South in fact played for the lead to be from Qx or Qxx, > which is so highly illogical in this case. Is this relevant ? No, it is not "egregious" (dare I use that word?), I'd say. You pointed out that the players are experienced enough to find such leads. This is exactly the type of position which sometimes calls for a Qx or Q10x lead. If East has DK, ducking the ace might be useful to prevent East getting on lead, but taking the ace might confuse West about who has DK (and DJ), so taking the ace could be right. For the adjusted score, the play is extremely hard to assess: - DQ wins. - D to jack (likely? at all probable? obviously at least the latter). - H to Q wins (assuming East is Versace or Rodwell i.e AG's description of him). Actually we need to know how the actual play went. Was East a rank beginner who took the first heart at the table? Then we have to consider that East knows that his partner cannot have DKQxx so a diamond continuation is pointless. A club switch becomes a possibility. Or a spade. Then West might eventually be strip-squeezed to lead away from CK (South merely having to cash his winners to set up this position, I think). We also have to consider that there is a vague chance that South has solid clubs, in which case the first heart must be taken. In other words, without: (f) the Director's record of how he saw the play go, trick by trick, IMO it is impossible to decide whether to rule 8 or 9 tricks or (if allowed by the SO) a percentage of the two. 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 Nov 2 05:02:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1I2Ti07681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA1I2Mt07676 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.110] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r2DL-000D3O-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:02:19 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c0442d$df8f4720$6e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200010311346.IAA17912@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00a001c04366$392f4be0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 20:32:38 -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: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > From: "Steve Willner" > > > From: David Stevenson > > > > As I remember, "egregious" came from Kaplan > informally, not from any ACBLLC official guideline. > I can't find the quote at the moment, but did > find this: > "When we think of mistakes that could cancel > the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, > or other *gross* errors." (*The Bridge World*, > July 1993) That doesn't seem appreciably > different from the WBFLC's standard (although > Grattan doesn't think revokes are irrational). > +=+ My actual personal point of view is that a revoke is an inadvertent action, using this word in the sense of WBFLC minute 30 August 2000, item 7. I do not understand how any action can be judged 'irrational' when no thought process is involved, the mind being inattentive to the occurrence. If a player deliberately chose to revoke I might be persuaded this action was irrational, although I would then be more readily persuaded that it was a flagrant breach of the law. However, the judgement of what is irrational lies with those who implement the laws and I loyally support the WBF policy that is set out in the Code of Practice under the heading 'Score Adjustment'. [It may be worthy of record that the introduction of 'irrational' and the phrase 'irrational, wild or gambling' was the culmination of moves started by Edgar himself; he felt that ACBL Committees were rapidly inclining to an interpretation of 'egregious' as being merely 'serious' error, not the shocking, almost unbelievable kind of error that the word was intended to define. So the hunt was on to find wording that would reset the bar to the desired height.] I may also remark in like vein that, whilst respecting the variant opinions of a number of distinguished authorities, I lend my support to the policy option adopted by the WBF TAC in relation to the manner in which Law 12C3 is applied. ~ 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 Nov 2 05:02:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1I2bv07686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:37 +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 eA1I2Ut07682 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:02:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.110] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r2DN-000D3O-00; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:02:21 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0442d$e0def8a0$6e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David J Grabiner" , "Robin Barker" , , "Steve Willner" References: <200010311640.QAA01778@tempest.npl.co.uk> <00103112075102.02255@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 07:01:11 -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 J Grabiner To: Robin Barker ; ; Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 12:02 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > How would the CoP lead to a different answer? > > > > Let me have a go: > > > > Amount due to error (doubling and letting through and overtrick) > > = (score obtained) - (score for 4S=) > > = -990 - -620 > > = -370 > > > > Adjusted score (at all likely) for EW = -170, > > add amount due to error = -170 + -370 = -540. > > > > EW gain the amount (450 = game bonus - partscore) they lost because opponents used UI; but they get to keep the scores due to doubling and making a stupid lead. > > While I support this type of adjustment, it can unly be used in this form at total points. At other forms of scoring, the adjustments must be converted to scores first. At IMPs, if the other table was +170, then the damage from the offense was 450, or 10 IMPs, so that should be the adjustment; the table result gave a swing of 820, or 13 IMPs, so the swing should be adjusted to 3 IMPs. At matchpoints, if -170 was 9 MPs, -620 was 3 MP's, and -990 was a zero, then the adjustment should be 6 MP's. AT BAM, if -620 would have already lost the board to -170 > at the other table, the adjustment should be to a push for the > non-offenders, who had no chance to push after the infraction. > +=+ More erudite and constructive than much that we read. Thank you both. I have one comment; the opening lead is described as 'dreadful' - opening leads being made 'blind' the standard for 'wild or gambling' needs to be fully maintained; here we are saying the lead was clearly wild/gambling and not just a pretty rotten choice. ~ 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 Nov 2 05:10:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1IANF07713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:10:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA1IAHt07709 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:10:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.138] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r2L0-000DI4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:10:14 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c0442e$faa55ee0$6e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:09:26 -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 "Everything has been said already, but not everyone has said it. " - Stanislaw Lec. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: John Probst ; Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > "How can I know what I think until I see > what I say?" > - little girl reported by Graham Wallas. > v=v v=v v=v > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John (MadDog) Probst > To: > Sent: 01 November 2000 02:23 > Subject: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol > > > > QJx > > AQx > > K9xx > > T9x > > {{{ I notice that in reducing wordage I have excised a statement that has significance. Where a player signs off and his partner has UI that he may not have intended to do so, any progressive action is more suggested than non-progessive action. Please read the following with this assertion in mind. }}} > > +=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the > position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, > partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he > cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement > and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. > Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels > inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden > to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that > with North signing off there are not a good number of > players of 'strong club standard' who would make no > further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and > a smidgen outside. > Your ruling was right. Your reason not right. It is > not relevant whether the alert may have suggested 3N > could be an ok spot; the only question is whether the > auction based on 2NT being natural does or does not > allow of logical alternative(s) to 3NT. South has the > UI that North has not taken the 2NT to be the natural > bid it was; he must carefully avoid taking advantage > of that knowledge. > West is cuckoo. EW must stand the cost of his > double shot. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > -- > ==================================================================== ==== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 05:14:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1IEI707730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:14:18 +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 eA1IECt07726 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:14:13 +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 ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:11:29 -0800 Message-ID: <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 10:13:31 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we were instructed *not* > to follow the Burn/Colker approach. We were told that if we wished to > penalise offenders then we used procedural penalties, not split scores. > This is very interesting, because it is the approach Rich Colker used until the WBFLC minutes from Lille came out, (he) claiming it was required by the Laws. He considered that item 3 of those minutes ("Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores") was an interpretive change that allowed split scores under L12C2. Many of us thought they were always allowed. Was he wrong? 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 Nov 2 05:37:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1IapX07768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:36:51 +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 eA1Iait07764 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:36:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.50] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r2ka-000E0p-00; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 18:36:41 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c04432$ac417b40$325908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 18:34:44 -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 Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 12:38 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we > were instructed *not* to follow the Burn/Colker > approach. We were told that if we wished to > penalise offenders then we used procedural > penalties, not split scores. > > -- +=+ This policy was established at the Appeals Committee's meeting with the Directors and is one in which Rich acquiesced when he was assured that the WBF has no bar on including a proportion of the table contract in a weighted score if the AC considers this appropriate for equity. The guidance was given in positive form from the chair: *this is how the WBF will do it* rather than telling Directors and ACs what we were not going to do. ~ 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 Nov 2 06:32:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1JW7l07882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:32:07 +1100 (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 eA1JW2t07878 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:32:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id na965237 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 05:24:19 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-156.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.156]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sparkling-MailRouter V2.9c 9/269083); 02 Nov 2000 05:24:17 Message-ID: <021601c04439$3b0b6100$64d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:22:52 +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 John Probst wrote: >Mise en scene: I don't often post problems from the Acol, >but I found this one particularly difficult. Frustratingly so, as >all 3 Internationals (who would be on any national AC) who >were playing thought it was clear cut. Granted one of them >was at the table. > >Your hand: > >QJx >AQx >K9xx >T9x > >Love all, matchpoints, tough table, I'll make you South. > >W N E S > > 1S P East is a GB International (top 10 in UK) >P 2C 2H 2Na West is his Customer. Youngish, enthusiastic >P 3C P 3N and County "B" team standard. >x End Let's say middle of road "A" Flight. > North-South, strong club pair, regular >This made with an partnership, who've just agreed to play 2N >overtrick in competition is never natural. > >South agrees his 2N was intended as natural. Partner took >time to alert, but the slowness didn't, itself, cause UI, although >the alert did. The agreement is explained correctly. > >Problem: Has South got a 3N bid? Did he make use of UI? > >Another problem: West has doubled with a random 4 count: > x J9x J9xxx Qxxx > wild and gambling? > >My first inclination was to let the result stand (Don't scream) >What has South learnt from the alert, that 3C doesn't tell him? > >Suppose North had said "Natural, 12-count" and bids 3C? > South explains, "all my cards are working, and I'll get > over to the C suit with no problem" In which case he should have bid 3NT over 2C. Ever heard of bidding the same hand twice? You said a "tough table". At "tough tables" players do not bid their hands twice. If they do, it's no longer a tough table. >Given North's explanation, what extra information does South have? > Only that North has bid 3C because he was told to. rather than as a complete signoff with say 10xx, Kxx, Q, Kxxxxx? Down four doubled? The guy has merely balanced at nil vul, then signed off in 3C. Bidding 3NT over 3C is certifiably insane, completely and utterly illogical, more manic than any BLML discussion ever**! >Does this give South any information he wouldn't have had, >except that he can't break the puppet to 3C? So all South >knows is that partner can't bid 3N, which he knew anyway. Words fail me. (Peter Newman - you'll be reading this - it's the first time ever for me, isn't it?) >EW to have there score adjusted by the difference between >3N+1 and 3Nx+1 because West's double was "wild and gambling". I consider this to be the tougher part of the ruling. If it was West who called the director, then, yes, I wouldn't be impressed by his double, but if as is likely East (the pro) called the Director, then let's scrutinise West's double more closely. (1) It sounds like NS may have landed in 3NT by accident; if so, then doubling this likely-to-make-on-this-friendly-layout 3NT will convert about 5/24 mpts to 0/24 mpts (matchpoints). Not exactly a high-risk double as long as one studies the context closely. (2) Since the friendly club position makes 3NT Iikely to make, it's relatively costfree to double, hoping that they will run to 4C. Enthusiastic youngish players sometimes make such doubles, and you wouldn't believe how often they run to 4C. (3) If they are overboard, at mpts nil vul there is often a need to double to protect our 110. The gain/risk/loss factors at "mpts nil vul" encourage spec doubles whenever the bidding suggests that some of the field will be making a partial our way. (4) I have an easy heart lead and if pard has 2 of the top 3 heart honours, which is a fair chance, 3NT may well fail due to my well-placed H9. (5) Pard didn't double 2C for takeout and he's an expert, so there's a good chance that he has something in clubs and has short diamonds. (6) Pard opened the bidding, then bid a new suit in a fairly dangerous situation, and some people think that this shows extra strength. (7) Youngish players produce far more spec doubles than the oldies who tend to sit in judgement on ACs and as TDs, and we should not let the conservatism which has come with our experience make us feel that youngish players think similarly. Just because us oldies have grown out of such doubles doesn't mean that they're crazy calls. Irrational, wild and gambling? Not quite, I think. Surely some of the above is rational, some is not wild and although the one about trying to con them into running is gambling, some of the other arguments are not. I'd describe the double only as inferior and probably be outvoted - again. Note that I personally would never consider doubling, but I am not an enthusiastic youngish B-standard customer. Let the B-grader make D-grade calls and then - I certainly don't consider this an F-grade call. Peter Gill Australia. **Yes I know that I probably overdid the hyperbole. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 06:40:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1JeM607896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:40:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA1JeFt07892 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:40:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-100.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.100]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A24C036C2C; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:41:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002701c0443b$8953bea0$b5b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 20:39:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >> It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we >> were instructed *not* to follow the Burn/Colker >> approach. We were told that if we wished to >> penalise offenders then we used procedural >> penalties, not split scores. I don't know who told this but I agree completely. However it has nothing to do with the issue we are discussing here. Yes if we want to penalize an offender we give him a procedural or disciplinary penalty. And if we want to take away an advantage received by causing an infraction we give an adjusted score. Which may lead to a split score. >> >> -- >+=+ This policy was established at the Appeals >Committee's meeting with the Directors and is >one in which Rich acquiesced when he was >assured that the WBF has no bar on including >a proportion of the table contract in a weighted >score if the AC considers this appropriate for >equity. And once more I agree. But not much is said. The question is what we consider to be equity. And my statement, and who knows David's is, that equity for the offending side not necessarily leads to the same adjusted score as for the non offending side. Equity is related to the rest of the field as well, and as I said before, we need to be careful not to play Sainte Claus (he is arriving within 2 weeks now) to the non offenders. Black Piet, as we call him, looks after the offenders. I am somewhat amazed that this issue hardly is approached by a fair discussion in which arguments are used. The guidance was given in positive form >from the chair: *this is how the WBF will do it* Yes indeed, that is what I noticed some lines above. >rather than telling Directors and ACs what we >were not going to do. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > 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 Nov 2 07:12:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1KBOq07997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:11:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA1KBIt07993 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:11:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa962874 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 06:11:05 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-38.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.38]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Regulatory-MailRouter V2.9c 5/147499); 02 Nov 2000 06:11:03 Message-ID: <001401c0443f$c389f2c0$26e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:10:21 +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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: >In the Danish teams championships, 2nd division, we have just >had a case in which I - very unusually - find myself strongly in >disagreement with a unanimous ruling by the DBF Laws >Commission. So I'd like to hear what BLML thinks. > >In the actual case, there was some doubt about some of the facts. >I will take the liberty here of presenting the case as if the >facts were definitely established - that will put the focus on >the interesting aspect. > >South dealer, EW vulnerable. > A83 > Q10964 S W N E > 875 P P P 1H > 72 P 2S* P 4H >KJ952 10 P 4S P 5C >- AK753 P P P >942 A63 >K10843 AJ95 > Q764 > J82 > KQJ10 > Q6 > >12 tricks, -620. > >2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton >or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card >before bidding 2S. > >Please consider it established that: >* W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and >could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). >* W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his >system. >* When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and >not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the >time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. > >The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A >violation? A very interesting question. Although there is no way you can "wake up" when partner alerts your bid, that is not relevant in this case, because a mere glance at West's hand confirms that his cards bear no resemblance to any potential meaning of 2S, i.e. his 13 cards are conclusive evidence (proof) that he did indeed mean to bid 1S. Thus, assuming West's memory of the system is OK (and I'm not sure that we can make that assumption), then the only UI West has is that his previous bid really was 2S rather than 1S. Is a player entitled to know what his actual previous bid was, when the only way he knows is due to partner's alert? I doubt if any Bidding Box regulations allow for that contingency. One would think the answer is yes, but you never know (or I never know these things, I should say). If it weren't for the alert, there are several possibilities, including: - West thinks the bidding was 1H - 1S - 4H and passes 4H, or - as West places a Pass card beside his 2S card, he notices that it says 2S rather than 1S, and tries to avoid passing. Well, that's my attempt at the "bridge analysis" part of the ruling - I hope it's useful. Application of the Laws to this unusual situation is beyond my limited experience, I'm afraid. I suspect that he is allowed to bid as he did, but I'm just guessing. 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 Nov 2 08:53:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1Lr4G08189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:53:04 +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 eA1Lqvt08185 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.142] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r5oT-000IaH-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:52:53 +0000 Message-ID: <006d01c0444e$159ca860$8e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 21:52:01 -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 " a mighty storm is coming to freshen us up, it's going to blow away all this idleness and indifference" - Chekhov '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 10:08 PM Subject: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? ---------------------- \x/ --------------------------------- > 2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton > or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card > before bidding 2S. > > Please consider it established that: > * W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and > could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). > * W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his > system. > * When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and > not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the > time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. > > The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A > violation? > -- +=+ Not the only question, Jesper! Let us start with the Law. Law 16A discusses situations in which a player makes available to his partner 'extraneous' (not authorized by the laws) information. The law is vague on the situation where the player already has the same information from a legitimate source (i.e. does not learn it from partner). But I think we then say "as he already knew this legitimately it has not been 'made available' by his partner". [Had West held five Hearts and a singleton Spade no-one would have suggested the alert provided UI and if it does not in the one case it can hardly do so in the other, provided West did in truth know the meaning of 2S.] Second, we are asked to consider established that when he bid 2S he was intending 1S and did indeed know the meaning of 2S. Here we must ask whether it is agreed that the *appeals committee* established this to be the case. The fact that he did know is not the relevant aspect; he did bid 2S and the onus is on him to establish to a disbelieving AC that he had miscalled inadvertently, and also that he knew at that time what 2S would show, and had not - as might appear more likely - simply forgotten his partnership agreement temporarily. It could help him in this that the hand does not exhibit the qualities we might expect for a strong jump shift, but if the pair play weak jump shifts who knows? So if we are to allow that the 4S bid was not based upon UI our player has to convince the AC of these less-than-obvious truths. The BLML Inquisition is not privileged to know whether the AC were believers or infidels; but, whichever, we are in no position to pass judgement on the AC's judgement of the credibility of the witness. There is, however, a further interest in the case. Given the meaning of 2S, West's 4S must be taken as a cue bid by East, with Hearts agreed. We assume, therefore, that East was cue-bidding in clubs and exploring a Hearts slam. West gratefully gets out from under and hopes the cue is not on a void and that a club contract will make. We should be so lucky. But is it enough, I ask myself, merely to cue in clubs with that hand when West can make a slam try with Ace Spades (or compensating values) and fitting suits? Well, maybe. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 09:37:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1MbX408256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:37:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA1MbRt08252 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:37:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.180] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13r6VX-000Jbq-00; Wed, 01 Nov 2000 22:37:24 +0000 Message-ID: <00a101c04454$4d2cd7e0$8e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 22:36:33 -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 " a mighty storm is coming to freshen us up, it's going to blow away all this idleness and indifference" - Chekhov '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > David Stevenson wrote: > > > It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we were instructed > *not* > > to follow the Burn/Colker approach. We were told that if we wished > to > > penalise offenders then we used procedural penalties, not split > scores. > > > This is very interesting, because it is the approach Rich Colker used > until the WBFLC minutes from Lille came out, (he) claiming it was > required by the Laws. He considered that item 3 of those minutes > ("Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores") was an > interpretive change that allowed split scores under L12C2. Many of us > thought they were always allowed. > > Was he wrong? > +=+ I am not sure what you are understanding from the allusions [or it may be illusions :-)) ] but the policy of the WBF Appeals Committee established in Maastricht is that, excluding situations of irrational, wild or gambling actions by non-offenders, when 12C3 is invoked a single assigned adjusted score is assessed, to reflect the equity in the hand prior to the offence and awarded reciprocally to both sides; in addition in the discretion of the Director/Appeals Committee a procedural penalty may be imposed on the offending side for the infraction. Personally I would have said 'should be imposed' but the Chairman did not put it that strongly. There is no suggestion that other bodies be not left to settle their own methods of applying 12C3. The WBF TAC has simply said 'this is the way we will do it'. My reference to Rich's position is that he expressed himself content to adopt this method in WBF ACs subject to the proviso I related. The Lille minute was not so much concerned with the angle of splitting the scores as with not allowing offenders to benefit from damage that occurs subsequent to the infraction and is in some way occasioned by it but is not deemed a consequence of the infraction. As far as I can see this is likely to be damage self-inflicted by the NOS. ~ 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 Nov 2 09:51:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1MpQ208302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:51:26 +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 eA1MpKt08298 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:51:21 +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 OAA01403; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 14:51:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200011012251.OAA01403@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "bridge-laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:52:01 PST." <006d01c0444e$159ca860$8e5608c3@dodona> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 14:51:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > There is, however, a further interest in the > case. Given the meaning of 2S, West's 4S must be > taken as a cue bid by East, with Hearts agreed. We > assume, therefore, that East was cue-bidding in > clubs and exploring a Hearts slam. West gratefully > gets out from under and hopes the cue is not on > a void and that a club contract will make. We > should be so lucky. But is it enough, I ask myself, > merely to cue in clubs with that hand when West > can make a slam try with Ace Spades (or > compensating values) and fitting suits? Well, > maybe. Well, there's no Law prohibiting a player from trying to cater to a partner's forgetfulness or other error. Here, East has a right to wonder why the opponents have 11 or 12 spades at favorable and no peep has been heard from them. If he guesses (just from the AI) that partner made a mistake and is giving him a way to recover if that's the case, it's not illegal for him to do so. -- 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 Nov 2 10:57:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA1NvOo08426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:57:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA1NvJt08422 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id aa624000 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:57:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-63.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.63]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Relativistic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/509792); 02 Nov 2000 09:57:03 Message-ID: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:56:16 +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 >" a mighty storm is coming to freshen us up, it's going >to blow away all this Ugly Idleness and Utter Indifference" > - Chekhov Down Under > Grattan Endicott wrote: >the onus is on him to establish to a disbelieving AC >that he had miscalled inadvertently Do the AC have to be disbelieving? Aren't they allowed to look at the strong evidence that already exists: - the lack of a Stop Card warning by West, and - the fact that West's hand is a spade short, a bit too strong and possibly too clubby for a weak 2S response? >not - as might appear more likely - simply forgotten >his partnership agreement temporarily. This seems to me to be a rather warped view to take, given the above contrary evidence. >but if the pair play weak jump shifts who knows? He doesn't have six spades, he doesn't have 0-6 points, he didn't use the Stop Card, ergo he didn't bid a weak jump shift. I think he'd find it easier to convince me than to convince Grattan! My estimate based only on the evidence ABOVE is a 99.7% chance that he intended to bid 1S and a 0.3% chance that he was bidding a weak 2S. >......snipped (a kinder fate than what I did to Chekhov)..... > >But is it enough, I ask myself, merely to cue in clubs >with that hand when West can make a slam try with >Ace Spades (or compensating values) and fitting >suits? Well, maybe. My my, you are suspicious. From East's point of view, West has a bare ace or void in spades (you may have missed that 2S showed a spade shortage). Hands with mirrored shortages often have deep losers. 5C seems particularly normal to me. One of the cute aspects of Jesper's post is that I could not work out what the AC decided and what Jesper thinks. Peter Gill Australia (and with a really sicko sig) I'm inclined to think that most of the UI in this thread is in the Chekhov quote. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 12:32:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA21VJ708601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:31:20 +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-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 eA21VAt08597 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:31:11 +1100 (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 13r9Dd-000Kck-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:31:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:30:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] References: <000d01c0442e$faa55ee0$6e5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000d01c0442e$faa55ee0$6e5608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c0442e$faa55ee0$6e5608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes snip Grattan's erudition and headers :)) >> >> > QJx >> > AQx >> > K9xx >> > T9x >> > >{{{ I notice that in reducing wordage I have excised >a statement that has significance. Where a player >signs off and his partner has UI that he may not >have intended to do so, any progressive action is >more suggested than non-progessive action. Please >read the following with this assertion in mind. }}} >> >> +=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the >> position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, >> partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he >> cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement >> and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. My assertion is that West did not *have to* bid 3C. The auction makes no sense otherwise. What hand can partner have that makes bypassing 3C sane? Whatever that hand is West has more than enough to accept the try by not bidding 3C. However he *did* bid 3C which would be consistent with a much weaker hand. >> Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels >> inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden >> to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that >> with North signing off there are not a good number of >> players of 'strong club standard' who would make no >> further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and >> a smidgen outside. The point at issue is that, whether 3C is the puppet response to 2NT, or whether 3C is an attempt to sign off facing a natural 2NT, *both* interpretations suggest that partner does not have enough to make 3NT. In the puppet case, partner can refuse to bid 3C, in which case 3N is obvious. In the sign-off version partner can refuse to bid 3C in which case 3N is obvious. None of this happened. It is also true that the 2N bidder might have expected to play there when he made the call, but partner's alert now shows that to be impossible. Surely when his partner bids 3C he must treat this as a minimum sign-off. If 3N were ever a LA, it is less so now. The only possibility is that partner's bid might contain enough (the 6th club) to make 3N an ok spot (as I said before) and so he bid it anyway. Maybe declarer actually chose an option which is less suggested, absent the UI, since the 6th club is actually promised in the auction if 2N were indeed natural? If this were a fair world, 3Nx would have foundered, and we would not be having this discussion. To me the auction has not, in any material way, differentiated between the hands partner could have had for his balancing action, regardless of the alert. The balancer (the "Offenders" have only just switched to these methods and still haven't got to grips with them) actually held xxxx xx Ax AKJxx and should have bid 3NT in both scenarios. Has his 3C bid conveyed any information which changes what the 2NT bidder's LA's are? My submission is, at best, possibly - and on this alone could I see a basis for adjusting. >> Your ruling was right. Your reason not right. It is >> not relevant whether the alert may have suggested 3N >> could be an ok spot; the only question is whether the >> auction based on 2NT being natural does or does not >> allow of logical alternative(s) to 3NT. South has the >> UI that North has not taken the 2NT to be the natural >> bid it was; he must carefully avoid taking advantage >> of that knowledge. >> West is cuckoo. EW must stand the cost of his >> double shot. ~ Grattan ~ Of that everyone is agreed :)) Peter Gill got *very* close to the cost of the wild and gambling action. It was 3mps in 14. -- 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 Thu Nov 2 13:45:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA22gmk08733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:42:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA22git08729 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:42:44 +1100 (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 NAA08778; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:37:04 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:37:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] incomplete answer To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com...C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:39:03 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 02/11/2000 02:34:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: >I do not believe that one instance creates an implicit >agreement. >Even in the ACBL. Partnerships which never psyche and/or falsecard have an advantage of certainty in the auction and/or defence. But their opponents are entitled to be informed of this agreement, so that they too can profit from the other partnership's guaranteed honesty during the auction and/or play. If, however, a partnership has a meta-agreement that their normal agreements are not 100% binding, then the opponents are also entitled to be informed of this meta-agreement. Furthermore, if the meta- agreement specifies that only some *particular* deviations from the normal agreements are permitted, then these meta-details should also be revealed to the opponents. Of course, my partnership has a meta-meta- agreement ..... 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 Nov 2 16:28:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA25RlS09065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:27:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA25Rct09061 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:27:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za729819 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:27:11 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-213-14.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.14]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Home-Grown-MailRouter V2.9c 3/345981); 02 Nov 2000 15:27:10 Message-ID: <018d01c0448d$717144e0$eddd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:26:24 +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 John Probst wrote; >My assertion is that West did not *have to* bid 3C. The >auction makes no sense otherwise. What hand can partner >have that makes bypassing 3C sane? Whatever that hand >is West has more than enough to accept the try by not bidding >3C. However he *did* bid 3C which would be consistent with >a much weaker hand. Not at all. The forcing 2NT could have all sorts of meanings. The most obvious one is a weak takeout with the minors. I still maintain that you are in outer space on this one. In Neptune, Pluto, USA, or maybe even Australia. Did you read your original post? You said that the agreement was that "2N in competition is never natural", a not-uncommon agreement for scratch pairs in this modern Kokish-influenced era. The normal meaning of 2NT is minors or various other weakish take-out hands, or perhaps natural and game-forcing. But not, repeat not, that 2NT is natural. With the "natural" 2NT hand you jump to 3NT (reducing the chance of being doubled) and hope to make an extra trick. Also, North in the original post has become West. I'm going to call him North. RTFOP (Original Post, not Outstanding Probst). You tell us that 2NT is never natural then tell us that North should bid as if 2NT showed the strength for 2NT. My head is spinning. >The point at issue is that, whether 3C is the puppet response >to 2NT, or whether 3C is an attempt to sign off facing a natural >2NT, *both*interpretations suggest that partner does not have >enough to make 3NT. Your statements are becoming even more bizarre. If 3C is a puppet response, i.e "he is forced to bid 3C" (by definition of "puppet"), then he obviously could have a good or bad hand. Really, I feel like I am arguing with an Australian. Too much sun and too much beer is usually the cause. JP: >In the puppet case, partner can refuse to bid 3C, in which case [PG] 2NT is not a puppet by definition. Since when have the puppets started making decisions? OK, maybe in the movie *Being John Malkovich*, but that was fantasy. You have assigned fantastic meanings to the "never natural" 2NT to produce fantasy. At least that's what I think. >If this were a fair world, 3Nx would have foundered Not at all. South used UI to reach a contract that had a good chance of making. Since you've gone for extremist views on this "toughie", let me move down the spectrum to the opposite extreme from you. South was aware that North could have almost any good hand that lacked diamonds, since the most obvious meaning of a "NEVER natural" 2NT would be a moderate hand with diamonds and mild club support, so South should have alerted 3C, and told poor West this so that West didn't double 3NT on nothing. This is not intended as a real argument by me, just an example of how barmy [been waiting for the opportunity :) ] extremist arguments can become. >the "Offenders" have only just switched to these methods >and still haven't got to grips with them) Yet you decide to assign a precise meaning to their "never natural" 2NT bid. You seem to know their methods better than they do. >actually held xxxx xx Ax AKJxx and should have bid 3NT >in both scenarios. Not at all. Opposite Qx, Jxxx, KQxxx, Qx, 3C is adequate. By the way, is that A9 doubleton, so that there's three "nines of diamonds" in the deck? Grattan wrote: >>> Your ruling was right. Your reason not right. Spot on. More concise than me too. Peter Gill Australia. Apologies to anyone offended by my poor attempts at humour. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 18:18:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA27EfW09243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:14:41 +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.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 eA27EZt09239 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:14:36 +1100 (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 <20001102071431.PKVJ11207.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:14:31 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] incomplete answer Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 23:13:57 -0800 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: <00ec01c04428$b8283fc0$64d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > - DQ wins. > - D to jack (likely? at all probable? obviously at least the latter). > - H to Q wins (assuming East is Versace or Rodwell i.e AG's > description of him). Actually we need to know how the actual > play went. Was East a rank beginner who took the first heart > at the table? Then we have to consider that East knows that > his partner cannot have DKQxx so a diamond continuation is > pointless. A club switch becomes a possibility. Or a spade. > Then West might eventually be strip-squeezed to lead away > from CK (South merely having to cash his winners to set up > this position, I think). We also have to consider that there is a > vague chance that South has solid clubs, in which case the > first heart must be taken. > > In other words, without: > > (f) the Director's record of how he saw the play go, trick by trick, > > IMO it is impossible to decide whether to rule 8 or 9 tricks or > (if allowed by the SO) a percentage of the two. > > Peter Gill > Australia. Interesting. I am definitely not a great analyst, so I have just obtained a copy of DeepFinesse. (a double dummy play analyzer) The main reason I got it was so I can check play analysis for our casebooks. I am going to bring it to Birmingham to bring to appeals hearings. (Note: I didn't say we were going to use it...) Anyway, on this hand it seems to be telling me that 3NT goes down on any lead but the C King.... Maybe I have done something wrong... 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 Thu Nov 2 18:34:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA27Vni09309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:31:49 +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 eA27Vgt09305 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:31:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.223] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rEqU-0000Vb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 07:31:34 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c0449e$ed4334a0$df5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <000d01c0442e$faa55ee0$6e5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:24:31 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:30 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] >, Grattan Endicott > writes > ------------ \x/ ----------- > > The point at issue is that, whether 3C is the puppet response to 2NT, or > whether 3C is an attempt to sign off facing a natural 2NT, *both* > interpretations suggest that partner does not have enough to make 3NT. > In the puppet case, partner can refuse to bid 3C, in which case 3N is > obvious. In the sign-off version partner can refuse to bid 3C in which > case 3N is obvious. None of this happened. > +=+ South has UI from the Alert of his 2NT, not from the 3C bid. Having that UI South is obliged to (MUST) treat the 3C as being action after the 2NT bid as he intended it - i.e. natural. I do not see at all where the suggestion of puppets comes from - I would have thought that after a natural 2NT bid 3C has to be seen as simply repeating his suit which in my language is sign-off. Are you saying that after 2C - 2NT (natural) the 3C could be puppet? That is the only question that arises and I would have thought it is so essential to be able to play in 3C on many hands that there is no scope for any artificiality in a sequence where 2NT is natural. When 3C is understood as sign-off South cannot be allowed to 'judge' to bid 3NT where a significant number of other players of like ability could be expected to pass. ~ 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 Nov 2 19:50:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA28o4f09457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:50:04 +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 eA28nvt09453 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:49:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.159] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rG4E-0001YM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 08:49:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:49 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:56 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >the onus is on him to establish to a disbelieving AC > >that he had miscalled inadvertently > > Do the AC have to be disbelieving? Aren't they allowed > to look at the strong evidence that already exists: > - the lack of a Stop Card warning by West, and > - the fact that West's hand is a spade short, a bit too > strong and possibly too clubby for a weak 2S response? > > >not - as might appear more likely - simply forgotten > >his partnership agreement temporarily. > > This seems to me to be a rather warped view to take, > given the above contrary evidence. > +=+ Any AC should approach its task in a spirit of scepticism - requiring to be persuaded. My whole point in the above is that the case stands or falls by what view the particular AC took of the credibility of the witnesses. They heard the evidence; they had the opportunity to believe or not believe the arguments. The 'contrary evidence' comes from Jesper's account and it may be no more than his subjective assessment of the factors that you point to, and about which you, Peter, are also taking a position based merely on the paper work. Only the AC heard the players give their evidence and we need to be assured that *the AC* was satisfied of those things that we are being invited to consider 'established'. Yes, indeed the AC was entitled to consider the evidence that you cite; they were also entitled to consider the evidence that came out in the hearing. We need to know what they made of *all* the evidence before we can jump in and question their decisions. And it is for the AC to determine what is 'established', not Jesper, not me, not the distinguished citizens of blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 22:07:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2B6VN09706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:06:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f133.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.133]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2B6Pt09701 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:06:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:06:18 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:06:17 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:06:17 GMT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2000 11:06:18.0024 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC971A80:01C044BC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Comments from Peter Gill (PG) John 'Mad Dog' Probst (JP) and me (NS). JP: > >My assertion is that West did not *have to* bid 3C. The > >auction makes no sense otherwise. What hand can partner > >have that makes bypassing 3C sane? Whatever that hand > >is West has more than enough to accept the try by not bidding > >3C. However he *did* bid 3C which would be consistent with > >a much weaker hand. PG: >Not at all. The forcing 2NT could have all sorts of meanings. >The most obvious one is a weak takeout with the minors. >I still maintain that you are in outer space on this one. >In Neptune, Pluto, USA, or maybe even Australia. > >Did you read your original post? You said that the agreement >was that "2N in competition is never natural", a not-uncommon >agreement for scratch pairs in this modern Kokish-influenced >era. The normal meaning of 2NT is minors or various other >weakish take-out hands, or perhaps natural and game-forcing. >But not, repeat not, that 2NT is natural. With the "natural" 2NT >hand you jump to 3NT (reducing the chance of being doubled) >and hope to make an extra trick. NS: How, in the modern Kokish-influenced era, do you get to play in 2NT? Just curious. PG: >Also, North in the original post has become West. I'm going >to call him North. RTFOP (Original Post, not Outstanding Probst). NS: A lone beacon of sanity. PG: >You tell us that 2NT is never natural then tell us that North should >bid as if 2NT showed the strength for 2NT. My head is spinning. NS: Yes, it wasn't entirely clear, was it? JP: > >The point at issue is that, whether 3C is the puppet response > >to 2NT, or whether 3C is an attempt to sign off facing a natural > >2NT, *both*interpretations suggest that partner does not have > >enough to make 3NT. PG: >Your statements are becoming even more bizarre. NS: Is there going to be a point where they can become no more bizarre and a sort of Bizarre Utopia has been reached? PG: If 3C is a >puppet response, i.e "he is forced to bid 3C" (by definition of >"puppet"), then he obviously could have a good or bad hand. > > >Really, I feel like I am arguing with an Australian. Too much sun >and too much beer is usually the cause. > JP: > >In the puppet case, partner can refuse to bid 3C, in which case >[PG] 2NT is not a puppet by definition. Since when have the >puppets started making decisions? OK, maybe in the movie >*Being John Malkovich*, but that was fantasy. > PG: >You have assigned fantastic meanings to the "never natural" 2NT >to produce fantasy. At least that's what I think. JP: > >If this were a fair world, 3Nx would have foundered PG: >Not at all. South used UI to reach a contract that had a good >chance of making. NS: And therein lies, as I think someone once said, the rub. Simple, eh? PG: > >Since you've gone for extremist views on this "toughie", let me >move down the spectrum to the opposite extreme from you. >South was aware that North could have almost any good >hand that lacked diamonds, since the most obvious meaning >of a "NEVER natural" 2NT would be a moderate hand with >diamonds and mild club support, so South should have alerted >3C, and told poor West this so that West didn't double 3NT >on nothing. This is not intended as a real argument by me, >just an example of how barmy [been waiting for the >opportunity :) ] extremist arguments can become. JP: > >the "Offenders" have only just switched to these methods > >and still haven't got to grips with them) PG: >Yet you decide to assign a precise meaning to their "never >natural" 2NT bid. You seem to know their methods better than >they do. JP: > >actually held xxxx xx Ax AKJxx and should have bid 3NT > >in both scenarios. PG: >Not at all. Opposite Qx, Jxxx, KQxxx, Qx, 3C is adequate. > >By the way, is that A9 doubleton, so that there's three >"nines of diamonds" in the deck? > >Grattan wrote: > >>> Your ruling was right. Your reason not right. PG: >Spot on. More concise than me too. > >Peter Gill >Australia. >Apologies to anyone offended by my poor attempts at humour. > NS: Humour? How disappointing. I'd hoped you were being insulting. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Nov 2 22:47:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2BlfI09817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:47:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt3-he.global.net.uk (cobalt3-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2BlYt09813 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:47:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from pd2s08a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.120.211] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13rInZ-0007QW-00; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 03:44:50 -0800 Message-ID: <003201c044c2$aa74cf20$d37893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200011012251.OAA01403@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:27:27 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott>>>>>>> ----------------------- \x/ --------------------- > Well, there's no Law prohibiting a player > from trying to cater to a partner's forgetfulness > or other error. Here, East has a right to > wonder why the opponents have 11 or 12 > spades at favorable and no peep has been > heard from them. If he guesses (just from the > AI) that partner made a mistake and is giving > him a way to recover if that's the case, it's not > illegal for him to do so. > > -- Adam > +=+ Indeed, I do not see evidence in this case that East has any UI, in which case he can do whatever he likes. I realize there may have been a communication by body language but there is nothing in what we know to suggest it. My comments were reflecting a view that East had indeed understood the 4S as a slam try and was proceeding on that basis. There is no reason why West, with an unpassed hand, should not have a very powerful holding short of first round controls. Opposite a slam try East - with three Aces and a singleton - should stay awake. ~ 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 Nov 2 23:15:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2CEd409891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:14:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bilbo.dit.dk (bilbo.dit.dk [194.192.112.99]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2CEWt09887 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:14:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from smtpd@localhost) by bilbo.dit.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA11619; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:14:28 +0100 Received: from firewall.dit.dk(194.192.112.98), claiming to be "jd" via SMTP by bilbo.dit.dk, id smtpda11616; Thu Nov 2 13:14:18 2000 From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:14:18 +0100 Organization: Softco Message-ID: References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA2CEZt09888 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:49 -0000, Grattan wrote: >And it is for the AC to determine >what is 'established', not Jesper, not me, not the >distinguished citizens of blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Absolutely, if the purpose is to find the correct ruling in the real-life case. But as I tried - clearly not very successfully - to explain, my question was not really "what should the ruling be in the real-life case", but rather "what should the ruling be in the theoretical case where we make certain assumptions". But since we have now started a discussion of the real-life case, let me explain that the LC considered that it had determined that what happened was one of the following two: (A) W tried to bid 1S, but got the 2S card (physical fumble). (B) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, but somehow got into his head that that would be the two level (i.e., he thought that 1H-2S was not a jump). In (A), it seems to me that the question is whether knowledge of the actual legal auction can ever be UI. In (B), it seems to me that the question is whether the knowledge that the auction 1H-2S is a jump can ever be UI. Initially I thought that only (A) was interesting, but now I find (B) just as interesting. In addition, it is true that in order to make a ruling we should of course also examine E's 5C bid. E has UI from the missing stop card, which may well make him suspect that something is wrong when partner bids 4S. The TD adjusted the score, based on W having UI. The AC on the spot did not want to adjust the score, but was in doubt about the law question: can the auction be UI? The TD then called me to discuss that; at that time, I got the clear impression that the TD and AC considered it established that it was situation (A). I told the TD that it was my firm conviction that the legal auction can never be UI and that W therefore did not have UI. The AC thus let the original score stand (I assume that they had considered the 5C bid first). This decision was appealed to the DBF LC. The LC interviewed the TD, obviously more carefully than I had done, since the conclusion was that it could be either situation (A) or situation (B). The following are extracts from the LC ruling (in my translation, text in [] is my abbreviations): "The LC finds: * that it must be considered an established fact that W did not intend to jump in spades when he bid 2S. * that on the available evidence it is not possible to decide whether [it was case A or B]. * that a distinction between the two possibilities mentioned above would be significant if W had expressed a wish to or tried to change 2S, since the TD would then have had to decide whether to rule under L25A or L25B. Since W did not [do so], 2S became in any case the call made. * that W by E's alert became aware that he had unintentionally bid in conflict with his system. * that E's alert is [UI] to W (L16), which W has a duty to carefully avoid taking advantage of (L73C). * that [this duty] is in effect even if W might have discovered his mistake on his own before he received the [UI]. * that W as a consequence of L73C is required to judge E's calls as if they were made based on the meaning of 2S he originally intended. This duty holds in the case of an inadvertent call at least until the bidding becomes self-contradictory under this assumption. ... " - and they adjusted the score to 4H 6 tricks for both sides. The decision was unanimous. They do not say in so many words that the question of whether W has UI does not depend on whether it is case (A) or (B), but the above sounds to me as if that is probably their opinion. The key statement is of course "that W by E's alert became aware that he had unintentionally bid in conflict with his system". This neglects the distinction that I believe there is between becoming aware of his misbid (1) by getting information about his system and (2) by getting information about the auction (in (A)) or the laws (in (B)). I disagree with this ruling because: * In case (A), I find it obvious that W has no UI: the legal auction cannot, as I read L16, be UI. * In case (B), it seems to me that the fact that 1H-2S is a jump (which follows from the laws of bridge) cannot and should not ever be UI. In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of them; things like: * your own and dummy's hands, * the vulnerability, * who is dealer, * the legal auction, * the rules of the game, * the opponent's system. As I read the ruling, it seems that the DBF LC has decided that the legal auction and the rules of the game can be UI in Denmark. So what I would like to hear opinions about is primarily whether W has UI, separately for case (A) and for case (B). (The DBF LC has a policy of not discussing its own rulings, so we should not expect the two DBF LC members who subscribe to BLML to take part in this discussion.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 2 23:23:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2CNcl09904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:23:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2CNWt09900 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:23:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-74.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.74]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25526 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:23:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0003A1.3DAE3107@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:50:57 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A > violation? NO. The only information he has received is that he has bid 2Sp. (he knows the meaning of 2Sp, so that is no Information received) The information that he has bid 2Sp is available to him by AI as well as by UI, namely, it is right in front of his eyes. I would not be so harsh as to say that since it was partner who alerted him to his bid, he is not allowed to notice a bidding card right in front of his eyes. -- 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 Nov 2 23:46:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2Cjp009970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:45:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2Cjit09966 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:45:45 +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 HAA21023 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:45:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id HAA02410 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:45:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 07:45:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011021245.HAA02410@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > policy of the WBF Appeals Committee established > in Maastricht is that, excluding situations of irrational, > wild or gambling actions by non-offenders, when 12C3 > is invoked a single assigned adjusted score is assessed, > to reflect the equity in the hand prior to the offence ACBL readers should note the two important conditions: L12C3 is available (which it isn't over here), and the NOS have not done anything irrational, wild, or gambling. Here in the ACBL, split scores under L12C2 are quite possible, even absent irrational actions by the NOS. Does the WBF have an official position on how it handles things when the NOS do indeed do something deemed irrational, wild, or gambling? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 01:43:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2EgYf10187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:42:34 +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 eA2EgSt10182 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:42:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-23.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.23]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08664 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:42:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A017C67.E4578BE6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:38:31 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > [big snip] I agree with Jesper and find the DBFLC ruling strange. > > In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > them; things like: > * your own and dummy's hands, > * the vulnerability, > * who is dealer, > * the legal auction, > * the rules of the game, > * the opponent's system. > I also agree with this statement, but I would wish to adjust it somewhat, before it gets attacked on detail rather than on principle. I would add : "while these pieces of information are always AI, the fact that one of them is important is UI, if that fact comes becomes known through some action from partner". > As I read the ruling, it seems that the DBF LC has decided that > the legal auction and the rules of the game can be UI in Denmark. > In a sense they are saying that while the auction is AI, the fact that there has been a review of the auction is UI. Compare this to the same case without bidding boxes. If the player just says 2Sp, and the bidding continues without any asking, the player would not realize his mistake and pass on 4He. However, the merely technical mistake of taking the wrong bidding card cannot happen with spoken bidding, so this case cannot happen. When using bidding cards, one of the aspects of the game changes, one is no longer obliged to be as careful as before in executing the chosen bid. Which is why I think it is a very harsh ruling, one I would not have made. > So what I would like to hear opinions about is primarily whether > W has UI, separately for case (A) and for case (B). > I have answered (A). I don't believe (B). How can someone not realize Spades are higher than Hearts yet play at this level. His reason for putting 2Sp down may be different, but his realization of the meaning of 2Sp cannot be changed. In both cases I rule that the player, while contemplating passing the bid game on his void, would notice his 2Sp bid and realize its implications. > (The DBF LC has a policy of not discussing its own rulings, so we > should not expect the two DBF LC members who subscribe to BLML to > take part in this discussion.) > -- -- 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 Nov 3 03:50:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2GnH610420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:49:17 +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 eA2GXPt10371 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:35:24 +1100 (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 13rNIX-00045R-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:44:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol References: <6NBXxHAF63$5EwTV@probst.demon.co.uk> <001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >> QJx >> AQx >> K9xx >> T9x >> >+=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the >position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, >partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he >cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement >and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. > Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels >inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden >to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that >with North signing off there are not a good number of >players of 'strong club standard' who would make no >further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and >a smidgen outside. To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. 3C over 2NT refuses the game try whether 2NT is natural or whether it is Good-Bad. thus it is not immediately obvious that the UI that partner is taking it as Good-Bad rather than natural makes 3NT a better shot. -- 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 Fri Nov 3 03:51:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2GpA510436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:51:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2Gp4t10432 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:51:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui38.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.104]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA09147 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:51:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003801c044ed$116f0400$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] incomplete answer Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:50:54 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:13 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] incomplete answer > > I am definitely not a great analyst, so I have just obtained a copy of > DeepFinesse. > (a double dummy play analyzer) > > The main reason I got it was so I can check play analysis for our casebooks. > > I am going to bring it to Birmingham to bring to appeals hearings. > (Note: I didn't say we were going to use it...) > > Anyway, on this hand it seems to be telling me that 3NT goes down on any > lead > but the C King.... > > Maybe I have done something wrong... > > Linda > No, you're right. 3N will go down on any lead but the CK, however I suspect that the software is plagued by the problems that occur in most bridge software, that is, it doesn't "think" in the same way that humans do. The psychology is absent. The CK may be the only lead that gives a legitimate play for 3N when the defenders play double dummy. However, defenders (and declarers) don't always play up to that standard. A ruling not only has to encompass correct play, but also has to include the likelihood of error, based on the information a player has at the time, his ability and that of his partner, the experience of the partnership, and so on. Can the software take into account the effect of a well-timed falsecard? Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 04:15:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HFel10505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2HFWt10497 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:33 +1100 (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 13rNIX-00045N-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:05:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@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 Stevenson wrote: > >> It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we were instructed >*not* >> to follow the Burn/Colker approach. We were told that if we wished >to >> penalise offenders then we used procedural penalties, not split >scores. >> >This is very interesting, because it is the approach Rich Colker used >until the WBFLC minutes from Lille came out, (he) claiming it was >required by the Laws. He considered that item 3 of those minutes >("Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores") was an >interpretive change that allowed split scores under L12C2. Many of us >thought they were always allowed. > >Was he wrong? I think so. I think split scores were always allowed, and still are. What I am discussing is the methodology but legally I feel the Burn/Colker method is permitted. The question, therefore, is that if more thna one method is permitted by the Laws, which is desirable? -- 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 Fri Nov 3 04:15:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HFae10500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2HFTt10495 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:30 +1100 (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 13rNIX-00045R-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:33:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:44:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol References: <6NBXxHAF63$5EwTV@probst.demon.co.uk> <001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: John (MadDog) Probst >> QJx >> AQx >> K9xx >> T9x >> >+=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the >position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, >partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he >cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement >and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. > Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels >inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden >to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that >with North signing off there are not a good number of >players of 'strong club standard' who would make no >further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and >a smidgen outside. To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. 3C over 2NT refuses the game try whether 2NT is natural or whether it is Good-Bad. thus it is not immediately obvious that the UI that partner is taking it as Good-Bad rather than natural makes 3NT a better shot. -- 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 Fri Nov 3 04:16:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HFod10512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2HFat10502 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:37 +1100 (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 13rNIX-00045M-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:33:07 +0000 Message-ID: <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:01:52 +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> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@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 11:19 AM 10/30/2000 +0000, you wrote: >> 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? >well, i think you forget one thing in your examples. The players are in the >first place responsible for their entry in the tournament. If a player >knows he isnt qualified for this event, he has the duty of not entering the >event. It is totally his responsibility if he anyway illegaly tries to get >in. So i dont have any mercy when he is kicked out during the event. I >think you lean too much on situations where in the first place the entering >player is responsible for the problem. >i think you are a bit too lenient for players who know or should know the >rules by which we play the game (although i understand your point of view, >i dont have sympathy with the players hwo ougth to know what was >permissible or not) I am not talking at all about people who "illegally try to get in to events" in this sort of way. I am talking of reasonable situations. You hold a Men's Pairs and a Ladies' Pairs with entry on the day. In fact, 19 pairs of Ladies and 3 pairs of Men turn up. Would you, as TD, assuming there is no other member of the SO to ask for guidance, turn the three pairs away? Most of us would not, I think. We would play an 11 table movement, with the leading Ladies Pair as the Ladies Pairs winner and the leading Men's Pair as the Men's Pairs winner. So, you do that, and at the end one pair decides to try to get the Men's Pairs disqualified because she got bad boards against them. I have agreed again that is a pair is telling lies to get in to something he has no right to then it is reasonable to kick him out, but I am trying to discuss a different scenario. In the Grand Masters case is one where they knew they did not qualify, certainly. It is your view, is it, that if the EBU accepts their entry, says they can play, that they should then expel them part way through? -- 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 Fri Nov 3 04:16:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HFxg10519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:59 +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 eA2HFkt10510 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:15:47 +1100 (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 13rNIX-00045P-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 16:33:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:40:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol References: <021601c04439$3b0b6100$64d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <021601c04439$3b0b6100$64d436cb@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: >Irrational, wild and gambling? Not quite, I think. Surely some >of the above is rational, some is not wild and although the one >about trying to con them into running is gambling, some of the >other arguments are not. I'd describe the double only as inferior >and probably be outvoted - again. The standard is "irrational, wild *or* gambling", not and. West's double looks wild to me. -- 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 Fri Nov 3 04:36:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2Ha4210560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:36:04 +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 eA2HZvt10556 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:35:58 +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 eA2HZqF26208 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:35:53 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eA2HZq806075 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:35:52 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:35:51 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA07041 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:35:51 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA17877 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:35:50 GMT Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:35:50 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200011021735.RAA17877@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote: > To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have > to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The > difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but > whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. > > 3C over 2NT refuses the game try whether 2NT is natural or whether it > is Good-Bad. thus it is not immediately obvious that the UI that > partner is taking it as Good-Bad rather than natural makes 3NT a better > shot. But 2NT Good-Bad is not a game-try, is it?? As I understand and play "2NT Good-Bad", it is an extension of Lebensohl. 2NT shows a bad hand trying to sign-off, other bids are stronger. On the auction in question: W N E S 1S P P 2C 2H 2NTa P 3C P 3NT x End 2NT is an attempt to play in 3C, and 2S/3C instead of 2NT are game tries. 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 Fri Nov 3 04:43:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HgvY10581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:42:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2Hgnt10577 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:42:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from pa6s11a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.123.167] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13rOKk-0003IK-00; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:39:26 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "bridge-laws" References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 17:41:02 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws Sent: 02 November 2000 12:14 Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:49 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >And it is for the AC to determine > >what is 'established', not Jesper, not me, not the > >distinguished citizens of blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Absolutely, if the purpose is to find the correct ruling in the > real-life case. But as I tried - clearly not very successfully - > to explain, my question was not really "what should the ruling be > in the real-life case", but rather "what should the ruling be in > the theoretical case where we make certain assumptions". > +=+ I am sorry about that, but if you want blml to discuss a theoretical situation you should pose it carefully as a hypothesis. Once you say there is a real life case it gets discussed inevitably in that context. Not that I am fond of 'hypothetical' cases which turn out to be from real life and egg us on to a judgement on a real life appeal. I think we are better off all round if we know it is a real life case and can qualify our responses as I did here. +=+ > But since we have now started a discussion of the real-life case, > let me explain that the LC considered that it had determined that > what happened was one of the following two: > (A) W tried to bid 1S, but got the 2S card (physical fumble). > (B) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, but > somehow got into his head that that would be the two level (i.e., > he thought that 1H-2S was not a jump). > > In (A), it seems to me that the question is whether knowledge of > the actual legal auction can ever be UI. > > In (B), it seems to me that the question is whether the knowledge > that the auction 1H-2S is a jump can ever be UI. > > Initially I thought that only (A) was interesting, but now I find > (B) just as interesting. > +=+ I do not think the distinction you make between (A) and (B) exists. In each case West has become aware of the legal auction as it stands. If he allows his partner to become aware that he did not intend the 2S bid that will give his partner UI. West can have recourse to Law 25; if he does so immediately it is open to argument that like the 'wrong bidding card' problem discussed by the WBFLC in Maastricht, it may be a 25A case. [Ton, what do you think? I suppose there could be a problem connected with UI to partner, but I can't think what it would be.] If he does not go down the Law 25 route, and gives no sign to his partner that there is a problem, the auction continues and he can try to manoeuvre it to get out of trouble. [If partner is aware from his reaction that 2S is 'suspect' the auction may still continue but East is plagued with having that UI.] We are not talking here about a situation in which West has forgotten his partnership agreement concerning a call purposefully made, when it is not permissible for him to be reminded of it by the UI and thus steered as to his next call. [cf. 'Toughie from the Acol Club']. Here, when he becomes aware of what the auction is, he knows exactly what it means and can either avail himself of Law 25 or continue with the legal auction, having misbid or violated his partnership understandings inadvertently without partner becoming aware of it from his reaction. An 'impossibility' in the subsequent auction - e.g. a pass of 5C - may eventually give East legal awareness that a wheel has come off. +=+ > > In addition, it is true that in order to make a ruling we should > of course also examine E's 5C bid. E has UI from the missing > stop card, which may well make him suspect that something is > wrong when partner bids 4S. > > The TD adjusted the score, based on W having UI. > +=+ In my opinion a sensible Law 85B ruling. +=+ > > The AC on the spot did not want to adjust the score, but was in > doubt about the law question: can the auction be UI? The TD then > called me to discuss that; at that time, I got the clear > impression that the TD and AC considered it established that it > was situation (A). I told the TD that it was my firm conviction > that the legal auction can never be UI and that W therefore did > not have UI. > +=+ In this case I think there is no UI bearing in mind what Law 16 says. The information from the alert is not, in my opinion, "extraneous information that may suggest a call or play". In my view it states where we are but suggests nothing as to what call or play might follow, partly perhaps because East has no idea what to suggest, but mostly because the information conveyed is neutral in relation to the further auction. I am not ready at this stage to put my money on the table to say that drawing attention to the legal auction can never suggest a call or play. I would think this can be the effect if removing a misapprehension as to the agreed meaning of his purposeful call is 'drawing attention to the legal auction'. +=+ > > The AC thus let the original score stand (I assume that > they had considered the 5C bid first). > > This decision was appealed to the DBF . +=+ Which takes a different view from me. Ah, well, Ton, isn't that life?! :-)) ~ 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 Nov 3 04:46:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HkYc10594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:46:34 +1100 (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 eA2HkUt10590 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:46:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot16.domain4.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va134337 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:46:33 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-177.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.177]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rustic-MailRouter V2.9c 7/1004357); 03 Nov 2000 03:46:32 Message-ID: <01c201c044f4$b3a1ac80$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:45:33 +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 (a side-track of some relevance to this thread) Norman Scorbie wrote: >How, in the modern Kokish-influenced era, do you get >to play in 2NT? Just curious. You don't. You play 3NT instead and hope that your good declarer play, combined with their minimal knowledge of the exact strength of your hand, is worth an extra trick. There are better qualified people than me lurking on BLML when it comes to modern bidding theory, but here's my interpretation of some aspects of modern theory .... This theory, applicable more at imps or total point scoring than at matchpoints, is that playing in 2NT in competitive auctions is a bit silly, because if they run their long suit 2NT will probably fail and if they are unable to run their long suit(s) then you will have time to run your long suits and probably make at least one overtrick in 2NT. Thus you might as well be in 3NT going down two rather than 2NT going down one, since the gain for making 3NT is so much higher. A residual advantage arises because the smart crowd often double 3NT (or 4H or 4S) after invitational auctions if the cards lie badly. By removing the "invitational" concept from the auction, you remove such doubles. There's a tool around called the Good-bad 2NT, but it's different from this "2NT in competition is never natural" idea. 2NT might be "minors", Lebensohl (2M X P 2NT), takeout, all sorts of meanings - just not natural because then you punt 3NT instead of bidding 2NT. Of course there's other ways to play "2NT never natural in competition" too. On the hand in this thread, South over 2H should jump to 3NT or cue 2S. 2NT is simply not the right bid for his hand type. Some pairs who play four transfers in response to 1NT (2NT being a transfer to diamonds) even play that there is no invitational 2NT response to 1NT - you simply jump to 3NT instead. This may be carrying the theory a bit far. The Kokish influence has spread round the world due to his coaching work in Indonesia, Netherlands, Australia and many other countries. Alas I don't know that much about it all. >Is there going to be a point where they can become no more >bizarre and a sort of Bizarre Utopia has been reached? Bizarre Utopia - not a bad description of Australia. If you want me to stop getting involved in moderately crazy (but constructive in intent) discussions on BLML, please email me privately to let me know. I do seem to have become involved in a few curious (but in my opinion significant) threads recently. >Humour? How disappointing. I'd hoped you were being insulting. My aim is never to be insulting; it just sometimes comes out that way as I go overboard trying to make my points, which often are disconcertingly non-mainstream and thus difficult to explain clearly. 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 Nov 3 04:57:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2HuUT10617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:56:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2HuOt10613 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 04:56:25 +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 JAA19848; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:56:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200011021756.JAA19848@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 2000 14:44:20 PST." Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 09:56:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > > >> QJx > >> AQx > >> K9xx > >> T9x > >> > >+=+ I do not think the answer here is close. Look at the > >position from the 'South' hand. He has bid 2NT natural, > >partner has simply signed off in 3C. Possessing UI he > >cannot suddenly 'remember' his partnership agreement > >and recognize that North's rebid is not a sign-off. > > Without UI South may take a pot at 3N if he feels > >inclined; with UI - and he clearly has UI - he is forbidden > >to do so if there is a LA. No way can he suggest that > >with North signing off there are not a good number of > >players of 'strong club standard' who would make no > >further effort; North can have a flawed 6 card suit and > >a smidgen outside. > > To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have > to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The > difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but > whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. > > 3C over 2NT refuses the game try whether 2NT is natural or whether it > is Good-Bad. thus it is not immediately obvious that the UI that > partner is taking it as Good-Bad rather than natural makes 3NT a better > shot. I beg to differ, based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding of how Lebensohl-inspired conventions such as Good-Bad work. When my partner and I use Lebensohl over a weak 2, in an auction like: Bad Guy Partner Bad Guy Me 2H dbl pass 2NT(1) where 2NT is a puppet to 3C, partner needs to have a pretty strong hand to do something different. A hand that would merely accept a game try isn't good enough. I've never used Good-Bad in any other situations, but from what I've read, I thought the usage was similar, i.e. you have to have quite a bit of extra strength or distribution or something to refuse to puppet. Obviously, we'd need to find out more specific infomration about the partnership's agreements are regarding the responses to 2NT. If the set of hands that would refuse to bid 3C is approximately in the same strength range as the set of hands that would refuse a natural game try, then David is right; if, however, more strength or distribution is required to refuse to puppet, then the UI suggests that partner *could* easily have a hand that's stronger than he could have to make a natural 3C signoff over a natural 2NT, and the UI would thus suggest that 3NT is more likely to work, and therefore 3NT would be illegal. -- 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 Nov 3 05:28:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2IRn210694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:27:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eA2IRet10690 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 30726 invoked for bounce); 2 Nov 2000 18:27:33 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-41-171.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.171) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 2 Nov 2000 18:27:33 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c044fa$da922ee0$ab291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:16:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Jesper Dybdal" wrote: > In the Danish teams championships, 2nd division, we have just had > a case in which I - very unusually - find myself strongly in > disagreement with a unanimous ruling by the DBF Laws Commission. > So I'd like to hear what BLML thinks. > > In the actual case, there was some doubt about some of the facts. > I will take the liberty here of presenting the case as if the > facts were definitely established - that will put the focus on > the interesting aspect. > > > South dealer, EW vulnerable. > A83 > Q10964 S W N E > 875 P P P 1H > 72 P 2S* P 4H > KJ952 10 P 4S P 5C > - AK753 P P P > 942 A63 > K10843 AJ95 > Q764 > J82 > KQJ10 > Q6 > > 12 tricks, -620. > > 2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton > or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card > before bidding 2S. > > Please consider it established that: > * W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and > could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). > * W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his > system. > * When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and > not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the > time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. > > The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A > violation? Partner's alert is UI. As the bidding sequence 1H 1S 4H is very simple, I consider it "likely" that W would not have noticed his mechanical bidding error without the UI. I have a further question, though: would we let W apply 25A if he notices his misbid after partner's alert? Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 05:38:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2IcUR10717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:38:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2IcMt10713 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:38:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.237]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001102183816.DVQA277.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:38:16 +0000 Message-ID: <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 18:42:12 -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: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > Anton Witzen wrote: > >At 11:19 AM 10/30/2000 +0000, you wrote: > > >> 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? > I believe that this business of not having a half table is nonsence. I would far prefer to play in a movement with a sit out, than have a pair of fellas in a womens movement. > > >well, i think you forget one thing in your examples. The players are in the > >first place responsible for their entry in the tournament. If a player > >knows he isnt qualified for this event, he has the duty of not entering the > >event. It is totally his responsibility if he anyway illegaly tries to get > >in. So i dont have any mercy when he is kicked out during the event. I > >think you lean too much on situations where in the first place the entering > >player is responsible for the problem. > >i think you are a bit too lenient for players who know or should know the > >rules by which we play the game (although i understand your point of view, > >i dont have sympathy with the players hwo ougth to know what was > >permissible or not) > > I am not talking at all about people who "illegally try to get in to > events" in this sort of way. I am talking of reasonable situations. > > You hold a Men's Pairs and a Ladies' Pairs with entry on the day. In > fact, 19 pairs of Ladies and 3 pairs of Men turn up. Would you, as TD, > assuming there is no other member of the SO to ask for guidance, turn > the three pairs away? > I would certainly send the three pairs of men home. There are not enough men to form a competition. It is unfair to the women who have entered so that they can play in a womens event, to have men in the movement. I think that TDs are too good at deciding what is best for the players, without asking the palyers. > > Most of us would not, I think. We would play an 11 table movement, > with the leading Ladies Pair as the Ladies Pairs winner and the leading > Men's Pair as the Men's Pairs winner. So, you do that, and at the end > one pair decides to try to get the Men's Pairs disqualified because she > got bad boards against them. > I would have great sympathy. I would know that what I had done was unfair. I would certainly be trying to score this movement with the men's scores removed, for the purpose of achieving the women's result. I am aware that if substitutes play, then their scores should stand. This is the regulation. Which regulation am I going to chose to break. I am certainly breaking one or two. I am only the TD, who am I to decide what is going to keep the players happy. > > I have agreed again that is a pair is telling lies to get in to > something he has no right to then it is reasonable to kick him out, but > I am trying to discuss a different scenario. > > In the Grand Masters case is one where they knew they did not qualify, > certainly. It is your view, is it, that if the EBU accepts their entry, > says they can play, that they should then expel them part way through? > As I understood this situation, and I will be corrected if I am wrong. The Welsh pair were invited to play to make the movement better. They not only were not members of the EBU, they did not pay an entry fee. I understand that there is one. If you and your partner were second, would you have preferred to play in the movement with a half table, or even two half tables? There is no guaarantee that you would have won, if this pair were not included, but I am sure you would be happier, if you considered the result was fair. We are not only talking prestige, we are talking money prizes here. 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 Nov 3 05:59:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2IwpH10756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:58:52 +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.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 eA2Iwkt10752 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:58:46 +1100 (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 <20001102185843.GMLM11207.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:58:43 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] incomplete answer Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:58:09 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <003801c044ed$116f0400$0200000a@mindspring.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > I am definitely not a great analyst, so I have just obtained a copy > of > > DeepFinesse. > > (a double dummy play analyzer) > > > > The main reason I got it was so I can check play analysis for our > casebooks. > > > > I am going to bring it to Birmingham to bring to appeals hearings. > > (Note: I didn't say we were going to use it...) > > > > Anyway, on this hand it seems to be telling me that 3NT goes down on > any > > lead > > but the C King.... > > > > Maybe I have done something wrong... > > > > Linda > > > > No, you're right. 3N will go down on any lead but the CK, however I > suspect that the software is plagued by the problems that occur in > most bridge software, that is, it doesn't "think" in the same way that > humans do. The psychology is absent. The CK may be the only lead > that gives a legitimate play for 3N when the defenders play double > dummy. However, defenders (and declarers) don't always play up to > that standard. A ruling not only has to encompass correct play, but > also has to include the likelihood of error, based on the information > a player has at the time, his ability and that of his partner, the > experience of the partnership, and so on. Can the software take into > account the effect of a well-timed falsecard? > Oh, I am sure you are right. It does let you play the hand any way you want to and do your own analysis for any line of play. I have found by using it and trying several lines of play I understand the hands better. When I ran this hand, the defenders didn't even have to find a good defense - they could switch suits all over the place and the hand would go down. Like I said, my main use for it is to avoid errors when someone states a line of play in the casebooks. It is easy to check a given line to make sure it works. Also, I'm sure it will come in handy with my favorite partner (my husband) for dealing with some of the after-play analyses I get !! :-) (as in you-led-the-only-card-to-let-them-make-it et al.. ) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 06:28:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2JSLT10816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:28:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f257.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2JSGt10812 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:28:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 11:28:08 -0800 Received: from 172.146.88.191 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 19:28:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.88.191] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:28:08 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Nov 2000 19:28:08.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[081FE3E0:01C04503] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have >to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The >difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but >whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by the UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 or more LAs. -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 Nov 3 07:09:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2K8qq10889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:08:52 +1100 (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 eA2K8jt10885 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:08:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04675 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:04:50 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:05:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by >the UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 >or more LAs. I suppose this is pedantic, but... If there's only one choice, it's not an "alternative", logical or otherwise. :-) 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/AwUBOgHJxr2UW3au93vOEQJFnwCfV0uuxZ6wmc+FMZS5Uqg2B9rvJmkAoIHq MyAXKwWXvhLP5dmjlhIlwagp =xxI9 -----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 Nov 3 07:18:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2KI1U10910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:18:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2KHtt10906 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:17:56 +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 MAA22385; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 12:17:49 -0800 Message-Id: <200011022017.MAA22385@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:28:08 PST." Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:17:50 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > >From: David Stevenson > > To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have > >to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The > >difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but > >whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. > > With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by the > UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 or more > LAs. Uh, oh. If you read just the first part of David's statement (ending at the colon), where he says "To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs", you might misinterpret him to mean that we do not have to say that there are LAs in order to disallow a call. :) I also misunderstood the first part of David's post, until I read past the colon, which cleared everything up. I don't know whether David accidentally left out a word (or Quango sat on the keyboard and deleted it), or whether this is a difference in British and American idiom such that David's way of expressing his meaning, that "it's not enough to say there are LAs", is normal to the British but confusing to us Americans. -- 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 Nov 3 07:38:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2KcSt10954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:38:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA2KcLt10950 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:38:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA15914 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:26:59 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:34:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] hypothetical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Disclaimer: To the best of my knowledge, this is truly a hypothetical situation. I know of no real world occurrence. :-) Background: Last night, I was reading Hardy's book _Competitive Bidding With Two Suited Hands_. In it, he classifies double of RHO's opening suit bid as follows: Type I: The normal takeout double, short in RHO's suit, support for the other three, approximately opening values or better. Type II: A hand too strong for a simple suit or a 1NT overcall. Type III: A balanced minimum opening hand. He lists this because it is fairly widespread, especially amongst inexperienced players. Usually followed by doubler bidding 1NT, although only having 13 points or so. Type IV: A two suited hand unsuitable for some other call. Doubler intends to correct partner's call of the suit he doesn't hold to the lower of the two he does. Hardy calls this "Equal Level Correction". Hardy points out, correctly as I understand it, that (at least in the ACBL) the type III double is alertable - and that the problem with it is that it is rarely alerted, because its users don't realize that it *is* alertable. Here's the hypothetical situation: You as TD are called to the table, where NS report that the auction has gone (North dealing): W N E S - - 1D X P 1S P 1NT P P P There was no alert. Play has finished and NS have just realized that East had only 13 points in his hand, instead of the expected 19-21 or so. As a result, say NS, they have misdefended, and allowed 1NT to make. "Furthermore," they say, "look at the traveller. At every other table save one, NS has been in a making part score. At that one other table, EW were also in 1NT making." It seems to me that the failure to alert has resulted in misinformation which has damaged NS, and that the score should therefore be adjusted. However, the question that interests me is this: is the TD, now being aware that the same thing may have happened at another table, obligated by law 81C6 to investigate what happened at *that* table, and to adjust *that* score as well, if it turns out to be the same situation? 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/AwUBOgHQu72UW3au93vOEQJwuQCfY+ETzD4KqL4HHj6VTgnL41w4xiAAniCQ gS0s+maV1KOF3rtM/8lrQDkw =StTb -----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 Nov 3 08:02:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2KvHr11016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:17 +1100 (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 eA2KvAt11011 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia457920 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:57:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-203.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.203]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Darwinian-MailRouter V2.9c 11/771103); 03 Nov 2000 06:57:00 Message-ID: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:13:36 +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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: >But since we have now started a discussion of the real-life case, >let me explain that the LC considered that it had determined that >what happened was one of the following two: >(A) W tried to bid 1S, but got the 2S card (physical fumble). >(B) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, but >somehow got into his head that that would be the two level (i.e., >he thought that 1H-2S was not a jump). > >In (A), it seems to me that the question is whether knowledge of >the actual legal auction can ever be UI. > >In (B), it seems to me that the question is whether the knowledge >that the auction 1H-2S is a jump can ever be UI. At first I thought I agreed with you, but after a lot of thought I think that the above statement is not quite right and that's why IMO the DBF LC decision is the right decision. If (B) is the situation, and 2S hadn't have been alerted, then West would never have woken up that he'd made an artificial bid. H Say that NS arrive at the table and observe that Y West is actually asleep. After waking him up, they P request "no alerts today please folks" (a procedure O permitted by their SO, although not by my SO by the T way) on the grounds that their dozy opponent needs H to be kept in the dark as far as possible. E 1H - 2S (B) - 4H, no alerts. Now West will pass T because there is no way he'll notice on his own I that his bid was anything but natural. CAL. The point of this analogy is that in (B) the ONLY way for West to recover is via the Alert Procedure. His partner has provided him not with UI that he intended to bid something other than 2S [the (A) scenario] but with UI that 2S, being of higher rank than 2H (unlike at least one other card game played in Scandinavia for those who find his memory lapse inexplicable), had a different meaning than the one he had intended. To try to use the words in Law 16A, in "reply to a question" West's partner made available to West "extraneous information" (as defined in the first few words of Law 16A) which led West to choose from amongst LAs 4S which worked better than Pass. In other words, if (B) is possible, there is UI, which is not that "2S is a jump", but is that the 2S bid meant something other than what the 2S bidder intended. By the way (i.e. irrelevant), I think (B) seems on the surface to be a less likely scenario than (A) simply because West lacks the necessary values (9 or 10 HCP?) for a two-over-one in most systems. Of course if (B) is eliminated as in Jesper's original post, it's a totally different story. However, with (B) being a possibility, if I were a junior Dane [a young guy who helps run a bridge club in Copenhagen is staying at my place, does that qualify me?] on the DBF LC, it would still have been unanimous. >Initially I thought that only (A) was interesting, but now I find >(B) just as interesting. I agree that (B) is very interesting. >I disagree with this ruling because: > ..... >* In case (B), it seems to me that the fact that 1H-2S is a jump >(which follows from the laws of bridge) cannot and should not >ever be UI. I don't think that "the fact that 1H-2S is a jump" is what the UI is. >So what I would like to hear opinions about is primarily whether >W has UI, separately for case (A) and for case (B). H Perhaps West plays a Relay System with another partner in Y which a 1S response to 1H is an Artificial Relay used with all P the strong hands, so with that partner he'd have to guess O whether to respond 2S or 1NT or 2C all of which are natural: T (C) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, H but somehow got into his head that that would be the two E level (i.e. he thought that 1H-1S was a Relay). T I wonder if I've stumbled onto something real. Note that (B) I and (C) are identical except for the bit in brackets at the end. C In C) it's an easy UI case, isn't it? And if (C) really happened, A the player could say that (B) happened, so ...... I feel more L confident now that (B) is a UI situation. In (B), was the bit in brackets always there, or it it Jesper's interpretation of (B), I wonder? Perhaps (B) may be (C). 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 Nov 3 08:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2KvDo11015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2Kv7t11007 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ja457921 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:57:03 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-203.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.203]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Earthy-MailRouter V2.9c 11/771103); 03 Nov 2000 06:57:02 Message-ID: <030b01c0450f$50ab3f40$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:16:50 +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 > Linda Trent wrote: >> I am definitely not a great analyst, so I have just obtained >> a copy of DeepFinesse. (a double dummy play analyzer) >> >> The main reason I got it was so I can check play analysis >> for our casebooks. >> >> I am going to bring it to Birmingham to bring to appeals >> hearings. (Note: I didn't say we were going to use it...) >> >> Anyway, on this hand it seems to be telling me that 3NT >> goes down on any lead but the C King.... >> Hirsch Davis wrote: >......[snip] ... I suspect that the software is plagued by the > problems that occur in most bridge software, that is, it >doesn't "think" in the same way that humans do. The >psychology is absent ... [snip] ...Can the software take >into account the effect of a well-timed falsecard? No it can't (as far as I know) but I think it is still a very useful potential tool and I applaud Linda for her initiative. For the uninitiated, Deep Finesse (DF) is a double dummy analyzer which anyone can buy for about the same cost as a good dinner for two. It appears to be flawless and is very useful for columnists to check the accuracy of their analysis. For ACs, it could be very useful, e.g. you could punch in that the first five tricks have gone like this and DF tells you that declarer can make if he does this so now your manual analysis can concentrate on the human aspects of that play as you check through DF's line. No, he wouldn't have found that double dummy play at the table, you realise, so you punch in the variation and DF tells you what happens next. And so on. Very useful indeed. DF seems to me to have great potential as an adjunct for ACs at the highest level events, where the standard of play is high. On the 3NT defence, I am more interested in Deep Finesse's opinion after DQ wins and West continues with a diamond to South's jack. After all, West has to play something at Trick Two, and a well-used Deep Finesse could be useful out on this hand by pointing that here is actually a simple and obvious line of play for declarer to bring home 3NT if East chooses one of his "at all probable" switches at Trick Two. You might have punch in each switch one by one, but the resultant card-by-card analysis, known to be 100% accurate, is a much better way to go than to ask some fallible experts. This may well be the way of the future. Take that very difficult Appeal from Maastricht where there were two problems, both difficult to adjudicate: (1) Would the Israeli (Kalish? IIRC) have underled CA against 6D? (2) Would Chemla have made 6D on Cx lead ruffed. I thought that the consensus was that the AC seemed to judge this about right but nobody was really sure. On BLML and rgb the discussion became far more concerned with Law 12C3 than with the card play. With clever use of Deep Finesse, I think you could solve problem (2), by finding the double dummy play and checking trick by trick "how likely is Chemla to have done that?". In the interminable discussions on BLML and rgb, nobody ever presented any cardplay analysis of how the play would go. IIRC one of Thomas Dehn's posts implied that he had analysed the play privately, but nobody else seemed to want to bother. I tried privately to analyse the play but it became complex enough that I wasn't sure what Chemla would have done, and I deemed my analysis to be too complex (and potentially wrong) to bother posting it. Anyway this is all somewhat futuristic and perhaps should wait until the 21st Century. IMO DF is a tool which could become very useful for ACs in the future, if used properly by taking into account Hirsch's valid concerns. 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 Nov 3 08:02:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2Kv5l11005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2Kv1t11000 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:57:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha457919 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 06:57:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-221-203.tmns.net.au ([203.54.221.203]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Predictive-MailRouter V2.9c 11/771103); 03 Nov 2000 06:56:59 Message-ID: <030901c0450f$4ee60fa0$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 05:58:21 +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 Robin Barker wrote: >But 2NT Good-Bad is not a game-try, is it?? > >As I understand and play "2NT Good-Bad", it is an >extension of Lebensohl. 2NT shows a bad hand trying >to sign-off, other bids are stronger. The Official Encyclopedia of Bridge (pages 256-257) confirms your understanding: "Good-Bad two notrump: In some competitive situations, a bid of 2NT .... can be used to separate competitive actions from hands with serious game prospects. 2NT shows weaker hands." Then again, some pairs play "Reverse Good-Bad 2NT", but not this particular pair, based on the information provided. 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 Nov 3 08:37:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2LW8S11109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:32:08 +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 eA2LW2t11105 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:32:02 +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 NAA23205; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:31:56 -0800 Message-Id: <200011022131.NAA23205@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 02 Nov 2000 15:05:54 PST." Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:29:45 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by > >the UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 > >or more LAs. > > I suppose this is pedantic, but... > > If there's only one choice, it's not an "alternative", logical or > otherwise. :-) I suppose I'm trying to out-pedantic you, but... There are a very small number of situations (in the auction) where there is only one choice: (1) when you are barred from the auction, or (2) in some cases when the bidding has reached 7NT. Law 16 is usually not applied in those situations. However, in all other cases, there is at least one alternative call to the one the player actually made. If the call the player made is considered "illogical", and there is only one choice that would be considered a "logical" call, it's still a logical alternative, since it is an alternative call (to the one actually chosen) and it is logical. L16 still applies if the so-called "illogical" call could demonstrably have been suggested over the LA by the UI. -- 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 Nov 3 08:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2Lqsg11157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:52:54 +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.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 eA2Lqmt11153 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:52:49 +1100 (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 <20001102215245.MJGK11207.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:52:45 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:52:11 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <030b01c0450f$50ab3f40$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill > > On the 3NT defence, I am more interested in Deep Finesse's > opinion after DQ wins and West continues with a diamond to > South's jack. After all, West has to play something at Trick Two, > and a well-used Deep Finesse could be useful out on this hand > by pointing that here is actually a simple and obvious line of play > for declarer to bring home 3NT if East chooses one of his > "at all probable" switches at Trick Two. You might have punch > in each switch one by one, but the resultant card-by-card analysis, > known to be 100% accurate, is a much better way to go than to > ask some fallible experts. > If I am reading it right, it says the only loser for the defense is the CK at trick one and also at trick two if the DQ holds.... When South wins the second trick with the DJ, it shows any card South plays loses the contract... Is that what you meant? Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 08:59:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2Lx2411177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:59:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2Lwvt11173 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:58:57 +1100 (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 <20001102215854.MOJI11207.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:58:54 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 13:58:20 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <030b01c0450f$50ab3f40$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > For the uninitiated, Deep Finesse (DF) is a double dummy > analyzer which anyone can buy for about the same cost as > a good dinner for two. It appears to be flawless and is very > useful for columnists to check the accuracy of their analysis. > Not even that much :-) Only a good entree where I make my hubby take me for dinner (around $US 30 I think) > For ACs, it could be very useful, e.g. you could punch in that > the first five tricks have gone like this and DF tells you that > declarer can make if he does this so now your manual > analysis can concentrate on the human aspects of that play > as you check through DF's line. You don't have to put all four hands in - it will take any position and work from there - so in your example you would only need to put in the last 8 cards.... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 09:08:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2M7wT11208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:07:58 +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 eA2M7qt11204 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:07:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.127] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rSWS-0000sd-00; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:07:49 +0000 Message-ID: <005901c04519$56478300$7f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <6NBXxHAF63$5EwTV@probst.demon.co.uk><001c01c0441d$37ad0480$427293c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 21:50:21 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > > > To disallow a call we do not have to say that > there are LAs: we have to say that the chosen > call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The > difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is >. an LA to 3NT but whether 3NT is suggested > over pass by the UI. > +=+ I thought I cleared that point up in my subsequent email. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 09:08:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2M86g11214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:08:07 +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 eA2M7xt11210 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:08:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.127] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rSWU-0000sd-00; Thu, 02 Nov 2000 22:07:50 +0000 Message-ID: <005a01c04519$57327f40$7f5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <030b01c0450f$50ab3f40$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 22:06:23 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 8:16 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] > > For the uninitiated, Deep Finesse (DF) is a double dummy > analyzer which anyone can buy for about the same cost as > a good dinner for two. > > -- +=+ Oh. That expensive? :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 10:13:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA2NDAh11320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:13:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA2ND3t11316 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:13:04 +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 13rTXX-000OSM-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:12:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 23:11:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] References: <030b01c0450f$50ab3f40$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <005a01c04519$57327f40$7f5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <005a01c04519$57327f40$7f5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <005a01c04519$57327f40$7f5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"The art of interpretation is not to play what > is written." - Pablo Casals. > > >'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' >' >----- Original Message ----- >From: Peter Gill >To: BLML >Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 8:16 PM >Subject: [BLML] Re: Deep Finesse [was incomplete answer] > > > >> >> For the uninitiated, Deep Finesse (DF) is a double dummy >> analyzer which anyone can buy for about the same cost as >> a good dinner for two. > >> -- >+=+ Oh. That expensive? :-) +=+ > "Ring ring" "Fred's Fish bar here" "Large battered cod and chips(*) twice please to (see address below)" "That'll be 5-40 plus a pound for the delivery, do you want salt and vinegar on it, Sir?" "Nah, fanks, we'll use our own" "Maxine, put a sheet of the [London] Times on the table luv, and dump some teabags in two mugs." Now *that* is a good dinner for two. Mind you, we both could lose a couple of stone (28 pounds for the Yanks, 13 kilos for the rest of the world). (*) French Fries, cut thick and cooked in lard. Cholesterol 100% For afters I usually have a saucer of pickled whelks and a slice of onion with a bit of strong cheese. (only on nights I'm not TD'ing) Presumably this would only get me the Pentium II version of DF? -- 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 Fri Nov 3 12:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA31RrV11393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:27:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip97.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA31Rlt11389 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:27:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A00AFD7D5D for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 02:27:40 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 02:27:41 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA31Rot11390 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:13:36 +1100, "Peter Gill" wrote: >H Perhaps West plays a Relay System with another partner in >Y which a 1S response to 1H is an Artificial Relay used with all >P the strong hands, so with that partner he'd have to guess >O whether to respond 2S or 1NT or 2C all of which are natural: > >T (C) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, >H but somehow got into his head that that would be the two >E level (i.e. he thought that 1H-1S was a Relay). > >T I wonder if I've stumbled onto something real. Note that (B) >I and (C) are identical except for the bit in brackets at the end. >C In C) it's an easy UI case, isn't it? And if (C) really happened, >A the player could say that (B) happened, so ...... I feel more >L confident now that (B) is a UI situation. I certainly agree that (C) would be a UI situation. You haven't (yet) convinced me about (B). >In (B), was the bit in brackets always there, or it it Jesper's >interpretation of (B), I wonder? Perhaps (B) may be (C). Let me translate all the bits of the LC ruling (which by the way is available - in Danish - at http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/00/lk-1.htm) that has to do with this. I can't just now think of a good short translation of the noun "fejlgreb", which means the act of taking hold of the wrong thing (in this case, the wrong bidding card). "Fejl" means "error" and "greb" is related to "grab". In the description of the TD's determination of facts it says: "The TD established that 2S is a (for instance no stop card), which W does not detect until E alerts." Under "further information", it says that being asked by the LC, the TD has provided the information that "When the TD in his description uses the word , this does not imply a conclusion as to which of the following possibilities was actually the case: * W had decided to bid 1S, but took out the 2S card by a mechanical error. * W had decided to bid spades at the lowest level possible, but suffered from the misapprehension that the relevant call would then be 2S". As part of the ruling itself: "The LC finds: * that it must be considered an established fact that W did not intend to jump in spades when he bid 2S. * that on the available evidence it is not possible to decide whether W had overlooked the fact that 2S would be a jump, and therefore deviated from his system by mistake, or whether W had decided to bid 1S and by a happened to take the 2S card from the bidding box." -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 14:49:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA33mOZ11472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:48:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA33mJt11468 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:48:19 +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 ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:45:38 -0800 Message-ID: <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:39:07 -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 ----- From: "David Stevenson" < > Marvin L. French wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> It is interesting to note that in Maastricht we were instructed > >*not* > >> to follow the Burn/Colker approach. We were told that if we wished > >to > >> penalise offenders then we used procedural penalties, not split > >scores. > >> > >This is very interesting, because it is the approach Rich Colker used > >until the WBFLC minutes from Lille came out, (he) claiming it was > >required by the Laws. He considered that item 3 of those minutes > >("Procedure for awarding assigned adjusted scores") was an > >interpretive change that allowed split scores under L12C2. Many of us > >thought they were always allowed. > > > >Was he wrong? > > I think so. I think split scores were always allowed, and still are. > What I am discussing is the methodology but legally I feel the > Burn/Colker method is permitted. The question, therefore, is that if > more than one method is permitted by the Laws, which is desirable? Ths most straightforwward one. L12C permits split scores (as has been confirmed by the LCs), including no adjustment for the NOS, so there is no need for the roundabout PP route to penalize the OS. A PP leaves a possibly illegal result on the books, affecting the score of others, and that's not right. I don't know the WBF's method of determining an appropriate PP, but Rich Colker's (former) method was to assign a PP that had the same effect on the OS's score as that of an appropriate adjusted score. Surely the WBF would not take that illogical step. 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 Nov 3 14:58:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA33wYW11484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:58:34 +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 eA33wSt11480 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:58:29 +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 ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:55:46 -0800 Message-ID: <007601c0454a$46a21e20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:55:22 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > > With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by > >the UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 > >or more LAs. > > I suppose this is pedantic, but... > > If there's only one choice, it's not an "alternative", logical or > otherwise. :-) > Until recently I thought that LA in L16A meant an alternative to a demonstrably suggested action, but a more careful reading of L16A doesn't support this misapprehension. My only excuse is that I was misled by the word "alternative." L16A: "...the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably...' Would it not have been better to omit the word "alternative"? Or, "...the partner may not take an action that has been demonstrably suggested by the extraneous information if there is a logical alternative." (my original reading). 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 Nov 3 15:40:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA34eXg11521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA34eSt11517 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:40:28 +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 ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:37:48 -0800 Message-ID: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 20:40:04 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > There was no alert. Play has finished and NS have just realized that > East had only 13 points in his hand, instead of the expected 19-21 or > so. As a result, say NS, they have misdefended, and allowed 1NT to > make. "Furthermore," they say, "look at the traveller. At every other > table save one, NS has been in a making part score. At that one other > table, EW were also in 1NT making." > > It seems to me that the failure to alert has resulted in > misinformation which has damaged NS, and that the score should > therefore be adjusted. However, the question that interests me is > this: is the TD, now being aware that the same thing may have > happened at another table, obligated by law 81C6 to investigate what > happened at *that* table, and to adjust *that* score as well, if it > turns out to be the same situation? > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking for irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include snooping around in search of one. It is common for the TD, when entering scores, to return to the floor with a strange-looking score slip and ask to see the convention (score) card of one or more of the players involved. S/he does this only to verify that the score was entered correctly ("to collect scores," per L81C10), and does not ask how the score was achieved unless there is disagreement among the players as to the right score. If disagreement leads to a discussion that unmasks an irregularity, then the TD has "become aware" of it in an appopriate way, and can act upon it. On one occasion a loud argument regarding a revoke was taking place at a table near me. Seeing a TD nearby, I flagged her over and said, "It's none of my business, but I think they need your help at that table." "You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked away. Evidently "in any manner" doesn't include that manner. I feel that L816C6 needs a clarification of "becomes aware in any manner," or different words, but I am unable to come up with a good suggestion. The only idea that comes to mind is "in any passive manner," but that's not very clear. 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 Nov 3 20:42:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA39dEm11695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:39:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA39d7t11691 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:39:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id KAA16126 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:39:02 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 03 10:40:50 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 <01JW3MNC2S74000673@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:38:12 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:34:41 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:38:09 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@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 Lille minute was not so much concerned > with the angle of splitting the scores as with not > allowing offenders to benefit from damage that > occurs subsequent to the infraction and is in > some way occasioned by it but is not deemed a > consequence of the infraction. As far as I can see > this is likely to be damage self-inflicted by the NOS. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Let me try to say this more precisely. The issue was not offenders benefiting from damage. Within the ACBL they know to take away unjust advantage gained. But before Lille it happened by giving a procedural penalty. The reason being that the laws seem to say that only if the non-offenders are damaged an adjusted score may be given. The ACBL had good reason to understand 'damage' as consequent damage. What we said in Lille was that damage here can be consequent as well as subsequent, which opened the possibility to give an adjusted score to the offenders even when the non-offenders took a bad score by playing terrible bridge. The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good adjusted score. In fact one is saying that he is doing something he doesn't agree with himself (stubbornness may be?). I don't like that, it seems inconsistent with the approach we agreed in Lille and causes too many procedural penalties. Somebody making a call after a hesitation when there is a logical alternative, where a majority would make the same call should not be penalised. Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. 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 Nov 3 20:57:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA39stK11718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:54:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA39sjt11711 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:54:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.165] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rdYV-000Bo0-00; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:54:40 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c0457c$1597b920$a55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200011021245.HAA02410@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:50:18 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > policy of the WBF Appeals Committee established > > in Maastricht is that, excluding situations of irrational, > > wild or gambling actions by non-offenders, when 12C3 > > is invoked a single assigned adjusted score is assessed, > > to reflect the equity in the hand prior to the offence > > ACBL readers should note the two important conditions: L12C3 is > available (which it isn't over here), and the NOS have not done > anything irrational, wild, or gambling. Here in the ACBL, split scores > under L12C2 are quite possible, even absent irrational actions by the > NOS. > > Does the WBF have an official position on how it handles things when > the NOS do indeed do something deemed irrational, wild, or gambling? > -- +=+ In the normal way these things develop out of precedents. The WBF gives appeals committees licence to make their own decisions and a culture grows. However, things have changed just slightly since adoption of the Code of Practice - we do have a responsibility to conform to it (as far as it goes). So, recognizing the 12C3 factor - and especially the need to give Directors a lead on it - I had pre-alerted and offered the three most prominent 'solutions', the Colker one, the English Bridge Union practice, and the above. I was a little surprised at the meeting with Directors that the Chairman needed no nudging, had made up his mind and simply told us what we were to do. Your question interests me. As to 'precedent' I do not recall one in the WBF over all the years that I have been linked to its TACs - as Chairman of Appeals in a couple of championships, as Vice Chairman to J. O-P in others, and as a member (with now for a few championships past the role also of Co-ordinator). What the Code of Practice says is: "If the damaged side has wholly or partly caused its own damage by irrational, wild or gambling action, it does not receive relief in the adjustment for such part of the damage as is self-inflicted." This is as Kaplan taught me in the early days of our association; I put it into the draft CoP I presented in Lausanne and it is one of the statements that no-one questioned, not even one of the ACBL people at the party. I must stay alert to any occasion when an appeal looks as though it could perhaps entail such an adjustment - alert not to put the case to an irrational, wild or gambling committee. :-)) ~ 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 Nov 3 20:57:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA39sn911715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:54:49 +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 eA39sgt11708 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 20:54:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.165] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rdYL-000Bo0-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 09:54:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c0457c$0fee2360$a55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 08:47:20 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 8:34 PM Subject: [BLML] hypothetical question > > It seems to me that the failure to alert has resulted in > misinformation which has damaged NS, and that the score should > therefore be adjusted. However, the question that interests me is > this: is the TD, now being aware that the same thing may have > happened at another table, obligated by law 81C6 to investigate > what happened at *that* table, and to adjust *that* score as > well, if it turns out to be the same situation? > +=+ He has not become aware of any irregularity. No-one has drawn his attention to anything. So far as he knows the score at the other table has been obtained without irregularity. If the auction was the same there may have been an alert. Every time he rules an infraction is the suggestion that he checks how every identical score has been obtained? ~ G ~ +=+ [Footnote: one of my fondest memories of two splendid teams is from the GB v. USA Ladies Final in Sao Paulo. My opposing Captain was Dan Morse. The Director brought Dan to me and told me that Dan's team were unaccustomed to meeting the weak one no trump opener and had asked if the GB ladies would accommodate them by alerting it. To which we responded that we were happy to do so, and since our ladies were not accustomed to meeting the strong 1NT opener in Britain we would be grateful if the US ladies would alert their 1NT openers also. All 1NT openers were alerted throughout the match. The height of, er, civility. :-) ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 21:15:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3AF4A11746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:15:04 +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 eA3AEvt11742 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:14:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.225] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rds5-000CXz-00; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:14:53 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c0457e$e923b080$a55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 10:14:19 -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 "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Grattan Endicott' ; Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 9:38 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > > The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not > known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides > get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a > procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good > adjusted score. > > In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. > +=+ Well, I would not want to argue, but I think the record needs to be straight - ton would not know how it was with the appeals committee, of which he is not a member. The decision was not mine: beforehand I offered three solutions and one was adopted (as I learnt at the meeting with the Directors in Maastricht) and stands now as the procedure. It is based on the way in which adjustments were done under the 1975 Code of Laws, as I have several times mentioned. It was Europe in 1987 that wished to retain that procedure and obtained what are now the 12C3 powers in order to be able to do so. The Lausanne Group moved to extend those powers to Directors. I am merely consistent with past EBL attitudes and supportive of current WBF procedure. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 3 21:21:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3ALo711763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:21:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA3ALgt11754 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:21:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.75]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25676 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:21:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A028B95.C6B28E17@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:55:33 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > I can't just now think of a good short translation of the noun > "fejlgreb", which means the act of taking hold of the wrong thing > (in this case, the wrong bidding card). "Fejl" means "error" and > "greb" is related to "grab". > It would be nice to be able to suggest we add the word fejlgreb to the regular bridge vocabulary. Not a lot of Danish in there yet. However, the translation "misspull" seems fairly straightforward. But since miss-pulling seems to have a double meaning, fejlgrebbing might still stand a chance. I do NOT vote for foulgrabbing as a substitute. That word belongs in Rugby vocabulary. -- 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 Nov 3 21:22:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3ALqs11764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:21:52 +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 eA3ALit11756 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:21:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-75.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.75]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA25845 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:21:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:08:42 +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] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@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: > > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking for > irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include > snooping around in search of one. > I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But "becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates "should investigate". A traveller says 7Sp=, yet the Ace of spades is out. Do you investigate? I do ! > It is common for the TD, when entering scores, to return to the floor > with a strange-looking score slip and ask to see the convention > (score) card of one or more of the players involved. S/he does this > only to verify that the score was entered correctly ("to collect > scores," per L81C10), and does not ask how the score was achieved > unless there is disagreement among the players as to the right score. Well, isn't that investigating ? If one pair says what happened to explain the strange score, don't you check the other pair ? > If disagreement leads to a discussion that unmasks an irregularity, > then the TD has "become aware" of it in an appopriate way, and can act > upon it. > Well, he has instigated the disagreement, hasn't he ? > On one occasion a loud argument regarding a revoke was taking place at > a table near me. Seeing a TD nearby, I flagged her over and said, > "It's none of my business, but I think they need your help at that > table." > > "You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked > away. Evidently "in any manner" doesn't include that manner. > The fact that one TD did this can have two reasons : (a) it is the right approach (b) the TD got it wrong. My money is on (b). > I feel that L816C6 needs a clarification of "becomes aware in any > manner," or different words, but I am unable to come up with a good > suggestion. The only idea that comes to mind is "in any passive > manner," but that's not very clear. > Why ? Are we all lazy B***s ? -- 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 Nov 3 22:33:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3BWkE11891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3BWWt11877 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:33 +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 13rf57-000FEo-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:32:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:10:08 +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> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@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" >> You hold a Men's Pairs and a Ladies' Pairs with entry on the day. In >> fact, 19 pairs of Ladies and 3 pairs of Men turn up. Would you, as TD, >> assuming there is no other member of the SO to ask for guidance, turn >> the three pairs away? >I would certainly send the three pairs of men home. There are not enough men >to form a competition. It is unfair to the women who have entered so that >they can play in a womens event, to have men in the movement. >I think that TDs are too good at deciding what is best for the players, >without asking the palyers. Suppose the TD asks the players, and nineteen pairs are in favour of playing it as one movement? The problem with your answers, Anne, is that you are predicating a TD getting it *wrong*. We do need to discuss what happens when a TD gets it right. Certainly I am somewhat surprised that you are prepared to send people home. However, I am happy enough if it is a majority view. But would you do it if it was not the majority view? >> Most of us would not, I think. We would play an 11 table movement, >> with the leading Ladies Pair as the Ladies Pairs winner and the leading >> Men's Pair as the Men's Pairs winner. So, you do that, and at the end >> one pair decides to try to get the Men's Pairs disqualified because she >> got bad boards against them. >I would have great sympathy. I would know that what I had done was unfair. I >would certainly be trying to score this movement with the men's scores >removed, for the purpose of achieving the women's result. >I am aware that if substitutes play, then their scores should stand. This is >the regulation. Which regulation am I going to chose to break. I am >certainly breaking one or two. >I am only the TD, who am I to decide what is going to keep the players >happy. We are not discussing the matter of substitutes here in the ordinary meaning of the term. We are discussing a movement. OK, since you are not permitting the TD to be right, let us suppose that you are running a congress, and the sponsoring organisation is present. As before, you get nineteen Ladies' Pairs and three Mens' Pairs. You ask the sponsoring organisation [Congress Chairman, for example]. You *must* include the men, you are told. Now what? >> I have agreed again that is a pair is telling lies to get in to >> something he has no right to then it is reasonable to kick him out, but >> I am trying to discuss a different scenario. >> >> In the Grand Masters case is one where they knew they did not qualify, >> certainly. It is your view, is it, that if the EBU accepts their entry, >> says they can play, that they should then expel them part way through? >As I understood this situation, and I will be corrected if I am wrong. The >Welsh pair were invited to play to make the movement better. They not only >were not members of the EBU, they did not pay an entry fee. I understand >that there is one. >If you and your partner were second, would you have preferred to play in the >movement with a half table, or even two half tables? >There is no guaarantee that you would have won, if this pair were not >included, but I am sure you would be happier, if you considered the result >was fair. Who is you? I am happy that the Welsh were invited, and I hope they will be again. There were no grumbles of any sort - why should there be? The grumbles seem to be here. > We are not only talking prestige, we are talking money prizes here. So what? The players are happy, the organisers are happy, everyone is happy. But now consider: suppose it had been the same case, and one pair was not happy: what now? -- 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 Fri Nov 3 22:33:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3BWjW11890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3BWYt11879 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:35 +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 13rf58-000FEq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:32:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:19:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >From: Jesper Dybdal >> On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:49 -0000, Grattan wrote: >> >> >And it is for the AC to determine >> >what is 'established', not Jesper, not me, not the >> >distinguished citizens of blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> >> Absolutely, if the purpose is to find the correct ruling in the >> real-life case. But as I tried - clearly not very successfully - >> to explain, my question was not really "what should the ruling be >> in the real-life case", but rather "what should the ruling be in >> the theoretical case where we make certain assumptions". >> >+=+ I am sorry about that, but if you want blml >to discuss a theoretical situation you should >pose it carefully as a hypothesis. Once you say >there is a real life case it gets discussed >inevitably in that context. I think it is one of the pities of BLML that we often completely fail to answer a question as asked. In this case it was clear: Jesper said that although there were matters of fact to be decided he wanted to pose a question assuming that they were so. The question was clearly theoretical and was interesting. -- 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 Fri Nov 3 22:33:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3BWjR11889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:45 +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 eA3BWWt11876 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:32:33 +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 13rf4t-000FEp-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:32:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 01:14:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol References: <200011022017.MAA22385@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200011022017.MAA22385@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Todd wrote: > >> >From: David Stevenson >> > To disallow a call we do not have to say that there are LAs: we have >> >to say that the chosen call is suggested over the LAs by the UI. The >> >difficulty in this ruling is not whether pass is an LA to 3NT but >> >whether 3NT is suggested over pass by the UI. >> >> With the existance of only one LA, even if that LA is suggested by the >> UI, you are free to bid it. You must establish that there are 2 or more >> LAs. > >Uh, oh. If you read just the first part of David's statement (ending >at the colon), where he says "To disallow a call we do not have to say >that there are LAs", you might misinterpret him to mean that we do not >have to say that there are LAs in order to disallow a call. :) > >I also misunderstood the first part of David's post, until I read past >the colon, which cleared everything up. I don't know whether David >accidentally left out a word (or Quango sat on the keyboard and >deleted it), or whether this is a difference in British and American >idiom such that David's way of expressing his meaning, that "it's not >enough to say there are LAs", is normal to the British but confusing >to us Americans. I think I left a word out. 'just' probably. -- 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 Fri Nov 3 23:28:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3CRiK11945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:27:44 +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 eA3CRbt11941 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:27:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-118.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.118]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18086 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:27:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A029763.893A4594@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:45:55 +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] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@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: > > > The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not > known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides > get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a > procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good > adjusted score. In fact one is saying that he is doing something he doesn't > agree with himself (stubbornness may be?). I don't like that, it seems > inconsistent with the approach we agreed in Lille and causes too many > procedural penalties. Somebody making a call after a hesitation when there > is a logical alternative, where a majority would make the same call should > not be penalised. I also believe that most irregularities, while not allowed, are not "bad" or "cheating". I believe the advantage must be taken away, but no PP should be added onto that. This leads us to non-split scores. > Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an > amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 > gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. > It does not seem wrong to me. I'm with Grattan that 12C3 is the correct score, while 12C2 is reserved as an easy alternative, if no "board of wise men" (in the form of either an AC or a consultation panel for the TD empowered to use 12C3) is available. I believe that the reason for split scores in 12C2 is so as not to give too much to NOs, while at the same time making sure the Os does not ever benefit. I don't believe it is in the spirit of the Laws (redress, not penalize) to apply a similar principle when using L12C3 and in that sense I do not believe L12C3 scores should be split, except in the case of subsequent (additional) damage, through error by NOs (however one wishes to express error). > In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. > I believe the direction is correct, but I still have one remark. The formulation of L12C2 is one which insures that Os never benefit from their infraction. The application of L12C3 that was adopted at Maastricht does not. By giving "true equity" and then (usually not) applying a penalty, the Os has exactly the same expectancy + the chance that the irregularity goes unnoticed. I am still in favour of giving "biased equity", by means of nudging the percentages in the direction of NOs. After all, that principle is also found in L12C1, where NOs are guaranteed 60%, which may be above their expected score. I don't believe that this is unfairly favourable towards NOs. They did not choose to have opponents commit irregularities against them and deserve IMHO some compensation for the distress that was caused them. -- 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 Nov 3 23:30:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3CU4111958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:30:04 +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 eA3CTvt11954 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:29:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-118.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.118]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA18720 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:29:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A029763.893A4594@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 11:45:55 +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] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@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: > > > The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not > known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides > get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a > procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good > adjusted score. In fact one is saying that he is doing something he doesn't > agree with himself (stubbornness may be?). I don't like that, it seems > inconsistent with the approach we agreed in Lille and causes too many > procedural penalties. Somebody making a call after a hesitation when there > is a logical alternative, where a majority would make the same call should > not be penalised. I also believe that most irregularities, while not allowed, are not "bad" or "cheating". I believe the advantage must be taken away, but no PP should be added onto that. This leads us to non-split scores. > Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an > amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 > gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. > It does not seem wrong to me. I'm with Grattan that 12C3 is the correct score, while 12C2 is reserved as an easy alternative, if no "board of wise men" (in the form of either an AC or a consultation panel for the TD empowered to use 12C3) is available. I believe that the reason for split scores in 12C2 is so as not to give too much to NOs, while at the same time making sure the Os does not ever benefit. I don't believe it is in the spirit of the Laws (redress, not penalize) to apply a similar principle when using L12C3 and in that sense I do not believe L12C3 scores should be split, except in the case of subsequent (additional) damage, through error by NOs (however one wishes to express error). > In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. > I believe the direction is correct, but I still have one remark. The formulation of L12C2 is one which insures that Os never benefit from their infraction. The application of L12C3 that was adopted at Maastricht does not. By giving "true equity" and then (usually not) applying a penalty, the Os has exactly the same expectancy + the chance that the irregularity goes unnoticed. I am still in favour of giving "biased equity", by means of nudging the percentages in the direction of NOs. After all, that principle is also found in L12C1, where NOs are guaranteed 60%, which may be above their expected score. I don't believe that this is unfairly favourable towards NOs. They did not choose to have opponents commit irregularities against them and deserve IMHO some compensation for the distress that was caused them. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.X-Mozilla-Status: 0009x.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 Nov 3 23:59:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3CxOk11999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3CxIt11995 for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:59:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis98.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.98]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G3G00GGL9E70U@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:58:57 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 13:58:54 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001103135535.00a19860@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 eA3CxKt11996 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Let me try to say this more precisely. The issue was not offenders >benefiting from damage. OTOH they should get a worse score than against ethical opponents. It seems that this is forgotten sometimes. >Within the ACBL they know to take away unjust advantage gained. But before >Lille it happened by giving a procedural penalty. The reason being that the >laws seem to say that only if the non-offenders are damaged an adjusted >score may be given. The ACBL had good reason to understand 'damage' as >consequent damage. What we said in Lille was that damage here can be >consequent as well as subsequent, which opened the possibility to give an >adjusted score to the offenders even when the non-offenders took a bad score >by playing terrible bridge. > >The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not >known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides >get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a >procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good >adjusted score. In fact one is saying that he is doing something he doesn't >agree with himself (stubbornness may be?). I don't like that, it seems >inconsistent with the approach we agreed in Lille and causes too many >procedural penalties. Somebody making a call after a hesitation when there >is a logical alternative, where a majority would make the same call should >not be penalised. Giving PPīs is always problematic, because the case tends to be forgotten at all. To give PP depending on the success of an action seems wrong to me. >Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an >amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 >gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. right IMHO >In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. Yes 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 Nov 4 00:59:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3DxMr12049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:59:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3DxFt12045 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:59:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.8.33]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001103135911.IAXQ5562.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 13:59:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:02:57 -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: Friday, November 03, 2000 1:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > anne.jones1 wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> You hold a Men's Pairs and a Ladies' Pairs with entry on the day. In > >> fact, 19 pairs of Ladies and 3 pairs of Men turn up. Would you, as TD, > >> assuming there is no other member of the SO to ask for guidance, turn > >> the three pairs away? > > >I would certainly send the three pairs of men home. There are not enough men > >to form a competition. It is unfair to the women who have entered so that > >they can play in a womens event, to have men in the movement. > >I think that TDs are too good at deciding what is best for the players, > >without asking the palyers. > > Suppose the TD asks the players, and nineteen pairs are in favour of > playing it as one movement? > If it is feasible to consult the players then maybe I would. I would do what I always do when consulting the players WRT "bending" the regulations. Unanimous, I go ahead. One dissention, and the regulation applies, unbent. > > The problem with your answers, Anne, is that you are predicating a TD > getting it *wrong*. We do need to discuss what happens when a TD gets > it right. Certainly I am somewhat surprised that you are prepared to > send people home. However, I am happy enough if it is a majority view. > But would you do it if it was not the majority view? > As I have said, if all are happy - fine. If one is not, then I do not do it. > > >> Most of us would not, I think. We would play an 11 table movement, > >> with the leading Ladies Pair as the Ladies Pairs winner and the leading > >> Men's Pair as the Men's Pairs winner. So, you do that, and at the end > >> one pair decides to try to get the Men's Pairs disqualified because she > >> got bad boards against them. > > >I would have great sympathy. I would know that what I had done was unfair. I > >would certainly be trying to score this movement with the men's scores > >removed, for the purpose of achieving the women's result. > >I am aware that if substitutes play, then their scores should stand. This is > >the regulation. Which regulation am I going to chose to break. I am > >certainly breaking one or two. > >I am only the TD, who am I to decide what is going to keep the players > >happy. > > We are not discussing the matter of substitutes here in the ordinary > meaning of the term. We are discussing a movement. > Some TDs are capable of modifying movements. Some are not. When a TD says the movement will not allow for it, that TD usually means, I don't like the movement that will allow for it, or I want to be in the bar by 10.30, not playing all the boards that will have to be played for balance if only elligible players play. > > OK, since you are not permitting the TD to be right, let us suppose > that you are running a congress, and the sponsoring organisation is > present. As before, you get nineteen Ladies' Pairs and three Mens' > Pairs. You ask the sponsoring organisation [Congress Chairman, for > example]. You *must* include the men, you are told. Now what? > I do as I am told. I am a paid servant. I might well consider working for that SO in the future. > > >> I have agreed again that is a pair is telling lies to get in to > >> something he has no right to then it is reasonable to kick him out, but > >> I am trying to discuss a different scenario. > >> > >> In the Grand Masters case is one where they knew they did not qualify, > >> certainly. It is your view, is it, that if the EBU accepts their entry, > >> says they can play, that they should then expel them part way through? > > >As I understood this situation, and I will be corrected if I am wrong. The > >Welsh pair were invited to play to make the movement better. They not only > >were not members of the EBU, they did not pay an entry fee. I understand > >that there is one. > >If you and your partner were second, would you have preferred to play in the > >movement with a half table, or even two half tables? > >There is no guaarantee that you would have won, if this pair were not > >included, but I am sure you would be happier, if you considered the result > >was fair. > > Who is you? > You is the hypothetical you and your partner mentioned above :-) > > >I am happy that the Welsh were invited, and I hope they > will be again. There were no grumbles of any sort - why should there > be? The grumbles seem to be here. > There might not have been grumbles, but what if there had been? Players grumble with their feet, rather than appear to be unsporting I am afraid. > > > We are not only talking prestige, we are talking money prizes here. > > So what? The players are happy, the organisers are happy, everyone is > happy. > Isn't that nice. But are you sure? > > But now consider: suppose it had been the same case, and one pair was > not happy: what now? > What line of recourse do they have? They were not asked if the non-eligible players in the field was acceptable to them. They entered the competition on the understanding that they would abide by the CoC. It is acceptable to me that they should expect the SO to keep to it's side of the bargain. The SO has taken their money, the SO has entered into a contract. The players can demand a refund. The players can ask for the competition to be declared nul and void.The players can claim damage, they have taken time off work, they have incurred considerable expence. > -- Historically British Bridge players have not been a litigious lot, but the increasing trend for Bridge to be a man's livelihood means that as TDs we should be very careful that we do the right thing for the right reason. I do not think that "the movement" is ever the primary right reason :-) 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 Sat Nov 4 03:03:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3G2HT12129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 03:02:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA3G27t12125 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 03:02:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from p01s01a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.97.2] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13rLQn-000288-00; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 14:33:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c045af$61530d00$026193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A029763.893A4594@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 15:33:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0038_01C045AB.60861CE0" 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_0038_01C045AB.60861CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: 03 November 2000 10:45 Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > > I believe the direction is correct, but I still have one > remark. > > The formulation of L12C2 is one which insures that Os never > benefit from their infraction. The application of L12C3 > that was adopted at Maastricht does not. By giving "true > equity" and then (usually not) applying a penalty, the Os > has exactly the same expectancy + the chance that the > irregularity goes unnoticed. > > I am still in favour of giving "biased equity", by means of > nudging the percentages in the direction of NOs. > > After all, that principle is also found in L12C1, where NOs > are guaranteed 60%, which may be above their expected score. > > I don't believe that this is unfairly favourable towards > NOs. They did not choose to have opponents commit > irregularities against them and deserve IMHO some > compensation for the distress that was caused them. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > +=+ We do have a culture shock here, and I understand the different angles various people are coming in from. Some put the element of retribution at a higher priority than the element of redress; it stems from an ACBL attitude mainly; the mainstream EBL opinion in 1987 had a different priority and a desire not to change what Europeans found to work well. Ton is against it, but I know the EBL TAC has a policy to stay in line with the WBF as far as achievable although I am unsure whether this will mean a Eurotrend or a 1975-law inclination (see attachments). However, as to recent events the attachments to this email show the exact words I circulated prior to Maastricht and which led to the decision taken by the WBF TAC in the hands of the chairman of the meeting with Directors. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C045AB.60861CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="Note for the record.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Note for the record.txt" Note for the record My recommendation circulated to the Lausanne group prior to the=20 Maastricht Olympiad read as follows: "I would hope that the Lausanne Group will allow as=20 acceptable any of the three approaches to 12C3 score=20 adjustments of which we are aware. These are (1) one identified as the 'Colker' method; (2) one identified as the 'Euro-trend' and (3) the 1975 Laws scenario by which a single equitable score is assigned to both sides; for the non-offending side this should not=20 exceed what is needed to offset the damage (i.e. restore the balance of interests existing immediately before the irregularity), whilst the points awarded to the offending side may=20 be reduced by penalty points. Personally I find the 1975 procedure wholly satisfying, the Euro-trend=20 acceptable, and the Colker method too complicated. I would hope the=20 WBF would leave it to its own appeals committees to follow=20 domestically (2) or (3) as they think fit but leave the rest of the = world=20 free to pick up Richard's ideas if attracted to them. =20 ~ = Grattan ~ " =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------- [Note: no direct recommendation was made to the WBF TAC but its=20 President and two Committee Chairmen were all members of the now=20 defunct Lausanne Group. The Group had also received my earlier=20 document. In Maastricht without further discussion the adoption of (3)=20 was issued as an instruction from the chair in the TAC meeting with=20 Directors. ] =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C045AB.60861CE0 Content-Type: text/plain; name="The earlier document on Law 12C3 score adjustment.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="The earlier document on Law 12C3 score adjustment.txt" The earlier document on Law 12C3 score adjustment that was circulated to the Lausanne group. "I attach a statement by Richard Colker concerning the approach he has recommended to the ACBL. In looking for polite comment I thought of the word 'convoluted'. Anything that takes so many words* to explain, and then requires an explanation of the explanation, is a little beyond the simple-minded folk who inhabit appeals committees. Whilst I do not want the Lausanne group to withhold consent from the Colker method, I am increasingly convinced that the European trend is far simpler to understand, simpler to operate, and gives effective adjustments. Euro trend in the matter of 12C3. When an appeals committee deems it is fitting to take into account a number of potential results in a score adjustment they are combined in a single weighted score. The committee allots a percentage to the chances of each result to be taken into account. Wisely it leaves the Director to work out a single score so produced, which is awarded to both sides. In order to incline against the offending side, a 'margin of doubt' element is introduced: this entails first considering the result that is most favourable to the non-offending side and setting the percentage for this at a generous level, thereafter distributing the balance of percentages amongst the other results to be incorporated in the weighting. In practice this method is normally adopted if the application of 12C2 does not lead to a single score that the two sides will be awarded in common. It will be noted how this method was advocated and applied in the handling of appeals in Bellaria. Grattan Endicott Wednesday, 28 June 2000. " [* This document not quoted here since it ran to four pages; I added a fifth page in which TK set out his opinion, a hard copy of his email.] ------=_NextPart_000_0038_01C045AB.60861CE0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 04:24:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3HOGO12194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 04:24:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3HOAt12190 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 04:24:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4s5.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.133]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01215; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:23:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000901c045bb$81a44040$8513f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:28:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't think we are all lazy Bozos, but the director who brushed off Marv certainly was. Even if there were no other irregularity, the noise of the argument was clearly disturbing other contestants. I would immediately go to such a table and tell them to quiet down and assess PPs if they would not. While there, I would attempt to adjudicate anything they might ask me about. But then perhaps my flask wasn't empty with the director's free bar about to close. I suspect Marv's director has a picture of the three monkeys that he gazes at worshipfully. A director has a responsibility to keep a game running smoothly, and permitting loud arguing to escalate surely does not do this. What say others who direct? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 5:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking for > > irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include > > snooping around in search of one. > > > > I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But > "becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some > irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates > "should investigate". > > A traveller says 7Sp=, yet the Ace of spades is out. Do you > investigate? I do ! > > > It is common for the TD, when entering scores, to return to the floor > > with a strange-looking score slip and ask to see the convention > > (score) card of one or more of the players involved. S/he does this > > only to verify that the score was entered correctly ("to collect > > scores," per L81C10), and does not ask how the score was achieved > > unless there is disagreement among the players as to the right score. > > Well, isn't that investigating ? > If one pair says what happened to explain the strange score, > don't you check the other pair ? > > > If disagreement leads to a discussion that unmasks an irregularity, > > then the TD has "become aware" of it in an appopriate way, and can act > > upon it. > > > > Well, he has instigated the disagreement, hasn't he ? > > > On one occasion a loud argument regarding a revoke was taking place at > > a table near me. Seeing a TD nearby, I flagged her over and said, > > "It's none of my business, but I think they need your help at that > > table." > > > > "You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked > > away. Evidently "in any manner" doesn't include that manner. > > > > The fact that one TD did this can have two reasons : (a) it > is the right approach (b) the TD got it wrong. My money is > on (b). > > > I feel that L816C6 needs a clarification of "becomes aware in any > > manner," or different words, but I am unable to come up with a good > > suggestion. The only idea that comes to mind is "in any passive > > manner," but that's not very clear. > > > > Why ? Are we all lazy B***s ? > > > -- > 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 Nov 4 05:24:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3IORv12226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:24:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA3IOIt12222 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id W1KSAWCW; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:24:13 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 12:29:00 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" , "Marvin L. French" From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote, (snip) >On one occasion a loud argument regarding a revoke was taking place at >a table near me. Seeing a TD nearby, I flagged her over and said, >"It's none of my business, but I think they need your help at that >table." > >"You're right," she said, "it is none of your business," and walked >away. Evidently "in any manner" doesn't include that manner. > >I feel that L816C6 needs a clarification of "becomes aware in any >manner," or different words, but I am unable to come up with a good >suggestion. The only idea that comes to mind is "in any passive >manner," but that's not very clear. > >Marv (Marvin L. French) >mlfrench@writeme.com >San Diego, CA, USA The other table was causing annoyance to Marv, or interfering with his enjoyment of the game. So, a Law 74A2 violation, so far as Marv was concerned. So, it was his business. Bob Harris Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 06:11:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3JBDt12255 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:11:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA3JB9t12251 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:11:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ha056843 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 05:10:04 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-228-48.tmns.net.au ([203.54.228.48]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Relativistic-MailRouter V2.9c 5/189621); 04 Nov 2000 05:10:03 Message-ID: <035301c045c9$7f1e2940$30e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:08:48 +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 Grattan wrote: >"the art of interpretation is not to play what is >written." - Pablo Casals > ....... >...... We need to know what they made of *all* >the evidence before we can jump in and question >their decisions. Jesper's actual words were: "as if the facts were" in his original post. Thus I wasn't questioning their decision when I originally agreed with Jesper. Later it turned out that I also agreed with the DBF LC, after Jesper provided the actual facts presented to them. IMO BLML can usefully comment on a hypothetical part of a real AC case without commenting on the real decision at all. Is Casals referring to music? I just wondered because I'm unaware of anyone named Casals on the WBFLC, and I think the context of his quote is not bridge. :) Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 06:40:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3JcjR12271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:38:45 +1100 (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 eA3Jcdt12267 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 06:38:39 +1100 (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 OAA20194; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:38:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA101100311; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:38:31 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:38:29 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] hypothetical question Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be, rts48u@ix.netcom.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:38:29 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA3Jcft12268 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: I don't think we are all lazy Bozos, but the director who brushed off Marv certainly was. Even if there were no other irregularity, the noise of the argument was clearly disturbing other contestants. I would immediately go to such a table and tell them to quiet down and assess PPs if they would not. While there, I would attempt to adjudicate anything they might ask me about. But then perhaps my flask wasn't empty with the director's free bar about to close. I suspect Marv's director has a picture of the three monkeys that he gazes at worshipfully. A director has a responsibility to keep a game running smoothly, and permitting loud arguing to escalate surely does not do this. What say others who direct? ________________________________________________________________________ ____ I strictly apply ACBL Zero tolerance policy in my club and loudly arguing is clearly not allowed. A few weeks ago, I was called to a table by a "lady" who was back after her summer golf. She very loudly said: "This game is run like a fool one. Rounds are called before I have enough time to play boards. I will no more come here if it is like that." I gently explained that bridge is a timed event and that many players find that it is too slow. I always check time, and at this round (3rd one), they spent 22 minutes for each round instead of the expected 20. I then used the microphone and said: "I have a problem. Some players will like a slower game but others a faster one. I can dance a Cha-Cha, but nobody will be glad. Please, slow players loose no time. Faster ones, be patient. The same slow player called me when I called 4th round (25 min later) and loudly repeated I called the round too fast and she dont like to play like that. I keep quiet (God knows how). At the end of the session, I met her privately and told her (before she tried to repeat she will no more come in my club if I continue to direct like that)this kind of thing is not allowed (loudly crying out against TD). As the information about Zero tolerance is always on walls, she will no more be allowed to play in my club. "Est bien pris qui voulait prendre". Be sure this kind of decision is good for a club. Every body knows now, and many players told me they feel better because I realy apply Zero policy. I continue to have more than 30 tables... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 09:22:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3MLl412356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:21:47 +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 (f194.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA3MLgt12352 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 09:21:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 14:21:34 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 03 Nov 2000 22:21:34 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 14:21:34 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2000 22:21:34.0824 (UTC) FILETIME=[6CE5E680:01C045E4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pablo Casals is a very famous Spanish cellist/conductor. Probably 2nd in name recognition among cellists to Yo Yo Ma. Now if only oboists were as well known. -Todd >From: "Peter Gill" >Grattan wrote: > >"the art of interpretation is not to play what is > >written." - Pablo Casals > >Is Casals referring to music? I just wondered because >I'm unaware of anyone named Casals on the WBFLC, >and I think the context of his quote is not bridge. :) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Nov 4 10:20:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA3NIws12388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:18:58 +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 eA3NIqt12384 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 10:18:53 +1100 (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 13rq6i-0004Cf-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:18:49 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 23:17:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01c045ec$4df0d0c0$8f7b989e@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all I cannot see why this seems so controversial. Surely we know from partner's alert that we have a misunderstanding over the meaning of 2NT. This is UI. It doesn't tell me anything about his hand but it does tell me that he hasn't seriously considered raising to 3N on many hands on which I would want to be in 3N. This UI makes a 3N continuation much more attractive than it would be otherwise. (If all 2N misunderstandings made 3N equally attractive then I would concede that the previous statement is false, but I just cannot believe that. Ergo I have no choice but to pick up on pass as an LA. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: 02 November 2000 07:35 Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol [EDITING] >> >> The point at issue is that, whether 3C is the puppet response to >2NT, or >> whether 3C is an attempt to sign off facing a natural 2NT, *both* >> interpretations suggest that partner does not have enough to make >3NT. >> In the puppet case, partner can refuse to bid 3C, in which case 3N >is >> obvious. In the sign-off version partner can refuse to bid 3C in >which >> case 3N is obvious. None of this happened. >> -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 11:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA40RW312433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:32 +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 eA40RPt12426 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.44] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rrAy-000ALe-00; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:27:17 +0000 Message-ID: <00a401c045f5$fdb9f320$2c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <035301c045c9$7f1e2940$30e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:17:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The art of interpretation is not to play what is written." - Pablo Casals. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' > > > Is Casals referring to music? I just wondered because > I'm unaware of anyone named Casals on the WBFLC, > and I think the context of his quote is not bridge. :) > > Peter Gill > Australia. > +=+ I think it must be music. As far as I know he does not have a convention card. :-)) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 11:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA40RTk12432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA40RMt12423 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:27:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.44] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13rrB0-000ALe-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 00:27:19 +0000 Message-ID: <00a501c045f5$fee68c40$2c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com><001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona><001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Not long because....] Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:14:52 -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 " We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe." - Cardinal Newman. \|/ ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 1:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] > > I think it is one of the pities of BLML that we > often completely fail to answer a question as > asked. In this case it was clear: Jesper said > that although there were matters of fact to > be decided he wanted to pose a question > assuming that they were so. The question > was clearly theoretical and was interesting. > +=+ Mmmm.... but, as I read Jesper's original he began with an expression of his strong disagreement with a decision .... and then went on to invite comment relating in some way to that decision based upon a set of 'hypothetical' facts. The question was only theoretical if the hypothesis posed facts that were wholly unrelated to the case and were not Jesper's view of what the facts were in the case. If the latter the danger existed of leading us onto false ground since the only relevant facts then were the findings on which the decision was based. My 'probe' was in part to discover whether the question was "these are not the facts as they were determined by the committee, but suppose they had been, what do you think?". ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 4 12:49:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA41mDQ12525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA41m0t12510 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:01 +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 13rsQY-000Fbt-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:53:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@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: > > >> The Lille minute was not so much concerned >> with the angle of splitting the scores as with not >> allowing offenders to benefit from damage that >> occurs subsequent to the infraction and is in >> some way occasioned by it but is not deemed a >> consequence of the infraction. As far as I can see >> this is likely to be damage self-inflicted by the NOS. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > >Let me try to say this more precisely. The issue was not offenders >benefiting from damage. >Within the ACBL they know to take away unjust advantage gained. But before >Lille it happened by giving a procedural penalty. The reason being that the >laws seem to say that only if the non-offenders are damaged an adjusted >score may be given. The ACBL had good reason to understand 'damage' as >consequent damage. What we said in Lille was that damage here can be >consequent as well as subsequent, which opened the possibility to give an >adjusted score to the offenders even when the non-offenders took a bad score >by playing terrible bridge. > >The discussion about 12c3 goes in the same direction. For some reason not >known Grattan wants to stick to applying 12C3 in such a way that both sides >get the same adjusted score and then, automatically it seems, giving a >procedural penalty to the offenders, therewith taking away the too good >adjusted score. In fact one is saying that he is doing something he doesn't >agree with himself (stubbornness may be?). I don't like that, it seems >inconsistent with the approach we agreed in Lille and causes too many >procedural penalties. Somebody making a call after a hesitation when there >is a logical alternative, where a majority would make the same call should >not be penalised. >Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an >amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 >gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. > > >In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. Are you sure, Ton? The AC did not do what you are suggesting above, give L12C3 scores and routinely take advantage away from offenders by PP. Nor was that stated at the meeting as our approach. What we did was to give L12C3 scores to both sides with no penalty added [but perhaps with a little bias to make sure the NOs were not damaged] and then, if it merited it, giving a PP unrelated to the amount of damage. -- 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 Sat Nov 4 12:49:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA41mDT12526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA41m0t12509 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:00 +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 13rsQY-000Fbs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:47:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:48:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@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: >Ths most straightforwward one. L12C permits split scores (as has been >confirmed by the LCs), including no adjustment for the NOS, so there >is no need for the roundabout PP route to penalize the OS. A PP leaves >a possibly illegal result on the books, affecting the score of others, >and that's not right. Come on, Marv, stop trying to sneak things in while we are not looking. A PP is legal - the Laws say so - thus your views on the illegality of PPs are not relevant and should not be considered when deciding which way to decide something. It is just a scoring question. >I don't know the WBF's method of determining an appropriate PP, but >Rich Colker's (former) method was to assign a PP that had the same >effect on the OS's score as that of an appropriate adjusted score. >Surely the WBF would not take that illogical step. I doubt it - there was no suggestion that they would. However, I disagree with your basis: adjusting for one side in a different way from the other side is not "more straightforward" it is "less straightforward". The WBF approach means in effect that you work out a weighted score and apply it to both sides in the vast majority of cases, only doing something more [a PP] occasionally]. Using a different basis for the two sides is far more complicated and probably suffers from less acceptability as a result. -------- I gave a ruling in my own match last night and ruled for my own side [Shock, Horror!!!]. Better than it sounds, actually, since my opponent was Mike Swanson, EBU National TD, so we discussed it and agreed. He had played 4H-1, misguessing the trumps. Team-mates had defended 3S-2 being misinformed over the meaning of a double because it was not alerted: they argued they would have reached 4H. So we gave them 40% 4H= vS, NS +420 + 40% 3S-2 vW, NS +100 + 20% 4H-1 vS, NS -50 which meant +5.4 imps, rounded up to +6 [rounding in favour of the NOs] instead of the +4 that we would have got with keeping the table score. Both sides were very happy and the match went on. I do not believe that both sides would have been happy or even understood a score of Non-offenders get 40% 4H= vS, NS +420 + 40% 3S-2 vW, NS +100 + 20% 4H-1 vS, NS -50, ie +5.4 imps as above Offenders get 100% 4H= vS, NS +420, ie -10 imps Averaged it would come to +7.8 imps. Now, I know 8 imps is not far from 6 imps, but I do not think the approach would be as user-friendly, and I far prefer our approach. Of course, there was no penalty for forgetting the alert - our major problem with English alerts, it seems to me, concerns doubles, and this player had no idea why it should have been alerted. ---------- On another related matter, I am trying to get an accepted standard for a method of showing a L12C3 assigned score. Suppose we had changed it slightly to give 50% of 4H-1 and 10% of 3S-2. We show it in this order: 40% 4H= vS, NS +420 + 10% 3S-2 vW, NS +100 + 50% 4H-1 vS, NS -50 So we always show the scores as NS+ or NS-: we put each part of the score on a different line: we put the scores in order of N/S score. this last tends to be easiest for calculating the score. Note that I am not suggesting you abbreviate as I have done so. In reporting Appeals Herman thinks I abbreviate too much and he may be right: it is the format and the array. Thus the above could be expressed as 40% of 4 hearts making by South, NS +420 plus 10% of 3 spades minus two by West, NS +100 plus 50% of 4 hearts minus one by South, NS -50 Also note that if we do split the scores then I suggest a format such as Non-offenders get 40% 4H= vS, NS +420 + 40% 3S-2 vW, NS +100 + 20% 4H-1 vS, NS -50 Offenders get 100% 4H= vS, NS +420 The format was discussed with Herman at Maastricht and seems the clearest. Of course, instead of 'Non-offenders' get you could put something more descriptive, like 'Italy gets' or 'Colker gets'. -- 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 Sat Nov 4 12:49:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA41mCH12524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:12 +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-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 eA41m0t12511 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 12:48:01 +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 13rsQY-000Fbu-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 01:47:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 11:58:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A028EAA.6836F177@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: >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> >> As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking for >> irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include >> snooping around in search of one. >> > >I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But >"becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some >irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates >"should investigate". I agree with the interpretation, but it would never occur to me to investigate in the cited case. There is no evidence of an irregularity because someone has got to 1NT when the oppos can make two of a suit. -- 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 Sat Nov 4 16:25:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA45NKL12651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:23:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA45NEt12647 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:23:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA00362 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:18:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:22:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: >I agree with the interpretation, but it would never occur to me to >investigate in the cited case. There is no evidence of an irregularity >because someone has got to 1NT when the oppos can make two of a suit. I suppose looking for trouble in this way can create more problems than it solves, in the long run. I don't think, if I were a TD, I'd want to open that can of worms unless I had to do so - which is why I posed the question. :-) 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/AwUBOgOdPr2UW3au93vOEQLqpwCdFt2n8rxIJeSIme/ETXGfSgMHBNkAoP4i u95nlLMvvU1dMOS7Baj3kXJi =a7j8 -----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 Nov 4 17:02:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4625112690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:02:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA461wt12686 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 17:02:00 +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; Fri, 3 Nov 2000 21:59:13 -0800 Message-ID: <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 22:01:17 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >Ths most straightforwward one. L12C permits split scores (as has been > >confirmed by the LCs), including no adjustment for the NOS, so there > >is no need for the roundabout PP route to penalize the OS. A PP leaves > >a possibly illegal result on the books, affecting the score of others, > >and that's not right. > > Come on, Marv, stop trying to sneak things in while we are not > looking. A PP is legal - the Laws say so - thus your views on the > illegality of PPs are not relevant and should not be considered when > deciding which way to decide something. It is just a scoring question. I didn't say that PPs are illegal, and have never said so. L90 is on the books. I am not addressing the matter of using L90 in illegal ways, which you seem to think I'm getting at. I'm saving that for the future, be prepared. No, what I am saying here is that when L12C2/3 prescribes an assigned score for the OS, then using a PP to get around assigning that result isn't right, because it (legally) puts an illegal result on the scoresheet, adversely affecting other law-abiding pairs. Rich Colker used to do that, thinking he had to, but he knows now that it is neither necessary nor desirable. > > >I don't know the WBF's method of determining an appropriate PP, but > >Rich Colker's (former) method was to assign a PP that had the same > >effect on the OS's score as that of an appropriate adjusted score. > >Surely the WBF would not take that illogical step. > > I doubt it - there was no suggestion that they would. However, I > disagree with your basis: adjusting for one side in a different way from > the other side is not "more straightforward" it is "less > straightforward". What I meant was that the straightforward approach is to use L12C2/3 without the complication of resorting to a PP for help. Split scores are legal, even mandated (when appropriate) by L12C2, so what's the problem? > The WBF approach means in effect that you work out a > weighted score and apply it to both sides in the vast majority of cases, > only doing something more [a PP] occasionally]. Using a different basis > for the two sides is far more complicated and probably suffers from less > acceptability as a result. Unbalanced score assignments, giving the worst of it to the offenders and the benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, seems more straightforward on this side of the ocean. Maybe it's a culture thing. We don't care if lawbreakers are upset by a prescribed adjustment, and we want the result we might have obtained in the absence of an infraction. And most of the time the assigned scores balance, of course. As for the rest, I am only addressing pair games. I have no opinions about team scoring at imps. 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 Nov 4 19:18:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA48HWU12751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:17:32 +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 eA48HPt12747 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:17:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.140] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13ryVt-000GUE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 04 Nov 2000 08:17:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c04637$a938ee40$8c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 08:16:21 -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 " We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe." - Cardinal Newman. \|/ ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >Let me try to say this more precisely. The issue was not offenders > >benefiting from damage. > > > >Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an > >amendment. I understand that Grattan doesn't like 12C2 and by using 12C3 > >gets the possibility of ignoring 12C2. That seems wrong to me. > > > > > >In my opinion the AC in Maastricht went in the wrong direction. > > Are you sure, Ton? The AC did not do what you are suggesting above, > give L12C3 scores and routinely take advantage away from offenders by > PP. Nor was that stated at the meeting as our approach. > > What we did was to give L12C3 scores to both sides with no penalty > added [but perhaps with a little bias to make sure the NOs were not > damaged] and then, if it merited it, giving a PP unrelated to the amount > of damage. > +=+ As I said yesterday, the WBF tends to point its ACs in a given direction and then leave them free to develop a style through precedents. The Chairman gave no guidance on size of penalty and he used 'may' in regard to awarding the PP possibly picking up from the papers circulated my quote of the 1975 law. He did not explain. My personal thought would be that the amount of the PP should reflect the degree to which the infraction deserves punishment: is it thoughtless, ill-judged, serious, heinous? My personal distaste for 12C2 is largely that I see it operating more harshly, for example, on a player who culpably misjudges a slam hand than it does on one who flagrantly offends on a part score hand. The EBL objection in 1987 was to the change from substituting an equitable table score in place of the one obtained through the infraction to the award of split scores calculated in terms felt to be extreme. I still find that objection a valid one too, but I do wonder if the WBF ACs may be omitting the PP a little more often than appropriate. ~ 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 Nov 4 19:18:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA48Ipw12763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:18:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA48Ijt12759 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 19:18:46 +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, 4 Nov 2000 00:16:06 -0800 Message-ID: <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:18:08 -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 Herman De Wael wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking for > > irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include > > snooping around in search of one. > > > > I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But > "becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some > irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates > "should investigate". > Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he has become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, despite L81C6. The line is hard to draw, but I think the principle is that the TD does not intrude into the game uninvited in order to rectify an infraction s/he spots that involves bidding or play of the cards. S/he seeks to correct likely or known scoring errors, but does not question a signed legal score only because it is unique. That would be snooping, which is going too far. 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 Nov 5 01:45:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4Ehkc12904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:43:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA4Ehdt12900 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:43:40 +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 13s4Xd-0001LQ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 14:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: <33mMcSGHs4A6EwU4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 04:05:27 +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> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@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" >> So what? The players are happy, the organisers are happy, everyone is >> happy. >> >Isn't that nice. But are you sure? Yes, I am sure. It would be obvious enough to me if there was a disaffected pair in the Grand Masters. Furthermore, I find it incredible to believe that they would have any such objection anyway - I cannot see why. >> But now consider: suppose it had been the same case, and one pair was >> not happy: what now? >> >What line of recourse do they have? They were not asked if the non-eligible >players in the field was acceptable to them. They entered the competition on >the understanding that they would abide by the CoC. It is acceptable to me >that they should expect the SO to keep to it's side of the bargain. The SO >has taken their money, the SO has entered into a contract. >The players can demand a refund. The players can ask for the competition to >be declared nul and void.The players can claim damage, they have taken time >off work, they have incurred considerable expence. Interesting. I do not agree with this at all, and I doubt that a court would either. If a reasonable decision is made without malice by the sponsoring organisation, what is wrong with that? >Historically British Bridge players have not been a litigious lot, but the >increasing trend for Bridge to be a man's livelihood means that as TDs we >should be very careful that we do the right thing for the right reason. >I do not think that "the movement" is ever the primary right reason :-) The movement per se, of course not. But I dislike seriously upsetting players: you seem happier to do so. -- 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 Sun Nov 5 03:12:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4GBWA12979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:11:32 +1100 (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 eA4GBQt12975 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.9.63]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001104161122.ORSM283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:11:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c0467a$6ad3e540$3f09ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@vnmvhhid> <33mMcSGHs4A6EwU4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:15:14 -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, November 04, 2000 4:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > anne.jones1 wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> So what? The players are happy, the organisers are happy, everyone is > >> happy. > >> > >Isn't that nice. But are you sure? > > Yes, I am sure. It would be obvious enough to me if there was a > disaffected pair in the Grand Masters. Furthermore, I find it > incredible to believe that they would have any such objection anyway - I > cannot see why. > > >> But now consider: suppose it had been the same case, and one pair was > >> not happy: what now? > >> > >What line of recourse do they have? They were not asked if the non-eligible > >players in the field was acceptable to them. They entered the competition on > >the understanding that they would abide by the CoC. It is acceptable to me > >that they should expect the SO to keep to it's side of the bargain. The SO > >has taken their money, the SO has entered into a contract. > >The players can demand a refund. The players can ask for the competition to > >be declared nul and void.The players can claim damage, they have taken time > >off work, they have incurred considerable expence. > > Interesting. I do not agree with this at all, and I doubt that a > court would either. If a reasonable decision is made without malice by > the sponsoring organisation, what is wrong with that? > > >Historically British Bridge players have not been a litigious lot, but the > >increasing trend for Bridge to be a man's livelihood means that as TDs we > >should be very careful that we do the right thing for the right reason. > >I do not think that "the movement" is ever the primary right reason :-) > > The movement per se, of course not. But I dislike seriously upsetting > players: you seem happier to do so. > Not true David. I am very good at keeping the players happy. 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 Nov 5 03:21:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4GKr413002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:20:53 +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 eA4GKlt12998 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 03:20:47 +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 LAA03583 for ; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:20:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA19258 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:20:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 11:20:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011041620.LAA19258@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > Some pairs ... even play that there > is no invitational 2NT response to 1NT - you simply jump > to 3NT instead. This may be carrying the theory a bit far. "May," but I don't think so. Alex Martelli's simulations have convinced me that the natural, invitational 2NT over a 1NT opening (with a 3-point range) is a net loser. (With the low end of the former invitational range, you pass, of course, jumping to 3NT only with the upper end of the range.) Even if the above theory is correct, it may not apply to more complex auctions. For example, it may be worth risking 2NT as a worst case if there is sufficient upside in exploration (e.g. Stayman). Competitive auctions are even more complicated. But given the agreement we have been told ("2NT is never natural"), I wouldn't expect 2NT to show even the slightest hint of invitational values, and thus partner's 3C bid could include quite a good hand. This clearly suggests 3NT over pass. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 5 05:04:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4I3cu13083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA4I3Qt13072 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:26 +1100 (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 13s7ex-0005dB-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:03:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:05:48 +0000 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: 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: >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. This one did not get much of an answer, though there are inferences in some of the other answers. So I take it that you accept that the TD must deal with it. Let us summarise: the more vocal of you object to TDs making reasoned decisions where there are problems in running the event otherwise, though you do not really seem to suggest attempting to disqualify. if a player is playing because he has lied to the Director or SO, then we would all disqualify him. OK? Third: Now, Law 4 itself. Forget *who* decides, which is another matter. I say that Law 4 does not disallow a regulating authority from letting one member of a team substitute for another whenever the RA deems acceptable. Why do some of you disagree, please? -- 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 Sun Nov 5 05:04:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4I3ci13084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA4I3Ot13070 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:25 +1100 (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 13s7ex-000CZ4-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:03:20 +0000 Message-ID: <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 16:00:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@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: >Herman De Wael wrote: >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> > >> > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking >for >> > irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include >> > snooping around in search of one. >> > >> >> I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But >> "becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some >> irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates >> "should investigate". >> >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he has >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, >despite L81C6. Before Kojak launches himself into the fray, his advice, which I find totally convincing, is to wait until the next board has started, and then deal with the revoke. Certainly you have to do something about the revoke, otherwise you have just disobeyed L81C6. >The line is hard to draw, but I think the principle is that the TD >does not intrude into the game uninvited in order to rectify an >infraction s/he spots that involves bidding or play of the cards. S/he >seeks to correct likely or known scoring errors, but does not question >a signed legal score only because it is unique. That would be >snooping, which is going too far. It is right to question a legal score if you believe it to be wrong. But the example is not suitable: if a pair play 1NT on a board when the oppos can make 2C or 2D and you think you should investigate that then you will be investigating strange results on 88% of all boards. However, it is right to query -620 among +620s, for example. -- 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 Sun Nov 5 05:04:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA4I3cB13082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA4I3Ot13071 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 05:03:25 +1100 (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 13s7ex-000CZ3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:03:21 +0000 Message-ID: <8Aw1CNAFFDB6EwOw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 15:54:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@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 Stevenson wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >Ths most straightforwward one. L12C permits split scores (as has >been >> >confirmed by the LCs), including no adjustment for the NOS, so >there >> >is no need for the roundabout PP route to penalize the OS. A PP >leaves >> >a possibly illegal result on the books, affecting the score of >others, >> >and that's not right. >> >> Come on, Marv, stop trying to sneak things in while we are not >> looking. A PP is legal - the Laws say so - thus your views on the >> illegality of PPs are not relevant and should not be considered when >> deciding which way to decide something. It is just a scoring >question. > >I didn't say that PPs are illegal, and have never said so. L90 is on >the books. I am not addressing the matter of using L90 in illegal >ways, which you seem to think I'm getting at. I'm saving that for the >future, be prepared. > >No, what I am saying here is that when L12C2/3 prescribes an assigned >score for the OS, then using a PP to get around assigning that result >isn't right, because it (legally) puts an illegal result on the >scoresheet, adversely affecting other law-abiding pairs. Rich Colker >used to do that, thinking he had to, but he knows now that it is >neither necessary nor desirable. I know what you are saying, Marv, because you have just said it again: "putting an illegal result on the scoresheet". But it is not illegal. It may be undesirable - that is what this thread is about - but it is not illegal. >> >I don't know the WBF's method of determining an appropriate PP, but >> >Rich Colker's (former) method was to assign a PP that had the same >> >effect on the OS's score as that of an appropriate adjusted score. >> >Surely the WBF would not take that illogical step. >> >> I doubt it - there was no suggestion that they would. However, I >> disagree with your basis: adjusting for one side in a different way >from >> the other side is not "more straightforward" it is "less >> straightforward". > >What I meant was that the straightforward approach is to use L12C2/3 >without the complication of resorting to a PP for help. Split scores >are legal, even mandated (when appropriate) by L12C2, so what's the >problem? > >> The WBF approach means in effect that you work out a >> weighted score and apply it to both sides in the vast majority of >cases, >> only doing something more [a PP] occasionally]. Using a different >basis >> for the two sides is far more complicated and probably suffers from >less >> acceptability as a result. > >Unbalanced score assignments, giving the worst of it to the offenders >and the benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, seems more >straightforward on this side of the ocean. Maybe it's a culture thing. >We don't care if lawbreakers are upset by a prescribed adjustment, and >we want the result we might have obtained in the absence of an >infraction. And most of the time the assigned scores balance, of >course. Not if you are using L12C3, they won't. When you get an MI case it will become the norm to adjust via L12C3 because of the lack of certainty of what would happen otherwise. In the WBF approach the two sides will balance, certainly, but in the Burn/Colker approach they will never balance. Of course, you could use an approach where you balance the scores via L12C3 unless you think the Os should have known better, and then you use Burn/Colker as an alternative to a PP for the Os. I have rather more sympathy for that, but that is not what has been suggested. >As for the rest, I am only addressing pair games. I have no opinions >about team scoring at imps. Why should it be different? -- 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 Sun Nov 5 12:28:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA51Pvc13278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:25:57 +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 eA51Pnt13274 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:25:51 +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 13sEZ7-000LCF-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:25:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 18:50:02 +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> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@vnmvhhid> <33mMcSGHs4A6EwU4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001901c0467a$6ad3e540$3f09ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001901c0467a$6ad3e540$3f09ff3e@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" >> The movement per se, of course not. But I dislike seriously upsetting >> players: you seem happier to do so. >Not true David. I am very good at keeping the players happy. In general I do not disagree. But I do not really believe you have kept six players happy whom you have sent home. -- 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 Sun Nov 5 12:57:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA51v7R13311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:57:07 +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 eA51uqt13298 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:56:52 +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 13sF39-000CdB-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:56:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:49:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Fw: [BLML] Toughie from the Acol References: <200011041620.LAA19258@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011041620.LAA19258@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 <200011041620.LAA19258@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Peter Gill" >> Some pairs ... even play that there >> is no invitational 2NT response to 1NT - you simply jump >> to 3NT instead. This may be carrying the theory a bit far. > >"May," but I don't think so. Alex Martelli's simulations have >convinced me that the natural, invitational 2NT over a 1NT opening >(with a 3-point range) is a net loser. (With the low end of the former >invitational range, you pass, of course, jumping to 3NT only with the >upper end of the range.) > >Even if the above theory is correct, it may not apply to more complex >auctions. For example, it may be worth risking 2NT as a worst case if >there is sufficient upside in exploration (e.g. Stayman). Competitive >auctions are even more complicated. But given the agreement we have >been told ("2NT is never natural"), I wouldn't expect 2NT to show even >the slightest hint of invitational values, and thus partner's 3C bid >could include quite a good hand. This clearly suggests 3NT over pass. I think this argument is just enough to convince me. Even so there are no sensible constructions I can make where 2N can be anything less than some degree of club fit with a decent 10 count. -- 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 Sun Nov 5 12:57:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA51v3A13309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:57:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA51uqt13297 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:56:52 +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 13sF39-000CdA-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:56:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:45:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Todd Zimnoch writes >Pablo Casals is a very famous Spanish cellist/conductor. Probably 2nd in >name recognition among cellists to Yo Yo Ma. Now if only oboists were as >well known. > There was a photo exhibition at the Barbican, London, showing pictures of great players in the early 90's. In the exhibition there was a pic of Casals taken from behind with his cello sticking over his shoulder. Every day a man came, and sat down and looked at the picture for a couple of hours. Eventually a security guard approached him. "Shh! I'm listening to the music" >-Todd > >>From: "Peter Gill" -- 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 Sun Nov 5 12:57:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA51v3U13310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:57:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA51uqt13299 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:56:52 +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 13sF39-000CdC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:56:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 01:52:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French wrote: >>Herman De Wael wrote: >>> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >>> > >>> > As I understand it, L81C6 doesn't authorize the TD to go looking >>for >>> > irregularities, as "becomes aware in any manner" doesn't include >>> > snooping around in search of one. >>> > >>> >>> I believe it does. Well, not snooping exactly. But >>> "becomes aware" includes this kind of thing. There is some >>> irregularity, so the TD may investigate, which to me equates >>> "should investigate". >>> >>Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he has >>become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, >>despite L81C6. > > Before Kojak launches himself into the fray, his advice, which I find >totally convincing, is to wait until the next board has started, and >then deal with the revoke. Certainly you have to do something about the >revoke, otherwise you have just disobeyed L81C6. > I am convinced this is the correct thing to do. Dammit, I've just got myself a judgement ruling. L64C. cheers john -- 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 Sun Nov 5 13:08:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5283g13350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:08:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA527vt13346 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:07:57 +1100 (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 13sFDq-000ARb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 02:07:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 02:06:04 +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> <200010282202.SAA20893@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20001101032711.01000920@mail.a2000.nl> <7EE0D4AQPXA6EwHp@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004901c044fc$9dc8be00$ed04ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c0459e$c5aef220$2108ff3e@vnmvhhid> <33mMcSGHs4A6EwU4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001901c0467a$6ad3e540$3f09ff3e@vnmvhhid> 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 >anne.jones1 wrote: >>From: "David Stevenson" > >>> The movement per se, of course not. But I dislike seriously upsetting >>> players: you seem happier to do so. > >>Not true David. I am very good at keeping the players happy. > > In general I do not disagree. But I do not really believe you have >kept six players happy whom you have sent home. > Sigh. 22 pairs. 7 table Mitchell, 4 Table Howell, stick a man as pair 4 in each line and run a double session of 14 boards, with 2 arrow switches in the Mitchell each session. Explain to the wimmin they are all going to play against two male pairs and this is the best we can do. "If anyone really objects I'll be happy to refund their table money" "Now let's play bridge which is why we're all here" -- 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 Sun Nov 5 13:19:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA52IfM13371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:18:41 +1100 (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 eA52Iat13367 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:18:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.94.224] (helo=davidburn) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 13sFOB-0002W5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 02:18:31 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c046ce$40e91bc0$e05e073e@davidburn> From: "David Burn" To: References: <+AdxgZAzSr+5Ewbg@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 02:15:21 -0000 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > > 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. This is a non-question in the context of the original problem. There were relevant conditions of contest; there was a relevant Law. The TD on the particular occasion had to do no more than interpret both of them correctly. The relevant Law is Law 4; the relevant conditions of contest were those that (by default) defined a session for the purposes of the event in question. This does not mean that I think the answer to the question above is "no". I think that the question above is wholly irrelevant as far as the original problem was concerned. It is an emotional appeal based on the "cult of the Director", no more. It flies in the face of both sense and the facts. > This one did not get much of an answer, though there are inferences in > some of the other answers. So I take it that you accept that the TD > must deal with it. No, of course I don't. If the question is: may this player play these four boards (as was the question in the event), then I expect the TD not to have to make any kind of judgement decision at all. The Law is clear, and so are the CoC. If the TD tries to "deal with it" outwith the Laws and the regulations, then the TD is acting both ultra vires and absurdly. > Let us summarise: the more vocal of you object to TDs making reasoned > decisions where there are problems in running the event otherwise, > though you do not really seem to suggest attempting to disqualify. This is more emotional blether. There would have been no problem in ruling that the team should continue with the four players who had, after all, played the rest of the event. There would have been a substantial problem in ruling that the team should be permitted an illegal replacement of a player. What I object to is the TD's feeling that he has any kind of a "decision" to make in positions where the rules are obvious. If an event is run with two half-tables, that is life. If an event is run with players participating who ought not to be participating, that is illegal, and just because the TD condones it, that does not make it legal. > if a > player is playing because he has lied to the Director or SO, then we > would all disqualify him. OK? No, no. If the TD lets him play, that is the TD's decision, which we all should accept. After all, either he may just have got off the boat or the TD may have done. For pity's sake. > Third: Now, Law 4 itself. Forget *who* decides, which is another > matter. I say that Law 4 does not disallow a regulating authority from > letting one member of a team substitute for another whenever the RA > deems acceptable. Why do some of you disagree, please? Because Law 4 says nothing about letting one member of a team replace another willy-nilly. Instead, it explicitly says that this may not happen "throughout a session". Where the Director may authorise a substitute player (which can happen only under Law 16), Law 4 is temporarily suspended. Otherwise, it is the Law. The "substitute" appointed under Law 16B2 is a "temporary" one; such a substitute may obviously not be a permanent one, such as another member of the team might be. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 5 15:41:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA54eel13460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:40:40 +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.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 eA54eYt13456 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:40:35 +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, 4 Nov 2000 20:37:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00ec01c046e2$70eff0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 20:36:54 -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 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ As I said yesterday, the WBF tends to point its > ACs in a given direction and then leave them free to > develop a style through precedents. The Chairman > gave no guidance on size of penalty and he used > 'may' in regard to awarding the PP possibly picking > up from the papers circulated my quote of the > 1975 law. He did not explain. Excuse my ignorance, but will someone please tell me who "The Chairman" was? Surely not "The BOB" again? Why the anonymity? > My personal thought would be that the amount > of the PP should reflect the degree to which the > infraction deserves punishment: is it thoughtless, > ill-judged, serious, heinous? "The Laws are primarly designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." That is why the title of L90 was corrected in 1975 from "Disciplinary Penalties" to "Procedural Penalties," with no material change of content. It is also why a ninth example of offenses subject to a PP, "Any improper or discourteous behavior," was dropped from L90B in 1987. That offense is grounds for discipline, does not involve a "procedure," and hence had no place in L90. This despite the changed title of L74C (from "Breaches in Propriety" to "Violations of Procedure") that was snuck in by somebody in 1997. David will now expostulate. > My personal distaste > for 12C2 is largely that I see it operating more > harshly, for example, on a player who culpably > misjudges a slam hand than it does on one who > flagrantly offends on a part score hand. Like the revoke law, which penalizes inadvertent and deliberate revokes in the same way, leaving the latter to disciplinary action. Are you really going to look for motivation or inadvertency in determining the penalty for every offense? > The > EBL objection in 1987 was to the change from > substituting an equitable table score in place > of the one obtained through the infraction to > the award of split scores calculated in terms > felt to be extreme. Split scores were permissible prior to 1987. It is true there was a change from giving perceived equity to the NOS to a more generous adjustment. Evidently the lawmakers felt that awarding perceived equity without sufficient benefit of doubt was unfair to the non-offenders, who are deprived of the chance to do much better than that. Opponents do blunder occasionally. The score assigned to the OS was supposed to offset any gain from the infraction, perhaps reduced by "penalty points" (in the form of total points prior to matchpointing, or by the assignment of zero or more matchpoints). This was pretty vague. The new L12C2 provided more explicit instructions that ensured the OS did not profit from the infraction. Whether that is "extreme" or not seems to be a matter of taste, or of one's culture. > I still find that objection a > valid one too, but I do wonder if the WBF ACs > may be omitting the PP a little more often than > appropriate. No comment. 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 Nov 5 17:03:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA562Ir13528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:02:18 +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 eA562Bt13524 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:02:12 +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, 4 Nov 2000 21:59:32 -0800 Message-ID: <00f101c046ed$d854bf40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <8Aw1CNAFFDB6EwOw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:01:23 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > I know what you are saying, Marv, because you have just said it again: > "putting an illegal result on the scoresheet". But it is not illegal. > It may be undesirable - that is what this thread is about - but it is > not illegal. You don't know what I am saying. I am referring to a score that was attained thru illegal means, which is an illegal score. The ACBL's former practice was to put that illegal score on the books, matchpoint everyone against that score, and then penalize with a PP. That was legal, but unfair to the field in a pair event. If the WBF AC policy is to allow that sort of thing, it's not right. Get the difference? Putting an illegal score on the books is legal, but it just isn't right. > > >Unbalanced score assignments, giving the worst of it to the offenders > >and the benefit of doubt to the non-offenders, seems more > >straightforward on this side of the ocean. Maybe it's a culture thing. > >We don't care if lawbreakers are upset by a prescribed adjustment, and > >we want the result we might have obtained in the absence of an > >infraction. And most of the time the assigned scores balance, of > >course. > > Not if you are using L12C3, they won't. When you get an MI case it > will become the norm to adjust via L12C3 because of the lack of > certainty of what would happen otherwise. In the WBF approach the two > sides will balance, certainly, but in the Burn/Colker approach they will > never balance. > > Of course, you could use an approach where you balance the scores via > L12C3 unless you think the Os should have known better, and then you use > Burn/Colker as an alternative to a PP for the Os. I have rather more > sympathy for that, but that is not what has been suggested. This L12C3 talk is confusing to me. Everyone is saying something different, and I'm not smart enough to sort it all out. I only know L12C2, and I know that if someone bids 4S off one over a 4H bid because of UI, and 4H had a fair chance of making, the score is returned to +/- the score for 4H. Simple, and balanced. And if 4H had only a small chance of making, the adjustments might be unbalanced (an infrequent thing), +100 for the NOS and -620 for the OS. Also simple. We have a Player Report over here for reporting highly questionable actions. There is no need for the TD or AC to get involved in that aspect of an infraction, because the Recorder takes care of it. It seems to be a good system, and I recommend it to other ZAs. Rich Colker is the expert on this subject, and he will be glad to explain the process to anyone interested. As to MI cases, L40C doesn't require certainty, nor does L12C2. A simple opinion suffices. Look at Maastricht Appeal No. 1, an MI case adjudicated using L12C3 with this result: Score adjusted to 80% of 5NT+1 by North, NS +690, 20% of 5NT-2, NS - 200 to both sides. That's too complicated for us commoners, who would use L12C2 for +/-200. (Don't give East a 100% club lead??? Come on! This is imps, not matchpoints.) Appeals Committe: Bobby Wolff (Chairman, USA), David Stevenson (Scribe, England), Joan Gerard (USA), Jean-Paul Meyer (France), Jeffrey Polisner (USA) For a look, go to http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/maastrict.htm ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- > > >As for the rest, I am only addressing pair games. I have no opinions > >about team scoring at imps. > > Why should it be different? > I didn't say they should be different, I said I have no opinions about 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 Nov 5 17:14:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA56EVV13545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:14:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA56EPt13541 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:14:26 +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, 4 Nov 2000 22:11:40 -0800 Message-ID: <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 22:13:33 -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 From: "David Stevenson" Marvin L. French wrote: > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he has > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, > >despite L81C6. > > Before Kojak launches himself into the fray, his advice, which I find > totally convincing, is to wait until the next board has started, and > then deal with the revoke. Certainly you have to do something about the > revoke, otherwise you have just disobeyed L81C6. > But you would be giving help to a pair in a way that is not generally available to everyone. That can't be right. L81C begins with "normally include" and lists certain duties and powers. Maybe this is not a normal situation. 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 Nov 5 18:40:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA57dQw13584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:39:26 +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 eA57dKt13580 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 18:39:20 +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; Sat, 4 Nov 2000 23:36:40 -0800 Message-ID: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , Subject: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2000 23:38:29 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk After a year of mulling over the Chicken and Egg problem, AKA the Merry-Go-Round, with much helpful correspondence back and forth with Eric Landau, Steve Willner, Bill Segraves, Danny Kleinman, Gary Blaiss, and others, I have come up with the following recommendation to the ACBL Laws Commission. This is still a draft, so comments are welcome. I am only trying to clarify the intent of the current ELECTION, not to create something new, so please no comments as to the advisability of that intent. The final version must be complete by the time of the Birmingham NABC this month, when I plan to submit it to Chip Martel and Ralph Cohen for ACBLLC consideration. One of the "ELECTIONS BY THE ACBL BOARD OF DIRECTORS" in the back page of the Laws concerns L40E: Law 40E. Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card. 1. During a session of play, a system may not be varied without the Director's permission. (A Director might allow a pair to change a convention but would not allow a pair to change their basic system.) 2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This must be announced to the opponents. The opponents may not vary their system after being informed of these alterations in defense. Comment: The last sentence of the ELECTION implies the principle that a pair may not have methods that vary according to the countermeasures used against them. This should be explicitly stated, along with a statement that variances due to individual style and judgment are permissible (L40E). My proposed wording for the ELECTION: Law 40E. Both members of a partnership must employ the system described on their equivalent convention cards. 1. The system may not be changed during a session of play. A Director might allow (or require) a pair to make a minor change for good cause, but not to change their basic system. 2. A system may vary only according to vulnerability, position in the auction, or in reaction to different opposing methods. Reactive variances may be added or modified when encountering a new method, and must be announced to the opponents. Variances of methods based on anticipation of opposing reactions to them are not permitted. 3. Variations of system due to individual style and judgment, provided they stay within the bounds of what appears on the convention card, or are not the subject of a special partnership understanding, are permissible. ************************ Clarifications to be published elsewhere: A system is the total of a partnership's understandings, implicit or explicit, special or not, regarding both bidding and play. A reaction to an opposing method is one that follows the method. Varying a system in ways that anticipate opposing reactions is not permitted. For instance, a system may include penalty doubles against very light overcallers only, but not very light overcalls against negative doublers only. Among actions based on style and judgment are those that reflect aggressiveness or conservatism within the disclosed ranges (i.e., strength, length, distribution) of partnership agreements. Such actions are not subject to regulation (Law 40E1). Actions that fall outside a disclosed range, if expected by partner, constitute an illegal system change. For instance, a player may judge to use more conservative or more aggressive opening preeempts against some pairs, but not to the extent that his opening preempts are not accurately described (Sound, Light, or Very Light) on the convention card. When playing multiple ranges for a method, a permissible condition (e.g., vul, 3rd seat) must be shown for each range. -- 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 Nov 5 19:21:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA58Lbi13638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:21:37 +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 eA58LVt13634 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:21:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.76] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sL3P-000AAs-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c04701$670e3e60$4c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:19:52 -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 " We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe." - Cardinal Newman. \|/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 6:01 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) -------------- \x/ -------------- > > Unbalanced score assignments, giving the worst > of it to the offenders and the benefit of doubt to > the non-offenders, seems more straightforward > on this side of the ocean. Maybe it's a culture > thing. We don't care if lawbreakers are upset > by a prescribed adjustment, > +=+ Do you not think some of your 'offenders' may be players who are genuinely trying to do the right thing but misjudge their action? If there are such players do you think it is best to treat them with the same rigorous severity as you do players with a lesser regard for the ethics of the game? The culture thing may stem from the question whether the Director/AC should start from a position of wishing to believe that an 'offender' has simply misjudged his action, and that the fact of the violation alone is not proof of malice, to be persuaded of which there should be some further small weight in the scales of justice? It is not simply an East-West divide. Although more prevalent amongst what I learn of ACBL members, there are those in England, Europe and other places, whose attitude on malicious intent seems to be "guilty unless proven innocent". I feel that the ACBL drafting committee introduced this into the laws when it proposed, and succeeded in obtaining, 12C2. The price for which was the option given to the EBL via the footnote that later became 12C3. As ton has observed, I retain the EBL attitude that led to the footnote; I do believe that justice is served on many occasions by restoration of equity with no specific element of penalty, and I do not think equity is the aim of 12C2. So I agree with ton that the first law to apply is 12C2 but I also believe that as soon as it fails to produce for both pairs the equity that existed prior to the irregularity one should move on quickly to 12C3, whilst still retaining the power of a PP to deal when appropriate with the offence (increasingly appropriate the higher the level 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 Sun Nov 5 19:32:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA58Wj713651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:32:45 +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 eA58Wdt13647 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.95] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sLEC-000AHL-00; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 08:32:36 +0000 Message-ID: <003001c04702$f5694f00$4c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 08:30:04 -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 " We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe." - Cardinal Newman. \|/ ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 1:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > In article , Todd Zimnoch > writes > >Pablo Casals is a very famous Spanish >> cellist/conductor. Probably 2nd in > name recognition among cellists to >> Yo Yo Ma > +=+ To quote many an eminent judge: "Who is Yo Yo Ma?" :-) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 5 21:30:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5ATmh13726 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:29:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA5ATit13722 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ra528337 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:23:18 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-218-57.tmns.net.au ([203.54.218.57]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Applicable-MailRouter V2.9c 11/1670483); 05 Nov 2000 20:23:17 Message-ID: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:21:00 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > In general I do not disagree. But I do not really believe you >have kept six players happy whom you have sent home. I don't think they'd have been too thrilled to play in the Women's field either. IMO there wasn't a solution which kept everyone happy. 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 Mon Nov 6 00:46:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5DjPZ13889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:45:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5DjIt13885 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 00:45:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-169.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.169]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA16015; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:45:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 12:04:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eitan Levy , Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy wrote: > > I am sending this to DWS, Herman and John, and it follows from John's > excellent article on L12c3 varied scores in match point scoring. (Should I > also send it to BLML??) I don't see why not - I'm sending my reply to blml, in any case. > > What about L12C3 and Butler-type IMP scoring? > Let's assume we have 13 results. We ignore the two highest, say +800 and > +660, and the two lowest, say -200 and -500, in order to calculate the > mean from the 9 remaining scores. There is no single standard for these discards. Personally, I find 13 scores a bit soon to be discarding 2 each side. In my form of Butler, there are always 10% of discards. That would mean that you discard the +800 and the -500, as well as 30% of the +660 and the -200. Which means adding 70% of those (+462 and -140) to the total and dividing by 10.4 (80% of 13) > Now one of the (previous)middle scores is > changed by L12C3 ruling, say 60% of +690 and 40% of something else. > Two questions: > 1. How does the above case affect the discarded results and therefore the > average? Are the extreme results still +800 and +660, or are they now +800 > and +690, or something else? In my calculation, this would mean discarding the +800 and 30% of a +690, leaving 10% of a +690. Of course we also add the 40% of something else. Again we have a full set of 1040%. > 2. Assume the two varied scores were within the "average" scores, say 60% > of +600 and 40% of -100. Would the 9th score for average calculation now > be +320 (.6*600-.4*100) ? It would indeed turn out that way. Then of course, we have a single average, and we calculate the IMP balance for both pieces of the weighted score and average these balances with the correct weights. I handle split scores exactly the same way (both splits count for 50%). -- 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 Nov 6 01:14:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5EEjf13911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:14:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5EEdt13907 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:14:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA18161; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:03:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 09:13:16 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Law 40E. Both members of a partnership must employ the system >described on their equivalent convention cards. > > 1. The system may not be changed during a session of play. A >Director might allow (or require) a pair to make a minor change for >good cause, but not to change their basic system. Couple quick comments, then I'm off to the Buffalo Regional. :-) How about "identical" instead of "equivalent" in the first sentence? The idea being both cards are supposed to be the same. Regarding item 1: what of a pair that decides to try a new (to them) system, say Precision, and after a round or two, (or a match or two in Swiss Teams) it becomes apparent things aren't working well. Are they to be prohibited from switching back to their old system? For that matter, are they prohibited under the current election? 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/AwUBOgVrRr2UW3au93vOEQKMtACg+5CBUZJLcbIKXZxhvkbrH9hHpO0AnRK4 RkUFN/mejXdqtzZsDYkFcpTs =4CwC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 02:10:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5FAOi13950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:10:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA5FAHt13946 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:10:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d221.iae.nl [212.61.3.221]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C943D20F25; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:10:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" , "H.+ M. Seisener" References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 15:56:30 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 7:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > > From: "David Stevenson" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he > has > > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, > > >despite L81C6. > > > > Before Kojak launches himself into the fray, his advice, which I > find > > totally convincing, is to wait until the next board has started, and > > then deal with the revoke. Certainly you have to do something about > the > > revoke, otherwise you have just disobeyed L81C6. > > > But you would be giving help to a pair in a way that is not generally > available to everyone. That can't be right. > > L81C begins with "normally include" and lists certain duties and > powers. Maybe this is not a normal situation. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > mlfrench@writeme.com > San Diego, CA, USA > >The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the score. But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary the TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in the field. Is this Solomons style? Ben > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 04:02:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5H16J14097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:01:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA5H0wt14089 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:01:00 +1100 (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 13sTA6-0007x8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:33:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@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: >> In general I do not disagree. But I do not really believe you >>have kept six players happy whom you have sent home. > > >I don't think they'd have been too thrilled to play in the >Women's field either. IMO there wasn't a solution which >kept everyone happy. Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often a long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's event with female opponents, and being sent home. -- 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 Mon Nov 6 04:02:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5H19C14098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:01:09 +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 eA5H0xt14090 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 04:01:00 +1100 (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 13sTA6-0007x9-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 16:40:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <8Aw1CNAFFDB6EwOw@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00f101c046ed$d854bf40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f101c046ed$d854bf40$fb981e18@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 Stevenson wrote: > >> I know what you are saying, Marv, because you have just said it >again: >> "putting an illegal result on the scoresheet". But it is not >illegal. >> It may be undesirable - that is what this thread is about - but it >is >> not illegal. > >You don't know what I am saying. I am referring to a score that was >attained thru illegal means, which is an illegal score. The ACBL's >former practice was to put that illegal score on the books, matchpoint >everyone against that score, and then penalize with a PP. That was >legal, but unfair to the field in a pair event. If the WBF AC policy >is to allow that sort of thing, it's not right. > >Get the difference? Putting an illegal score on the books is legal, >but it just isn't right. It was not an illegal score. >> Not if you are using L12C3, they won't. When you get an MI case >it >> will become the norm to adjust via L12C3 because of the lack of >> certainty of what would happen otherwise. In the WBF approach the >two >> sides will balance, certainly, but in the Burn/Colker approach they >will >> never balance. >> >> Of course, you could use an approach where you balance the scores >via >> L12C3 unless you think the Os should have known better, and then you >use >> Burn/Colker as an alternative to a PP for the Os. I have rather >more >> sympathy for that, but that is not what has been suggested. > >This L12C3 talk is confusing to me. Everyone is saying something >different, and I'm not smart enough to sort it all out. I only know >L12C2, and I know that if someone bids 4S off one over a 4H bid >because of UI, and 4H had a fair chance of making, the score is >returned to +/- the score for 4H. Simple, and balanced. And if 4H had >only a small chance of making, the adjustments might be unbalanced (an >infrequent thing), +100 for the NOS and -620 for the OS. Also simple. Yeah, true. So? Ok, so you do not like L12C3, but I do not see how that helps the argument of how to apply L12C3 one little bit. >We have a Player Report over here for reporting highly questionable >actions. There is no need for the TD or AC to get involved in that >aspect of an infraction, because the Recorder takes care of it. It >seems to be a good system, and I recommend it to other ZAs. Rich >Colker is the expert on this subject, and he will be glad to explain >the process to anyone interested. We recommended it to the WBU but they did not accept it. Some of the worries about the method have come from the EBU heirarchy, and I doubt they would accept it either. Australia has a similar system, and no doubt some other authorities. >As to MI cases, L40C doesn't require certainty, nor does L12C2. A >simple opinion suffices. Look at Maastricht Appeal No. 1, an MI case >adjudicated using L12C3 with this result: Score adjusted to 80% of >5NT+1 by North, NS +690, 20% of 5NT-2, NS - 200 to both sides. That's >too complicated for us commoners, who would use L12C2 for +/-200. >(Don't give East a 100% club lead??? Come on! This is imps, not >matchpoints.) OK, it is too complicated for you to produce acceptable rulings. -- 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 Mon Nov 6 05:05:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5I3XR14135 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:03:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip101.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5I3Qt14130 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:03:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 03167D818F for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:03:16 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:03:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <138b0tkh3qip73358gf0ngkhvgtq4gh6s4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <030a01c0450f$4f9eb140$b1d936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA5I3Ut14131 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 3 Nov 2000 07:13:36 +1100, "Peter Gill" wrote: >In other words, if (B) is possible, there is UI, which is not >that "2S is a jump", but is that the 2S bid meant something >other than what the 2S bidder intended. My problem with this is that it violates (or comes very close to violating) the (IMO) essential property of the game that knowledge which follows from AI logically and easily, is also authorized. If that is not the case, then we are restricting lines of deduction rather than information, and that is a mess that I would like to avoid. When W has the information that "2S is a jump", then he will unavoidably from that conclude that he has misbid. If "2S is a jump" is AI, then "W has misbid" should therefore also be AI, even if W also has that knowledge from sources other than this logical deduction. The reverse of this is that if "W has misbid" is UI here, then so must "2S is a jump" be. I.e., pieces of information that can be easily deduced from each other must have equivalent AI/UI status. And information must be either AI or UI, not depending on the situation. The Lille interpretation of the penalty card rules does violate this principle, making the same knowledge (the penalty card) UI when choosing a suit to lead but AI when choosing which card of the penalty card suit to lead. I consider that a problem just about as bad as L25B. Your statement above is of course perfectly consistent with my view of this principle if read as 'since the information received can be stated as "W has misbid", then it is UI even though it can also be stated as "2S is a jump"'. My opinion is that knowledge of the laws, and therefore anything that can be deduced from that knowledge, ought to always be AI. >H Perhaps West plays a Relay System with another partner in >Y which a 1S response to 1H is an Artificial Relay used with all >P the strong hands, so with that partner he'd have to guess >O whether to respond 2S or 1NT or 2C all of which are natural: > >T (C) W intended to bid spades at the lowest possible level, >H but somehow got into his head that that would be the two >E level (i.e. he thought that 1H-1S was a Relay). I must admit that to me (with the mind of a TD) "spades at the lowest possible level" is an absolute term meaning "the lowest level of spade bid allowed by the laws", not "the lowest level that shows spades in my system". >T I wonder if I've stumbled onto something real. Note that (B) >I and (C) are identical except for the bit in brackets at the end. >C In C) it's an easy UI case, isn't it? And if (C) really happened, >A the player could say that (B) happened, so ...... I feel more >L confident now that (B) is a UI situation. If (C) really happened, then W has been reminded not of the auction but of his system, and that is definitely UI. The fact that a player in situation (C) could lie and say that it was situation (B) instead may be a reason to rule as if the situation was (C) when we are not certain which situation it actually was. But it is surely not a reason to consider situation (B) itself a UI situation. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 05:21:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5ILUN14154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:21:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip20.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5ILNt14150 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:21:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 64DDFD818F for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:21:17 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:21:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA5ILRt14151 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 13:14:18 +0100, I wrote: [Translating a decision of the DBF LC] >* that [this duty] is in effect even if W might have discovered >his mistake on his own before he received the [UI]. On re-reading this, that was not a good translation. A better one would be: >* that [this duty] is in effect even if W had discovered >his mistake on his own before he received the [UI]. This probably makes no difference to the discussion, but I don't like misquoting other people. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 05:28:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5ISiu14174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:28:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5ISYt14165 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:28:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 380EAD7D5D for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:03:16 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Not long because....] Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:03:16 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <018b0t02delv777i31pt5cg8tkmfr1lt7c@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com><001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona><001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> <00a501c045f5$fee68c40$2c5608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <00a501c045f5$fee68c40$2c5608c3@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA5ISbt14167 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 4 Nov 2000 00:14:52 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >+=+ Mmmm.... but, as I read Jesper's original >he began with an expression of his strong >disagreement with a decision .... and then went >on to invite comment relating in some way to >that decision based upon a set of 'hypothetical' >facts. You are probably right that my initial post, in particular the mention of my disagreement with the DBF LC, was too much concerned with the real case to function as a good presentation of a hypothetical case. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 05:28:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5ISi514173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:28:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip53.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5ISYt14164 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:28:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 969A2D818E for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:03:16 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:03:16 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <000001c044fa$da922ee0$ab291dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <000001c044fa$da922ee0$ab291dc2@rabbit> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA5ISbt14166 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 19:16:43 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" wrote: >I have a further question, though: >would we let W apply 25A if he notices >his misbid after partner's alert? I would. (Probably not surprising, since it follows naturally from my opinion that there is no UI.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 05:39:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5IdIj14193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:39:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip175.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.175]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5IdBt14189 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 05:39:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DD71DD7D5D for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:39:05 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:39:05 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA5IdEt14190 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 03 Nov 2000 10:38:09 +0100, "Kooijman, A." wrote: >Let me add another argument: 12C2 should be the leading approach and 12C3 an >amendment. It seems to me that this must be true at least as long as 12C3 is not universally available to TDs. Otherwise we will be in a situation where lots of routine TD rulings will have to be appealed simply because the AC has the power to give the "right" adjusted score. In the long run, I think I would prefer either just L12C2 or a variant of L12C3 usage that gives the OS less than the mathematical equity. Getting the mathematical equity, and thus avoiding the risk of a really bad score, should not be the result of violating the law - at least not in situations where the player really ought to know better. I don't like giving PPs to players who innocently happen to make a decision that the TD/AC consider a L16A violation. And I don't like giving full mathematical equity to offenders who really should have avoided the irregularity. Since I do not want to have to always distinguish officially between these two classes of players, I do like unbalanced solutions. *Generous* L12C3-equity for the NOS and L12C2 for the OS is a solution that I would often find reasonable. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 07:00:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5JxEI14228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:59:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA5Jx8t14224 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 06:59:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.17.194]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001105195859.VCKB5562.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 19:58:59 +0000 Message-ID: <002601c04763$6ac7fe80$c211ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:03:07 -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: Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > Peter Gill wrote: > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> In general I do not disagree. But I do not really believe you > >>have kept six players happy whom you have sent home. > > > > > >I don't think they'd have been too thrilled to play in the > >Women's field either. IMO there wasn't a solution which > >kept everyone happy. > > Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often a > long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's event > with female opponents, and being sent home. > Makes me wonder why this event was not properly organised in the first place, so the it was known in advance that the men's pairs would not be viable:-) The decisions involved, however, have nothing to do with Law 4. Is there a Law which prohibits players in a team from changing their team line up, including changing partnerships, from choice, during a session where head to head matches are not completed on the same round. And is that Law, Law 4? 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 Nov 6 07:31:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5KV0514254 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:31:00 +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 eA5KUst14250 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 07:30:55 +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 13sWRD-0008U7-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 20:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:29:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@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: >From: "Marvin L. French" >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he >> has >> > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, >> > >despite L81C6. >>The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the score. >But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary the >TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in the >field. >Is this Solomons style? In what way does this protect the field? And why should we protect the field? -- 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 Mon Nov 6 08:39:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5LdMP14285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:39:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA5LdGt14281 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 08:39:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5EmiE01265 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:48:44 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:44:40 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110514484404.01236@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Law 40E. Both members of a partnership must employ the system > >described on their equivalent convention cards. > > > > 1. The system may not be changed during a session of play. A > >Director might allow (or require) a pair to make a minor change for > >good cause, but not to change their basic system. > > Couple quick comments, then I'm off to the Buffalo Regional. :-) > > How about "identical" instead of "equivalent" in the first sentence? > The idea being both cards are supposed to be the same. There is a reason for "equivalent". If I don't bring my convention card with me to the club and my partner brings hers, I will fill out a new card at the club. The new card may not be "identical" because the club may have a different version of the convention card, so that there is no place on my card for a treatment listed on partner's card. (For example, on old ACBL caonvention cards, there is no place to list 3H/3S over 1NT; it is assumed to be game-forcing with possible slam interest. Most player play it this way, and players who play something different such as invitational write it in. On newer cards, there is a box to check for the meaning of 3H/3S.) -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 09:38:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5MbfF14327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:37:41 +1100 (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 eA5MbZt14323 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:37:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivesea.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA27646 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:37:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:36:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? In-Reply-To: References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:14 PM 11/2/2000 +0100, Jesper wrote: >In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that >cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of >them; things like: >* your own and dummy's hands, >* the vulnerability, >* who is dealer, >* the legal auction, >* the rules of the game, >* the opponent's system. > >As I read the ruling, it seems that the DBF LC has decided that >the legal auction and the rules of the game can be UI in Denmark. > >So what I would like to hear opinions about is primarily whether >W has UI, separately for case (A) and for case (B). This problem resonates (or resignates, to quote our immenent president-elect) with other problems we have seen in the past, in terms of distinguishing between information that is unauthorized in terms of its value as information, versus information that is unauthorized purely because of its tainted source. In my view, information is either unauthorized or not, regardless of the source. I agree with your list of items that are always AI, and further agree that these items are authorized regardless of how a player comes to learn of them. So that if, in a verbal auction, I am "alerted" by partner's recitation of the auction (at the opponents' request) that I had previously misheard the bidding, I am free to make use of this information to try and salvage a bad situation. That seems to me the situation West finds himself in here, and I see no meaningful distinction between the type [A] scenario and the type [B] scenario for this purpose. >(The DBF LC has a policy of not discussing its own rulings, so we >should not expect the two DBF LC members who subscribe to BLML to >take part in this discussion.) How democratic of them! 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 Nov 6 09:43:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5MhBS14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:43:11 +1100 (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 eA5Mh4t14339 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:43:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivesea.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.113.202]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA06197 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 17:43:01 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001105174140.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 17:41:40 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] In-Reply-To: <001801c044f4$434b6f20$a77b93c3@pacific> References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:41 PM 11/2/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: >+=+ I do not think the distinction you make between (A) and (B) >exists. In each case West has become aware of the legal >auction as it stands. If he allows his partner to become aware >that he did not intend the 2S bid that will give his partner UI. Sorry, but this is clearly wrong. Certainly if he expresses this through any means other than his legal calls, it is a source of UI to East. But West has no obligation to perpetuate East's confusion if he judges that he has some legal method to correct the mis-impression. Whether that is prudent or not is a different issue. 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 Nov 6 09:49:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5MnFT14356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:49:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.a2000.nl (duck.a2000.nl [62.108.1.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5Mn9t14352 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:49:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from node1c70.a2000.nl ([62.108.28.112] helo=witz) by smtp2.a2000.nl with smtp (Exim 2.02 #4) id 13sYb3-00069y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:49:05 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001105234911.0100d1c8@mail.a2000.nl> X-Sender: awitzen@mail.a2000.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:49:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: [BLML] Re: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? In-Reply-To: <003201c04776$1fbbfaa0$6f9f140c@mom> References: <3A0563EC.FFAE8F94@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk here in amsterdam my club also looks out when its time again for a fifth friday, so we love to play against the rest of the world whenever you like to organize it. regards, anthonY At 05:17 PM 11/5/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Hi... Thanks for the final results. We are happy that one of our pairs >finished third!! They all enjoy the game and we have no problems with >following the regular schedule of fifth Fridays and the regular last Friday >in October. However, we are quite willing to go with the flow. Thanks >again, Hermy, for a tough job well done!! NancY >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Herman De Wael" >To: "fifth friday" >Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 8:43 AM >Subject: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? > > >> Hello All Y's. >> >> I have just finished entering the scores for one big heat in >> Poland, and a smaller one in Abingdon, VA, USA. >> >> This brings the total participation to 431 pairs. >> >> I have also -finally- received the results from Nizhny >> Novgorod from september. >> >> I believe I am now able to make a final ranking for the ss >> Trophy for 1999-2000. >> >> The winner was in no doubt once he decided to play last >> friday, Lubos Korinek with an amazing 65%. >> >> I am sending you all a zipped file in which you can find the >> file trophy.txt with all players having played 5 times, and >> also files trophxxx.txt in which all players are listed (per >> centre) that have played at all. >> >> I hope you are happy with this. >> >> The next season has four true fifth fridays. (december - >> march - june - august). Up to now, a trophy was always five >> heats = 2 ss Finlands and 3 fifth fridays. What shall we do >> next season ? >> >> -- >> Herman DE WAEL >> Antwerpen Belgium >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html >> >> >> >> >> Fifth Friday homepage : >> http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html >> > > >-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> >Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com. >It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business, >and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now. >http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/3/_/593320/_/973462874/ >---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> > >Fifth Friday homepage : >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html > > 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 Nov 6 09:57:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5Mutj14370 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:56:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5Munt14364 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:56:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.99] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sYiT-0001gB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:56:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002101c0477b$af441cc0$635608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00ec01c046e2$70eff0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 13:56:35 -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 " We can believe what we choose. We are answerable for what we choose to believe." - Cardinal Newman. \|/ ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:36 AM Subject: Fw: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > My personal distaste > > for 12C2 is largely that I see it operating more > > harshly, for example, on a player who culpably > > misjudges a slam hand than it does on one who > > flagrantly offends on a part score hand. > > Like the revoke law, which penalizes inadvertent and deliberate > revokes in the same way, leaving the latter to disciplinary action. > Are you really going to look for motivation or inadvertency in > determining the penalty for every offense? > +=+ I see you are a disciple of the jurist (?Zaleucus) who decreed "if another's animal is found in his field his hand shall be cut off whether he has taken it from his neighbour's field or the animal has strayed". Oh yes, punish the guilty that is the thing. In principle I believe that as far as may be practicable inadvertent actions should incur redress but not penalty. In the case of a revoke I would want to apply a PP for a purposeful revoke, for concealment of a revoke, or for repeated inattention to the game, but for an isolated inadvertent revoke I would wish only to restore equity. The difficulty is to find a way to set up such a law that is practical. ~ 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 Nov 6 09:57:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5Mv2u14374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:57:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA5Murt14369 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:56:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.99] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sYiY-0001gB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 22:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: <002301c0477b$b1fbe9c0$635608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <00ec01c046e2$70eff0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:54:56 -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 "The worst thing is to be overlooked because you're not provocative. " - Milton Glaser <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:36 AM Subject: Fw: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > > The > > EBL objection in 1987 was to the change from > > substituting an equitable table score in place > > of the one obtained through the infraction to > > the award of split scores calculated in terms > > felt to be extreme. > > Split scores were permissible prior to 1987. It is true > there was a change from giving perceived equity to > the NOS to a more generous adjustment. Evidently > the lawmakers felt that awarding perceived > equity without sufficient benefit of doubt was unfair > to the non-offenders, who are deprived of the chance > to do much better than that. Opponents do blunder > occasionally. > > The score assigned to the OS was supposed to > offset any gain from the infraction, perhaps reduced > by "penalty points" (in the form of total points prior > to matchpointing, or by the assignment of zero or > more matchpoints). This was pretty vague. The new > L12C2 provided more explicit instructions that > ensured the OS did not profit from the infraction. > Whether that is "extreme" or not seems to be a > matter of taste, or of one's culture. > +=+ "The lawmakers felt" needs to be restated. The ACBL drafting committee felt this; the EBL did not agree - its practice was to award a single score to the table in nearly all cases (with a PP awarded additionally to the OS sometimes). It felt this was working well. There was a 'polite' struggle in the WBFLC leading to a compromise by which the ACBL and the EBL could follow their desired paths and others could follow whichever they chose. What 'the lawmakers' *did* was to find and agree the compromise without which we were going nowhere on Law 12. [My belief is that EK had assumed the Zone 1 LC would acquiesce supinely in whatever was proposed by the ACBL in a law matter, and was taken aback by the intransigence. (Of course :-) he was no longer dealing with the late and gentlemanly Geoffrey Butler!) ] ~ 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 Nov 6 10:43:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5Ngq514415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:42:52 +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 eA5Ngjt14410 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:42:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.153] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sZQs-0002vW-00; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:42:38 +0000 Message-ID: <007401c04782$17f92b60$635608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David J Grabiner" , "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00110514484404.01236@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:40:41 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: David J Grabiner To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 2:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > On Sun, 05 Nov 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > > How about "identical" instead of "equivalent" in the first sentence? > > The idea being both cards are supposed to be the same. > > There is a reason for "equivalent". If I don't bring my convention > card with me to the club and my partner brings hers, I will fill out a > new card at the club. The new card may not be "identical" because the > club may have a different version of the convention card, so that there > is no place on my card for a treatment listed on partner's card. > +=+ It seems to me that the *information* should be identical. Can you not use the phrase 'with identical information'? - or even 'convention cards completed with the same information'? ~ 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 Nov 6 10:43:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA5Ngk214411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:42:47 +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 eA5Nget14405 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:42:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.153] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sZQq-0002vW-00; Sun, 05 Nov 2000 23:42:37 +0000 Message-ID: <007301c04782$16fd6640$635608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com><001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105174140.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:18:17 -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 "The worst thing is to be overlooked because you're not provocative. " - Milton Glaser <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael S. Dennis To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? [Long because....] > At 05:41 PM 11/2/2000 -0000, Grattan wrote: > >+=+ I do not think the distinction you make between (A) and (B) > >exists. In each case West has become aware of the legal > >auction as it stands. If he allows his partner to become aware > >that he did not intend the 2S bid that will give his partner UI. > > Sorry, but this is clearly wrong. Certainly if he expresses this through > any means other than his legal calls, it is a source of UI to East. But > West has no obligation to perpetuate East's confusion if he judges that he > has some legal method to correct the mis-impression. Whether that is > prudent or not is a different issue. > +=+ Perhaps I did not make it clear enough that I was talking about his mannerisms, not about what partner could deduce from the bidding - a point which I made later in the piece quoted. I find it disturbing that in any situation the mere fact of being reminded of the legal auction can be thought UI, although with reservations if partner has acted for the purpose of putting you straight on it (which I construe as a breach of Law 73A1). I have a fundamental instinct that tells me the legal auction is always AI - but it is fair to say that the laws are vague about it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 12:04:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA613P614495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:03:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA613Jt14491 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:03:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis82.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.82]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G3K00E1OW932Y@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:03:06 +0100 (MET) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 02:03:01 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-reply-to: <002101c0477b$af441cc0$635608c3@dodona> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Grattan Endicott , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001106020104.00a34490@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 References: <00ec01c046e2$70eff0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA613Lt14492 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:56 05.11.2000 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott <=> >" We can believe what we choose. We are >answerable for what we choose to believe." > - Cardinal Newman. > > \|/ >----- Original Message ----- >From: Marvin L. French >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 4:36 AM >Subject: Fw: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > My personal distaste > > > for 12C2 is largely that I see it operating more > > > harshly, for example, on a player who culpably > > > misjudges a slam hand than it does on one who > > > flagrantly offends on a part score hand. > > > > Like the revoke law, which penalizes inadvertent and deliberate > > revokes in the same way, leaving the latter to disciplinary >action. > > Are you really going to look for motivation or inadvertency in > > determining the penalty for every offense? > > >+=+ I see you are a disciple of the jurist (?Zaleucus) >who decreed "if another's animal is found in his field >his hand shall be cut off whether he has taken it from >his neighbour's field or the animal has strayed". Oh yes, >punish the guilty that is the thing. > In principle I believe that as far as may be >practicable inadvertent actions should incur redress >but not penalty. In the case of a revoke I would want to >apply a PP for a purposeful revoke, for concealment of >a revoke, or for repeated inattention to the game, but >for an isolated inadvertent revoke I would wish only to >restore equity. The difficulty is to find a way to set up >such a law that is practical. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ a) Itīs not possible to decide between an inadvertent and a purposeful revoke. b) many revokes wont be recognized at all. For this you need some sort of "over"compensation to make revokes inattractive. Richard Bley -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 12:11:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA61BSC14534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA61BMt14530 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:11:22 +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 13saod-000KPW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:11:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:00:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002601c04763$6ac7fe80$c211ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <002601c04763$6ac7fe80$c211ff3e@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" >> Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often >> a long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's >> event with female opponents, and being sent home. >Makes me wonder why this event was not properly organised in the first >place, so the it was known in advance that the men's pairs would not be >viable:-) Many Congresses are organised with Full Congress entries that make it very difficult to know how many people are coming to the lesser events. Anyway, I have been involved in a number: while it might be right to make different arrangements for next year, you have to do what you can with what you have. Saying "not properly organised" is a little harsh for organisers of Congresses that are trying hard, often in a climate where numbers are decreasing over the years. Apart from Men's and Ladies Pairs, there are often Mixed Pairs or Teams events, often again as minor events. What do you do with the minority of players that are looking for a game but comprise two men or two women? Is it really "not properly organised" if such people do not comprise a viable Open Pairs section? >The decisions involved, however, have nothing to do with Law 4. >Is there a Law which prohibits players in a team from changing their team >line up, including changing partnerships, from choice, during a session >where head to head matches are not completed on the same round. >And is that Law, Law 4? Because of the reaction to my first major post on the subject, which appeared to mix up the various parts of the question, I had resolved, on the re-run, to deal with the various items separately. In my view Law 4 allows people to substitute players during a session only with the permission of the TD. There is nothing in Law 4 to suggest *why* a player should be substituted, ie whether it is an emergency substitution, where someone is taken ill or has a personal emergency, or whether a player is replaced by another because the CoC allows it, normally for a team of more than four players [or a three-man pair]. Some people seem to have assumed that substitution does not refer to the ordinary replacement of one team member by another but I do not see why not. Of course, people will raise the question of when the TD should permit it: please can we decide the legality first. -- 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 Mon Nov 6 12:23:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA61Nh614548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:23:44 +1100 (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 eA61Nbt14544 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:23:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.193]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001106012330.ZFBL270.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:23:30 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c04790$c27b5820$c104ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" Cc: "Eric Favager" References: <3A0563EC.FFAE8F94@village.uunet.be> <3.0.2.32.20001105234911.0100d1c8@mail.a2000.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:27:41 -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 The Penarth Club in Wales meets on a Friday, and loves the involvement. We really appreciate all the work you do for us Herman. We are happy to play five times a year, even if it means moving the moon just a little :-) My partner Ernie Morris and I won the cyber trophy last year, and tried very hard to do the double, but failed and had to be satisfied with equal second place. It was rewarding that the equal fourth place was taken by Annie and Eric Favager, and the 6th place by Trish Tracey all of Penarth Bridge Club. A significant achievement for the club. Congratulations to Lubos Korinek, who outplayed all of us. Well done Lubos, we look foreward to another challenge next year. 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 Nov 6 13:21:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA62KRo14581 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:20:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA62KLt14577 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:20:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 5569 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2000 02:20:16 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 5557 invoked by uid 0); 6 Nov 2000 02:20:15 -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; 6 Nov 2000 02:20:15 -0000 Message-ID: <3A06153E.E1B2D1EB@uswest.net> Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000 19:19:42 -0700 From: Peter Clinch X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often a > long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's event > with female opponents, and being sent home. > Absolutely true. But also, imho, off topic, which should be the proper application of law. Surely: - The TD is there to exercise the law or the CoC, not to be popular with the players. - If the law or the CoC do not between them cover an eventuality, the TD should refer back to the competition organisers, not assume a new rule or imagine a fair or democratic outcome. - If nothing is forthcoming from these sources, the TD must make a decision. The aim should not be to attract as few complaints as possible, but to be as close to the spirit of the laws or CoC as feasible. Any decision will, therefore, be as objective as can be achieved. I must say that Anne Jones's thoughts here have been admirably tough-minded in following these principles, or something close to them. Acting within these boundaries, a TD need not have any cause to feel exposed or emotionally compromised. Peter. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 13:54:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA62s3f14599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:54:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA62rrt14595 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 13:53:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.14]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001106025348.XTJA283.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:53:48 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c0479d$60a77a40$0e04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "anne.jones1" To: "BLML" References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002601c04763$6ac7fe80$c211ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 02:58:00 -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: Sunday, November 05, 2000 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 > anne.jones1 wrote: > >From: "David Stevenson" > > >> Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often > >> a long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's > >> event with female opponents, and being sent home. > > >Makes me wonder why this event was not properly organised in the first > >place, so the it was known in advance that the men's pairs would not be > >viable:-) > > Many Congresses are organised with Full Congress entries that make it > very difficult to know how many people are coming to the lesser events. > Anyway, I have been involved in a number: while it might be right to > make different arrangements for next year, you have to do what you can > with what you have. Saying "not properly organised" is a little harsh > for organisers of Congresses that are trying hard, often in a climate > where numbers are decreasing over the years. > Anticipation of a problem is part of organisation. Our area has gone with the flow and made the major part of its' congress Swiss. There is now a one session pairs event. The winner is the Champion, the Leading Mens' pair that is not the winner is the Mens Pairs champion The leading Ladies Pair etc., I do not like the arrangement, and because of this I can choose not to play in it. That is my right, but the organisers have foreseen the problem, and have written contingency plans into the CoC. > > Apart from Men's and Ladies Pairs, there are often Mixed Pairs or > Teams events, often again as minor events. What do you do with the > minority of players that are looking for a game but comprise two men or > two women? Is it really "not properly organised" if such people do not > comprise a viable Open Pairs section? > Yes. I would say that is true.It is easy on an entry form to ask people to declare the events they will play in, and with whom. But that is not what this discussion is all about. > > >The decisions involved, however, have nothing to do with Law 4. > >Is there a Law which prohibits players in a team from changing their team > >line up, including changing partnerships, from choice, during a session > >where head to head matches are not completed on the same round. > >And is that Law, Law 4? > > Because of the reaction to my first major post on the subject, which > appeared to mix up the various parts of the question, I had resolved, on > the re-run, to deal with the various items separately. > > In my view Law 4 allows people to substitute players during a session > only with the permission of the TD. There is nothing in Law 4 to > suggest *why* a player should be substituted, ie whether it is an > emergency substitution, where someone is taken ill or has a personal > emergency, or whether a player is replaced by another because the CoC > allows it, normally for a team of more than four players [or a three-man > pair]. > > Some people seem to have assumed that substitution does not refer to > the ordinary replacement of one team member by another but I do not see > why not. > > Of course, people will raise the question of when the TD should permit > it: please can we decide the legality first. > That is what the discussion is all about. > 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 Nov 6 14:06:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA636JM14616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:06:19 +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.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA636At14612 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:06:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (arc-1-port-111.pinehurst.net [12.20.159.111]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA43159 for ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:06:02 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <006101c0479d$e8e60480$6f9f140c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 21:39:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "nancy" To: "fifth friday" ; "Herman De Wael" Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? > Hi... Thanks for the final results. We are happy that one of our pairs > finished third!! They all enjoy the game and we have no problems with > following the regular schedule of fifth Fridays and the regular last Friday > in October. However, we are quite willing to go with the flow. Thanks > again, Hermy, for a tough job well done!! NancY > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "fifth friday" > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 8:43 AM > Subject: [fifthfriday] FF Trophy - final results ? > > > > Hello All Y's. > > > > I have just finished entering the scores for one big heat in > > Poland, and a smaller one in Abingdon, VA, USA. > > > > This brings the total participation to 431 pairs. > > > > I have also -finally- received the results from Nizhny > > Novgorod from september. > > > > I believe I am now able to make a final ranking for the ss > > Trophy for 1999-2000. > > > > The winner was in no doubt once he decided to play last > > friday, Lubos Korinek with an amazing 65%. > > > > I am sending you all a zipped file in which you can find the > > file trophy.txt with all players having played 5 times, and > > also files trophxxx.txt in which all players are listed (per > > centre) that have played at all. > > > > I hope you are happy with this. > > > > The next season has four true fifth fridays. (december - > > march - june - august). Up to now, a trophy was always five > > heats = 2 ss Finlands and 3 fifth fridays. What shall we do > > next season ? > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > > > > > > > Fifth Friday homepage : > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.html > > > > > -------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~> > Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com. > It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business, > and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now. > http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/3/_/593320/_/973462874/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------_-> > > Fifth Friday homepage : > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/ffriday.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 Nov 6 17:56:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA66tBd14798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:55:11 +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 eA66t4t14794 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:55:05 +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 ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:52:23 -0800 Message-ID: <001501c047be$5d1fd720$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001001c04701$670e3e60$4c5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 22:54:02 -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 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > Unbalanced score assignments, giving the worst > > of it to the offenders and the benefit of doubt to > > the non-offenders, seems more straightforward > > on this side of the ocean. Maybe it's a culture > > thing. We don't care if lawbreakers are upset > > by a prescribed adjustment, > > > +=+ Do you not think some of your 'offenders' may > be players who are genuinely trying to do the right > thing but misjudge their action? > If there are such > players do you think it is best to treat them with > the same rigorous severity as you do players with > a lesser regard for the ethics of the game? Yes, of course, as in any other game I can think of, for Laws 1-89. No, for L90, but we are talking about L12C, not about PPs. Ethical violations should be handled with a lecture, expulsion, or a Player Report sent to the Recorder, depending on the severity of the offense and the level of player involved. Using the score sheet for disciplinary purposes is a bad idea. Oh, it works, for the moment, and gives both the TD and opponents a sense of satisfaction, but there is no deterrent effect when the culprit is playing under the direction of other TDs. Also, there is too much room for variance (repeatability is important for penalties) because of TD bias for or against the people involved. > The culture thing may stem from the question > whether the Director/AC should start from a > position of wishing to believe that an 'offender' > has simply misjudged his action, and that the fact > of the violation alone is not proof of malice, to be > persuaded of which there should be some further > small weight in the scales of justice? > It is not simply an East-West divide. Although > more prevalent amongst what I learn of ACBL > members, there are those in England, Europe > and other places, whose attitude on malicious > intent seems to be "guilty unless proven innocent". > I feel that the ACBL drafting committee > introduced this into the laws when it proposed, > and succeeded in obtaining, 12C2. The price > for which was the option given to the EBL via > the footnote that later became 12C3. You make this sound as if it had been a simultaneous horse trade, but L12C2 came in 1987 and L12C3 in 1997. I see no footnote in the American Edition of the 1987/1990 Laws. Did other editions have the footnote? I've never seen a footnote. > As ton > has observed, I retain the EBL attitude that > led to the footnote; I do believe that justice is > served on many occasions by restoration of > equity with no specific element of penalty, and > I do not think equity is the aim of 12C2. So > I agree with ton that the first law to apply is > 12C2 but I also believe that as soon as it > fails to produce for both pairs the equity that > existed prior to the irregularity one should > move on quickly to 12C3, whilst still retaining > the power of a PP to deal when appropriate > with the offence (increasingly appropriate > the higher the level of the game). > I am really not equipped to argue these points very far. Adam Wildavsky would do much better. I wonder if the answer is to make L12C2 less specific and do away with L12C3, which is far too vague. Then the application of L12C2 could be a matter of regulation, just as L16A and L40E are at present. How about an L12C2 that says the NOS must get at least its perceived equity prior to the infraction in a score assignment, and the OS must at least have any benefit from the infraction removed. Then leave it up to zonal regulation as to how liberal a score is to be given the NOS (who might have done better than equity) and how stingy a score is to be given the OS (who might have done worse), with unbalanced assignments and split scores perfectly okay. That would mean one Law for everyone, always desirable, with different implementations, like L16A and L40E. The wrangling could then switch from global to local. I don't see that this approach would have an adverse effect on inter-area events, but I do think it would be wise to have only one regulation per zone, plus one for the WBF. 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 Nov 6 18:15:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA67FJc14829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:15:19 +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 eA67FDt14825 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:15:13 +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; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:12:32 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:14:01 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > >Law 40E. Both members of a partnership must employ the system > >described on their equivalent convention cards. > > > > 1. The system may not be changed during a session of play. A > >Director might allow (or require) a pair to make a minor change for > >good cause, but not to change their basic system. > > Couple quick comments, then I'm off to the Buffalo Regional. :-) > > How about "identical" instead of "equivalent" in the first sentence? > The idea being both cards are supposed to be the same. The ACBL indeed requires two identical CCs. I had written "identical," but changed it when Danny Kleinman pointed out to me that two people filling out cards are likely to vary their entries a little, although not in a material way. Surely this is okay, even though the cards are not identical. So, in the same spirit as the ACBL regulation concerning the form of the CC, which must only be a reasonable facsimile of the official ACBL CC, I chose to use the word "equivalent." There is probably a better word, but I can't think of one. > > Regarding item 1: what of a pair that decides to try a new (to them) > system, say Precision, and after a round or two, (or a match or two > in Swiss Teams) it becomes apparent things aren't working well. Are > they to be prohibited from switching back to their old system? For > that matter, are they prohibited under the current election? Yes, and yes. What constitutes a session of play is a matter for regulation or CofC, but I think it is firmly settled that each Swiss team match constitutes a "session of play." In a pair game, it is only fair that all opponents, at least for a single session of play, should face the same system for a pair, *especially* if "things aren't working well." 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 Nov 6 18:24:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA67OXl14842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:24:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA67ORt14838 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:24:27 +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 ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:21:46 -0800 Message-ID: <004001c047c2$77e1fb20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:23:26 -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 From: "Ben Schelen" (in regard to a revoke seen by the TD only) > > > >The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the score. > But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary the > TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in the > field. > Is this Solomons style? > Maybe, and I like it, but the revoke Laws have nothing equivalent to 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 Nov 6 18:34:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA67Ybd14855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:34:37 +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 eA67YWt14851 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:34:32 +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 ; Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:31:51 -0800 Message-ID: <005d01c047c3$e0760680$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:33:32 -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 > At 01:14 PM 11/2/2000 +0100, Jesper wrote: > >In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > >cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > >them; things like: > >* your own and dummy's hands, > >* the vulnerability, > >* who is dealer, > >* the legal auction, > >* the rules of the game, > >* the opponent's system. > > And I would add: * what is plainly shown on your own convention card 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 Nov 6 19:05:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA684oZ14895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:04:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA684jt14891 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:04:45 +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, 6 Nov 2000 00:02:04 -0800 Message-ID: <007c01c047c8$18c26c00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00110514484404.01236@psa836> <007401c04782$17f92b60$635608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 23:55:27 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote, in regard to CCs: > > > +=+ It seems to me that the *information* > should be identical. Can you not use the > phrase 'with identical information'? - or > even 'convention cards completed with > the same information'? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > I should state that "equivalent" came from Danny Kleinman, I didn't think of it. We had better avoid that word "identical," which might be taken too literally. 'convention cards completed with the same information' seems like too many words. I would prefer "containing" to "completed with." Danny gives the examples of: "xfer to C" on one card and " = C" on the other "fast denies" on one card and "dir denies" on the other (with lebensohl box checked) Do these cards carry the same information? Yes. Are they identical? Well, not really. Are they equivalent? I think so. The "Election" is pretty long already, and I think it should be as concise as one can conveniently make it. "two equivalent convention cards" or "two convention cards containing the same information"? For now, I think I'll stick with "equivalent," but thanks for the good suggestion. I may change my mind yet. 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 Nov 6 20:31:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA69Ul614952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:30:47 +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 eA69Uet14948 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.132] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13sibm-0008rL-00; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:30:30 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c047d4$37e27240$1a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B6FE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <018701c0442f$74d14f80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006e01c04548$dc275160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007d01c04624$a8d87960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001001c04701$670e3e60$4c5608c3@dodona> <001501c047be$5d1fd720$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:28:12 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > From: Marvin L. French > > >. The price > > for which was the option given to the EBL via > > the footnote that later became 12C3. > > You make this sound as if it had been a simultaneous horse trade, but > L12C2 came in 1987 and L12C3 in 1997. I see no footnote in the > American Edition of the 1987/1990 Laws. Did other editions have the > footnote? I've never seen a footnote. > +=+ The option was agreed as part of the debate on the institution of the 1987 Code; it was finally minuted by the WBFLC on 18th October 1987: " Reference letter of Mr. Endicott: The Committee agreed: (1)................. (2) The next reprinting of the Laws include a footnote appended to Law 12C2 (in reference to 'Director') as follows: "An Appeals Committee may vary an assigned adjusted score in order to do equity." In the meantime organisations are authorised to adopt this procedure. (3).......... etc. I was never quite sure, reports varying, whether Edgar did not report this to the ACBL or whether they took a decision not to publish. The EBL wanted it minuted and did publish it though not in time to get it into the first editions of the 1987 books. +=+ > > I wonder if the answer is to make > L12C2 less specific and do away with L12C3, which is far too vague. > Then the application of L12C2 could be a matter of regulation, just as > L16A and L40E are at present. > > How about an L12C2 that says the NOS must get at least its perceived > equity prior to the infraction in a score assignment, and the OS must > at least have any benefit from the infraction removed. Then leave it > up to zonal regulation as to how liberal a score > is to be given the NOS (who might have done better than equity) and > how stingy a score is to be given the OS (who might have done worse), > with unbalanced assignments and split scores perfectly okay. > > That would mean one Law for everyone, always desirable, with different > implementations, like L16A and L40E. The wrangling could then switch > from global to local. > +=+ Some such arrangement is amongst the questions for discussion in the General Review 2002-5 of the laws for which we are gathering ideas. I do not regard the discussion as 'wrangling': the CoP has created a position in which fresh consideration of how to do such adjustments is appropriate. There seemed to be no likelihood of universal agreement on it; I think there is a probability the EBL will stick with what I have termed the 'Euro trend', the ACBL will either not move or go the Colker route, and the WBF Appeals Committee has gone in a direction that has highlighted this debate. One of the final acts of the Lausanne Group was to give its view that all such arrangements are acceptable. They were more concerned to persuade the world that 12C3 decisions should be put in the hands of Directors, and to this end the method should be what the organisation finds comfortable. ~ 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 Nov 6 21:50:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6AnYH15031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:49:34 +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 eA6AnRt15027 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:49:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d110.iae.nl [212.61.3.110]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2941E20F43 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:49:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com><3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be><00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com><0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk><010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com><00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 10:23:09 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > Ben Schelen wrote: > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > > >> > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he > >> has > >> > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, > >> > >despite L81C6. > > >>The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the score. > > >But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary the > >TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in the > >field. > >Is this Solomons style? > > In what way does this protect the field? And why should we protect > the field? Match of 12 pairs: 6 times 4H, each pair will get 5 matchpoints. But one pair revokes and makes 4H+1. That pair gets 10, the competitors only 4 matchpoints. Do we allow or do we protect? Law 81C6 prescribes to protect the competitors (the field) and to take away the advantage of 6 matchpoints. It is true that a splitscore leaves the other side with an advantage of 1 matchpoint. Is it the task of a TD to charge the NOs with a better score they do not desire? On the other hand both pairs on the table are violating Law9B1a. Ben > -- > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 22:08:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6B7u115092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:07:56 +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 eA6B7jt15088 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:07:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d152.iae.nl [212.61.3.152]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 706D720F7B for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:07:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00db01c047e1$a1e00240$33053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:05:05 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry, but I now discover that I mixed two posters: in this poster not the pairs, but only the TD discovered the revoke and then my contribution is partly valid. No violation of Law 9 and not a pair that refuses a better score. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Stevenson" > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 6:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > > > > Ben Schelen wrote: > > >From: "Marvin L. French" > > >> Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >> > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he > > >> has > > >> > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, > > >> > >despite L81C6. > > > > >>The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the > score. > > > > >But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary > the > > >TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in > the > > >field. > > >Is this Solomons style? > > > > In what way does this protect the field? And why should we protect > > the field? > > Match of 12 pairs: 6 times 4H, each pair will get 5 matchpoints. > But one pair revokes and makes 4H+1. > That pair gets 10, the competitors only 4 matchpoints. > Do we allow or do we protect? > Law 81C6 prescribes to protect the competitors (the field) and to take away > the advantage of 6 matchpoints. > It is true that a splitscore leaves the other side with an advantage of 1 > matchpoint. Is it the task of a TD to charge the NOs with a better score > they do not desire? > On the other hand both pairs on the table are violating Law9B1a. > > Ben > > > -- > > 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/ > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 22:08:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6B7it15087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:07:44 +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 eA6B7bt15083 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:07:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d152.iae.nl [212.61.3.152]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CD3B20F39 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:07:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00da01c047e1$a128e740$33053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> <005d01c047c3$e0760680$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:00:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > > > > > At 01:14 PM 11/2/2000 +0100, Jesper wrote: > > >In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > > >cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > > >them; things like: > > >* your own and dummy's hands, > > >* the vulnerability, > > >* who is dealer, > > >* the legal auction, > > >* the rules of the game, > > >* the opponent's system. > > > > And I would add: > > * what is plainly shown on your own convention card > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > mlfrench@writeme.com > San Diego, CA, USA According to Law 40E2 referring to your own convention card is UI, except in footnote situations. Ben > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 6 22:14:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6BEaV15115 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:14:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA6BETt15111 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:14:30 +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 13skEJ-000Dpt-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:14:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:36:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@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: >This problem resonates (or resignates, to quote our immenent >president-elect) with other problems we have seen in the past, in terms of >distinguishing between information that is unauthorized in terms of its >value as information, versus information that is unauthorized purely >because of its tainted source. In my view, information is either >unauthorized or not, regardless of the source. I agree with your list of >items that are always AI, and further agree that these items are authorized >regardless of how a player comes to learn of them. > >So that if, in a verbal auction, I am "alerted" by partner's recitation of >the auction (at the opponents' request) that I had previously misheard the >bidding, I am free to make use of this information to try and salvage a >bad situation. That seems to me the situation West finds himself in here, >and I see no meaningful distinction between the type [A] scenario and the >type [B] scenario for this purpose. There has always been a problem of information which is garnered both from an authorised source and from an unauthorised source. I do not think it is sufficient to say you can use it if is available from an authorised source. W N E S 1C P 2D P 2H P 3D P P East to West: "You prat, you cannot pass, I forced to game with 2D!" West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." West to TD: "Please may I change my call under L25B: I have realised from authorised information [the auction] that I have made a mistake." Are you going to accept this? -- 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 Nov 7 03:16:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6GFGR15351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:15:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA6GFBt15347 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:15:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ta006077 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 02:15:13 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-217.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.217]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Thoughtful-MailRouter V2.9c 15/2129959); 07 Nov 2000 02:15:13 Message-ID: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:14:09 +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 David Stevenson wrote: > There has always been a problem of information which >is garnered both from an authorised source and from an >unauthorised source. I do not think it is sufficient to say >you can use it if is available from an authorised source. > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 2H P 3D P > P > > East to West: "You prat, you cannot pass, I forced to > game with 2D!" > West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." > West to TD: "Please may I change my call under L25B: I have >realised from authorised information [the auction] that I have >made a mistake." > > Are you going to accept this? Since (to me) the answer to David's example is a resounding "No", please also try this variation: --- As North reaches for the Pass card to pass out 3D above, he says to East: "Are you playing weak jump responses?" "No, says East," whereupon West calls the Director and says that he forgot that 2D was a jump. --- If the correct legal answer to David's question is "Yes", then it seems to me that the current Laws in this area are intrinsically flawed and need to be repaired. 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 Nov 7 05:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6IEZO15412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:14:35 +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 eA6IESt15406 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:14:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.90]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14555 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:14:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:44:11 +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] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > I don't like giving PPs to players who innocently happen to make > a decision that the TD/AC consider a L16A violation. So don't. Give them mathematical equity ! > And I don't > like giving full mathematical equity to offenders who really > should have avoided the irregularity. So don't. Give them a PP. > Since I do not want to > have to always distinguish officially between these two classes > of players, I do like unbalanced solutions. > You have just given the best argument FOR the use of L12C3. You do not want to distinguish. So you treat everyone as if they were cheating. And you do so in a manner that is dependent on the outcome, not on the severity of the infraction. By applying equity + PP, you really treat offenders as they should. "you really ought to have known better, and I apply a double fine". > *Generous* L12C3-equity for the NOS and L12C2 for the OS is a > solution that I would often find reasonable. > Seems totally unreasonable 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 Tue Nov 7 05:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6IEfL15416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:14:41 +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 eA6IEYt15411 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:14:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.90]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14568 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:14:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A06C765.59AEF136@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 15:59:49 +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] Law 4 References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <002601c04763$6ac7fe80$c211ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c0479d$60a77a40$0e04ff3e@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "anne.jones1" wrote: > > > > > In my view Law 4 allows people to substitute players during a session > > only with the permission of the TD. There is nothing in Law 4 to > > suggest *why* a player should be substituted, ie whether it is an > > emergency substitution, where someone is taken ill or has a personal > > emergency, or whether a player is replaced by another because the CoC > > allows it, normally for a team of more than four players [or a three-man > > pair]. > > > > Some people seem to have assumed that substitution does not refer to > > the ordinary replacement of one team member by another but I do not see > > why not. > > > > Of course, people will raise the question of when the TD should permit > > it: please can we decide the legality first. > > > That is what the discussion is all about. > > > Anne > > -- > While this discussion between David and Anne is quite interesting, it focuses on the wrong point. Anne and David are discussing whether one should allow men in a women's tournament. The answer to that question depends heavily on the circumstances. When David is conducting the South Liverpool Charity Ladies' tournament, he would be quite correct in allowing a few gentlemen to fill in the numbers. And when Anne is conducting the national Mysoginistic championships, she would be equally correct in showing any suspected Y chromosome the door. A far better question would be if the TD has the right to make such a decision. And actually, that right is the same for both Directors above. OK, Anne would never consider a man in that tournament, but she still is the one who has to make the decision. As is David in the other case. The point is that it is up to the TD to make the decision, and that he should be allowed to bend the regulation - for cause - when the situation merits it. He should announce his decision, hear objections, maybe even hold a hearing beforehand. After that, his decision ought to be final except when blatently and utterly wrong. The TD should expect that the SO, whom he is representing, show some degree of loyalty in upholding the decisions he has to make. Now let's get back to law 4. The real point in this Law is to say how bridge is played - by pairs, unchanged; by individuals, changing throughout the session, or by teams, in unchanged partnerships. Law 4 further says that the Director has the power to allow substitutions. That is what the Director in Wales has done. That finishes the argument as far as Law 4 is concerned. Did the TD act correctly ? He did not allow people to play who had previously watched a board he had yet to play, so we cannot question his decision on that point. Did he allow someone uneligible ? I believe not. All he did was apply the regulation which allowed for 5-man teams, and forgot to say that this was in apparent conflict with Law 4. If this was the case, then the regulation was badly drawn up, and the SO should have resolved the issue. The TD, as their representative, resolved it. I have no doubt the SO would stand by their director. We have learnt two things from this. When writing regulations for tournaments, we should also take care of the apparent problem of defining sessions and substitutions. And when next re-writing the Laws, we should redefine session. -- 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 Nov 7 05:55:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6IsoR15466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:54:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip27.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.27]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA6Isht15462 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 05:54:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id E8524D7D5D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:54:34 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 19:54:34 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA6Islt15463 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 01:36:51 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > There has always been a problem of information which is garnered both >from an authorised source and from an unauthorised source. I do not >think it is sufficient to say you can use it if is available from an >authorised source. > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 2H P 3D P > P > > East to West: "You prat, you cannot pass, I forced to game with 2D!" > West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." > West to TD: "Please may I change my call under L25B: I have realised >from authorised information [the auction] that I have made a mistake." > > Are you going to accept this? Nice example, David! My first reaction was that this is a quite different situation from my "situation (B)", but on further reflection I realized that it isn't. Even if W had noticed the jump and then later forgotten it, my previously stated opinion that * the legal auction is always AI, and * the fact that 1C-2D is a jump is always AI, together must imply that it is also AI for W here. I think the problem here is not the AI/UI status of the information, but rather: * E's comment is a serious violation of law. We can penalize that violation of law. * A part of this specific problem is L25B, which I hope will not be with us in the long run. I would prefer to treat this situation by allowing the L25B correction and penalizing E's comment. How about L72B1? It would solve this problem very nicely to say that the information in this and related cases is AI, but L72B1 applies if the information was provided by partner through a violation of law. This would in effect allow the player who had misunderstood the auction to benefit from being woken up accidentally, even by partner, but not to benefit from being woken up by an irregularity from a partner who could have reason to suspect that something is wrong. An alternative to L72B1 is of course a PP to E - but the more I think about it, the better do I like L72B1 for this purpose. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 06:05:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6J5fG15484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:05:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip209.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA6J5Zt15480 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:05:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id B83F5D7D5D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:05:29 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:05:29 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA6J5ct15481 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:14:09 +1100, "Peter Gill" wrote: >As North reaches for the Pass card to pass out 3D above, >he says to East: "Are you playing weak jump responses?" > >"No, says East," whereupon West calls the Director and >says that he forgot that 2D was a jump. I would call this AI. However, in Bermuda the WBFLC said that "the committee recorded its decision that information received from the action of any other player after a call is made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for that current turn". So though the information as such, IMO, is AI, you may not use it to choose to make a L25B correction. In general I don't like the kind of AI/UI confusion such a WBFLC statement creates, but as a means of repairing the - worse - problems with L25B it is nevertheless fine. (By the way, that WBFLC statement would also apply in David's example - a fact that I had overlooked when I answered David a few minutes ago.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 06:13:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6JD2I15500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:13:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip11.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA6JCtt15496 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:12:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 59AA2D7D5D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:12:49 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 20:12:49 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA6JCwt15497 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:44:11 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >By applying equity + PP, you really treat offenders as they >should. "you really ought to have known better, and I apply >a double fine". I would agree completely I we were talking only about AC's with multiple persons and sufficient time to actually consider seriously whether or not the player really ought to have known better. But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. In that situation I prefer that the TD does not have to judge whether they ought to have known better (and then spend time filling out appeals forms when it turns out that the players themselves disagree). And it is definitely not a good idea to rule by different standards depending on whether it is a TD or an AC that gives the ruling: then we will have the (current) situation where TD rulings need to be appealed before the "correct" result can be assigned. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 06:19:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6JIjH15515 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:18:45 +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 eA6JIdt15511 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:18:40 +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, 6 Nov 2000 11:15:54 -0800 Message-ID: <00d201c04826$36c1c6c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> <005d01c047c3$e0760680$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c047e1$a128e740$33053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:17:19 -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 From: "Ben Schelen" > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > > At 01:14 PM 11/2/2000 +0100, Jesper wrote: > > > >In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > > > >cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > > > >them; things like: > > > >* your own and dummy's hands, > > > >* the vulnerability, > > > >* who is dealer, > > > >* the legal auction, > > > >* the rules of the game, > > > >* the opponent's system. > > > > > > And I would add: > > > > * what is plainly shown on your own convention card > > > > According to Law 40E2 referring to your own convention card is UI, except in > footnote situations. > Referring to it is illegal, but the information on it is AI. If an opponent asks my partner a question that is clearly answered on the CC, I believe the response should be AI. It is not "extraneous information." Responses to questions may be extraneous information for partner, but not all responses are such. 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 Nov 7 06:22:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6JMhQ15532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:22:43 +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 eA6JMUt15524 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:22:35 +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 13srqb-000Btw-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:22:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 11:56:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 4 References: <015d01c04712$33efa260$3ed736cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A06153E.E1B2D1EB@uswest.net> In-Reply-To: <3A06153E.E1B2D1EB@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: > > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> >> Maybe not. But I think that when people travel for an event, often a >> long way, there is a different quality between playing in a Men's event >> with female opponents, and being sent home. >> > >Absolutely true. But also, imho, off topic, which should be the proper >application of law. Surely: > >- The TD is there to exercise the law or the CoC, not to be popular with the >players. Certainly not. The TD is there to exercise the Law, the CoC, *AND* to keep the players happy. -- 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 Nov 7 06:22:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6JMia15533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:22:44 +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 eA6JMYt15525 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 06:22:35 +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 13srqb-000Btx-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:22:27 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 12:02:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@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: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 6:29 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > > >> Ben Schelen wrote: >> >From: "Marvin L. French" >> >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> >> >> > >Say the TD walks by a table and notices a player is revoking. S/he >> >> has >> >> > >become aware of an irregularity, but should not seek to rectify it, >> >> > >despite L81C6. >> >> >>The NO-pair did not summon the TD; is not interested to improve the >score. >> >> >But the O-pair is not entitled to keep a favourable score. If necessary >the >> >TD should award a splitscore to protect the scores of the other pairs in >the >> >field. >> >Is this Solomons style? >> >> In what way does this protect the field? And why should we protect >> the field? > >Match of 12 pairs: 6 times 4H, each pair will get 5 matchpoints. >But one pair revokes and makes 4H+1. >That pair gets 10, the competitors only 4 matchpoints. >Do we allow or do we protect? >Law 81C6 prescribes to protect the competitors (the field) and to take away >the advantage of 6 matchpoints. >It is true that a splitscore leaves the other side with an advantage of 1 >matchpoint. Is it the task of a TD to charge the NOs with a better score >they do not desire? >On the other hand both pairs on the table are violating Law9B1a. You are required by Law to deal with such things as come to your notice in the way that the Laws require. So if someone revokes, apply the Laws. You are not required by Law to protect the field which was originally thought of as an excuse for unsportsmanlike conduct. What is this "do not desire" bit? We were talking of a revoke unnoticed by the players - there is no suggestion they do not desire to receive a score. If there were, we are empowered to waive the result on their request - not to "protect the field" which is not our responsibility. -- 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 Nov 7 08:04:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6L3T715617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:03:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA6L3Lt15613 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:03:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6ECko01978 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:12:46 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:09:23 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110614124601.01785@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > I would call this AI. However, in Bermuda the WBFLC said that > "the committee recorded its decision that information > received from the action of any other player after a call is > made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the > call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for > that current turn". WOuld that include the folloowing situation? South, intending to bid 3S, puts the 2S bid on the table. West bids 3H. South, thinking that 3H is insufficient. (a) looks at his bidding card, or (b) calls the director about an insufficient bid. May South correct his call to 3S? -- 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 Nov 7 08:33:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6LXNa15639 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:33:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip216.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.216]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA6LXHt15635 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:33:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A99C7D7D5D for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:33:10 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 22:33:10 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <00110614124601.01785@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00110614124601.01785@psa836> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA6LXJt15636 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:09:23 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >> I would call this AI. However, in Bermuda the WBFLC said that >> "the committee recorded its decision that information >> received from the action of any other player after a call is >> made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the >> call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for >> that current turn". > >WOuld that include the folloowing situation? > >South, intending to bid 3S, puts the 2S bid on the table. West bids >3H. South, thinking that 3H is insufficient. (a) looks at his bidding >card, or (b) calls the director about an insufficient bid. > >May South correct his call to 3S? Sorry - when I quoted the WBFLC statement I neglected to include the part that says it is concerned only with L25B, not L25A (actually the web page version I looked at says 26B, but that is undoubtedly a misprint - and I can't find my printed version right now) . So provided the requirements for a L25A correction are there - which is the case here - the answer is yes, he may correct his call. In case (a), that seems obvious: an opponent has woken him up. In case (b), the TD will probably wake him up - which can hardly be UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 09:11:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6MAmL15679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:10:48 +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 eA6MAgt15675 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:10:43 +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, 6 Nov 2000 14:08:01 -0800 Message-ID: <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:00:58 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > What is this "do not desire" bit? We were talking of a revoke > unnoticed by the players - there is no suggestion they do not desire to > receive a score. If there were, we are empowered to waive the result on > their request - not to "protect the field" which is not our > responsibility. > Waive the result "for cause" (L81C8). I don't think a mere request is sufficient cause in itself. The usual cause is a physical handicap that seems likely to have brought about the infraction. Protecting the field (PTF), a favorite theme of the BOB, seems to be filtering into L12C3, in the form of denying perceived windfalls to the NOS. 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 Nov 7 09:39:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6MdHB15702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:39:17 +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 eA6MdAt15698 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:39:11 +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 RAA02497 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA15222 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:39:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > What the Code of Practice > says is: "If the damaged side has wholly or partly > caused its own damage by irrational, wild or > gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > adjustment for such part of the damage as is > self-inflicted." Thanks. This is, of course, quite reasonable. It seems to lead to the approach David G. explained, but because the IMP and matchpoint scales are non-linear, there may be an ambiguity about exactly how to separate the two parts of the adjustment for the NOS. (There is no problem for the OS, of course.) The interesting thing is that this approach rejects "keep the table score." The NOS still get redress for the part of the damage that was caused by the infraction. In other words, if NS use hesitation Blackwood to bid a slam that should go down, but then EW let it make by "irrational, wild, or gambling" play, the EW score will be something like 5S+1, not 6S=. Or am I still confused? Yes, please do look for precedents, although I doubt you will find very many at top levels. (The players didn't get there by being irrational!) > From: David Stevenson > The WBF approach means in effect that you work out a > weighted score and apply it to both sides in the vast majority of cases, > only doing something more [a PP] occasionally]. Using a different basis > for the two sides is far more complicated and probably suffers from less > acceptability as a result. [I seem to have deleted the message where Grattan defines the weighted score as something like "equity existing immediately prior to the irregularity."] All this is just fine _provided_ we keep clear just which irregularity the L12C3 approach seeks to rectify. For example, in a hesitation Blackwood case, the infraction to be redressed is the slam bid, NOT the hesitation. The NOS are entitled to the result of "bid 5, made 6" even if that is a cold top; they should not be given any percentage of an illegal bid on the part of the OS. Of course the law writers must face the question of which irregularities call for equity-based redress and which call for fixed penalties (or -- shudder! -- a mix of the two), but that's separate from the question of how to apply an equity approach when it's appropriate. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 10:20:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6NJww15732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:19:58 +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 eA6NJqt15728 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:19:53 +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 SAA03908 for ; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA15270 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:19:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 18:19:49 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > them; things like: > * your own and dummy's hands, > * the vulnerability, > * who is dealer, > * the legal auction, > * the rules of the game, > * the opponent's system. > > As I read the ruling, it seems that the DBF LC has decided that > the legal auction and the rules of the game can be UI in Denmark. I have a letter from EK that bears on the question. My query to him was dated 1995 Sept. 20; he would have answered a month or so later. His answer was no doubt based on the 1987 Laws, but I don't think anything relevant changed in 1997. I've abridged my query but not his responses, which are quoted with permission. ----- Playing with bid boxes but without screens, I see RHO open with 1S. I have a nice opening hand with a good heart suit so overcall 2H. When the bidding gets back to me, I see that RHO's bid was really 1C, and I've made a weak jump overcall! 1. May I take an unusual action -- say bidding 3NT -- to try to recover? EK: Unless your side has committed an infraction of Law, you are free to bid whatever you think will be successful. Here, there is no infraction, only a misbid, so there is no restriction. 2. Does the answer change if an opponent has asked the meaning of 2H, and partner has (correctly) answered "weak?" (The 1C bid card has been sitting on the table all the time.) EK: Yes, this is different. Partner's explanation has given you unauthorized information. (A Director or Committee should assume that this is what woke you up, unless you have evidence to the contrary.) You may not take action on this basis. ----- So the DBF LC seems to have reiterated Kaplan's position. We need to distinguish two questions: a) are the above answers correct under current Laws? -- by definition the DBF LC one is correct in Denmark! -- and b) what should the Laws say? Having had five years to think about the matter, I am still not sure about the answer to 1. It does seem to me that the legal auction can never be UI according to the first sentence of L16, yet we have two respectable opinions to the contrary. As to what the laws should say, it seems to me that it would be a great improvement to go back to the 1975 distinction between (my terms) "normal" and "invidious" UI. Normal UI is that arising from proper events, including partner's correct answers to opponent's questions. I believe it should carry much lighter restrictions than invidious UI, which arises from infractions or conduct deprecated by the rules (e.g. remarks, mannerisms). In case 2 above, partner's answer would be "normal UI," and my actions wouldn't be much restricted, even if you don't consider the legal auction to be AI. In general, I think we could use some official guidance on situations where both authorized and unauthorized channels make the same information available. David's question about L73B1 is relevant, too. Suppose North opens 1NT, and adds "Now don't forget, partner, we're playing that weak tonight." We can issue a PP, of course, but are South's actions restricted? Life would be a lot simpler if we could say "no restrictions," but I'm not sure we can. Or what if North's remark is "That's _one_ notrump, not two?" Or "That's _two_ notrump, not one?" Does it matter if South has weak eyesight and might genuinely need help in interpreting the bid card? I wish there were a simple answer to these questions, but I fear there isn't. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 11:01:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7004F15768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:00:04 +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 eA6Nxmt15755 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:59:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.105] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13swAx-000ERM-00; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 23:59:44 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c0484d$a63a63a0$695908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:52:16 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 7:12 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > And it is definitely not a good idea to > rule by different standards depending on > whether it is a TD or an AC that gives the > ruling: then we will have the (current) situation > where TD rulings need to be appealed before > the "correct" result can be assigned. > +=+ I would not agree that one is ruling "by different standards" because the AC has more time in which to consider its judgement. Both judgements should surely seek to apply the same standards though the one may sometimes do it more comprehensively than the other. This applies to judgemental areas of law in general and is not a new feature. It is a major reason why we advocate arrangements for Directors to consult players about bridge judgements. I think the easier part of the job for the Director in such a case is deciding whether the player ought to have known better, so I do not buy this one at all. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 11:01:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7004715769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:00:04 +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 eA6Nxot15757 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:59:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.105] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13swAz-000ERM-00; Mon, 06 Nov 2000 23:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:58:32 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question > > > Protecting the field (PTF), a favorite theme > of the BOB, seems to be filtering into L12C3, > in the form of denying perceived windfalls to > the NOS. > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > mlfrench@writeme.com > San Diego, CA, USA > +=+ Dear Marv, The BOB remains at a distance from this. Do not see the BOB in every shadow that makes your horse shy away. You still have not really understood that the source of denying perceived windfalls to the NOS is the statement in the 1975 laws: "The number of points assigned to the non-offending side should not exceed the number required to offset the irregularity." Nothing has 'filtered in' here; it was there from its beginnings. You continue to close your eyes to the fact that the EBL was determined to retain the principles of the 1975 Law 12 despite the equal determination of the ACBL to make a radical change, and so the footnote to avoid a head-on collision. But the picture is incomplete if you do not paint in also a parallel objective not to treat the OS with all the ruthless zeal of the Witchfinder General. ~ 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 Nov 7 11:41:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA70fEH15807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:41:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA70f7t15803 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:41:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA6HoV502220 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:50:31 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:33:36 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00110617503105.01785@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 06 Nov 2000, Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > What the Code of Practice > > says is: "If the damaged side has wholly or partly > > caused its own damage by irrational, wild or > > gambling action, it does not receive relief in the > > adjustment for such part of the damage as is > > self-inflicted." > > Thanks. This is, of course, quite reasonable. It seems to lead to > the approach David G. explained, but because the IMP and matchpoint > scales are non-linear, there may be an ambiguity about exactly how > to separate the two parts of the adjustment for the NOS. (There is > no problem for the OS, of course.) > > The interesting thing is that this approach rejects "keep the table > score." The NOS still get redress for the part of the damage that was > caused by the infraction. In other words, if NS use hesitation > Blackwood to bid a slam that should go down, but then EW let it make by > "irrational, wild, or gambling" play, the EW score will be something > like 5S+1, not 6S=. Or am I still confused? That's not what I proposed. Here, EW were not damaged by the infraction; they damaged themselves by misplaying. My proposal applied if the infraction caused damage, and then the NOS caused damage on top of that. South may have used UI to sacrifice in 4S, neither side vulnerable, over East's cold 4H. The contract should go down two, but East revokes to let it make. The table result for EW is -590. They are entitled to redress for the difference between +420 and +300, which was caused by the infraction, but not the difference between +300 and -590. Thus they get the score for +420, minus the score difference between +300 and -590. In contrast, suppose that 4H was going down. In this case, the 4S bid, while an infraction, gave EW a position of +300 rather than -50, so it did not damage EW at all. If EW revoke to allow 4S to make, they get no adjustment. -- 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 Nov 7 11:52:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA70qN615820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:52:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA70qCt15816 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:52:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA22235; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:40:41 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 19:43:54 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: "Marvin L. French" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I asked: > > Regarding item 1: what of a pair that decides to try a new (to them) >> system, say Precision, and after a round or two, (or a match or two >> in Swiss Teams) it becomes apparent things aren't working well. Are >> they to be prohibited from switching back to their old system? For > > that matter, are they prohibited under the current election? And Marv replied: >Yes, and yes. What constitutes a session of play is a matter for >regulation or CofC, but I think it is firmly settled that each Swiss >team match constitutes a "session of play." > >In a pair game, it is only fair that all opponents, at least for a >single session of play, should face the same system for a pair, >*especially* if "things aren't working well." It seems what you're saying here is that if we're playing in, say, the Thursday night club open pairs, we have to keep to the original card, but if we're playing in a Swiss Teams, we can change cards between matches. Is that right? If so, I guess I have to agree (for the pairs particularly, in view of your second paragraph.) 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/AwUBOgdSNb2UW3au93vOEQIUwwCgrDm+04vxdkb2s+pgkf1Qay0nOrIAni1+ +3uylsZB771ZALLYVTafiJ3m =5ldA -----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 Nov 7 13:21:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA72KdM15885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:20:39 +1100 (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 eA72KTt15878 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:20:30 +1100 (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 13syN6-000AWN-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 02:20:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:30:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Tue, 7 Nov 2000 03:14:09 +1100, "Peter Gill" > wrote: > >>As North reaches for the Pass card to pass out 3D above, >>he says to East: "Are you playing weak jump responses?" >> >>"No, says East," whereupon West calls the Director and >>says that he forgot that 2D was a jump. > >I would call this AI. However, in Bermuda the WBFLC said that >"the committee recorded its decision that information >received from the action of any other player after a call is >made is not authorized for use in deciding to change the >call. Such information is unauthorized to the player for >that current turn". > >So though the information as such, IMO, is AI, you may not use it >to choose to make a L25B correction. In general I don't like the >kind of AI/UI confusion such a WBFLC statement creates, but as a >means of repairing the - worse - problems with L25B it is >nevertheless fine. > >(By the way, that WBFLC statement would also apply in David's >example - a fact that I had overlooked when I answered David a >few minutes ago.) Oh well, we can no doubt come up with an example that does not involve L25B. W N E S 1C P 2D P 3C P 3D P ..4C While hesitating over what to call West pulled a Pass card halfway out of the box, but then bid 4C. East to West: "You prat, why were you thinking of passing, I forced to game with 2D!" West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." The auction continues: W N E S 1C P 2D P 3C P 3D P ..4C P 4D P 7C AP which [of course] makes. When the TD is called, West points outt hat East jumped to 2D which is AI because it is part of the auction. Well? -- 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 Nov 7 13:21:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA72Ke015886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:20:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA72KTt15877 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:20:30 +1100 (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 13syN6-000AWM-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 02:20:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:22:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:44:11 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > >>By applying equity + PP, you really treat offenders as they >>should. "you really ought to have known better, and I apply >>a double fine". > >I would agree completely I we were talking only about AC's with >multiple persons and sufficient time to actually consider >seriously whether or not the player really ought to have known >better. > >But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. I find this so strange I had to read it three times ..... In judgement cases, TDs do not rule fairly quickly, except in emergencies [eg last board of an event]. Even then you take a reasonable amount of time. In judgement situations, TDs *never* rule alone. If there is no other TD present, you either telephone one, defer the decision until you can talk to another TD, or consult with one of the best uninvolved players. But you never rule alone. An example of this came from the English trials, a hand that was promulgated here. At the end of the event, with players crowding round him wanting the final results, Mike Amos had to rule. He rode the pressure, telephoned me, and we discussed it carefully. OK, he told me of the time pressure, and our phone call only lasted for about eight minutes, when it might have been fifteen otherwise. -- 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 Nov 7 16:27:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA75QO415990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:26:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA75QIt15986 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:26:19 +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, 6 Nov 2000 21:23:36 -0800 Message-ID: <012a01c0487b$172127c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 21:21:44 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > The interesting thing is that this approach rejects "keep the table > score." The NOS still get redress for the part of the damage that was > caused by the infraction. In other words, if NS use hesitation > Blackwood to bid a slam that should go down, but then EW let it make by > "irrational, wild, or gambling" play, the EW score will be something > like 5S+1, not 6S=. Or am I still confused? > I hope so. With a better score handed to them on a silver platter, the damage they experienced was irrationally self-inflicted--not a consequence of the infraction, but subsequent to it. No redress, 6S=. Isn't this principle taught to beginning law students? 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 Nov 7 17:06:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA766ds16034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:06:39 +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 eA766Xt16030 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:06:33 +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, 6 Nov 2000 22:03:51 -0800 Message-ID: <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:02:48 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote (addressing me): > > You still have not really understood > that the source of denying perceived > windfalls to the NOS is the statement in > the 1975 laws: "The number of points > assigned to the non-offending side should > not exceed the number required to > offset the irregularity." Nothing has > 'filtered in' here; it was there from its > beginnings. You continue to close your > eyes to the fact that the EBL was > determined to retain the principles of > the 1975 Law 12 despite the equal > determination of the ACBL to make a > radical change, and so the footnote > to avoid a head-on collision. As you have rightly observed in regard to revokes, this philosophy logically leads to the cancellation of windfalls from any mechanical error: BOOT, LOOT, COOT, whatever. Restore the perceived equity of the NOS prior to the infraction, that's it for them. If the principle is a good one, it should logically be extended to cover all infractions. Perhaps this was why Edgar strongly preferred the 1987 L12C2 over L12C3 (AKA the footnote)--He could see what was coming. > But the picture is incomplete if > you do not paint in also a parallel > objective not to treat the OS with all > the ruthless zeal of the Witchfinder > General. L12C2 can be overly harsh on the OS at times, very true, but the cure is worse than the disease. Laws should be applied in the same manner from the World Olympics down to the local club championship--same offense, same penalty. That requires simple Laws, easily understood and easy to apply. Some have suggested that L12C3 be used for big important events, with big important TDs and ACs at hand, letting the lesser folk make do with L12C2. That aristocratic approach wouldn't sit well in these parts. Write one simple Law, leaving some elbow room for zone-peculiar implementations (or peculiar zone implementations!). 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 Nov 7 17:58:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA76umR16073 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:56:48 +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 eA76ugt16069 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:56:43 +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; Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:54:01 -0800 Message-ID: <013b01c04887$b7e38520$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:47:31 -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 Steve willner wrote: > As to what the laws should say, it seems to me that it would be a great > improvement to go back to the 1975 distinction between (my terms) > "normal" and "invidious" UI. The terms used in the Laws were "Accidental UI" and "Illegal UI." > Normal UI is that arising from proper > events, including partner's correct answers to opponent's questions. I > believe it should carry much lighter restrictions than invidious UI, > which arises from infractions or conduct deprecated by the rules (e.g. > remarks, mannerisms). In case 2 above, partner's answer would be > "normal UI," and my actions wouldn't be much restricted, even if you > don't consider the legal auction to be AI. You misremember, Steve. All UI coming from partner's quarter was illegal UI in 1975. However, there was a BIG change in L16 for the 1987 edition, in that partner's replies to a question, not UI in 1975, became UI in 1987. I don't see how information that partner quotes from the CC can be categorized as UI. Careful reading of L16 shows that "extraneous information" and "unauthorized information" may not be synonymous. It could be argued that partner's responses to a question constiute extraneous information but not necessarily unauthorized information. As I have written often, if a player's replies to a question are going to be UI to partner, then a player should not have to reply to a question whose answer can be easily seen by an opponent (on the CC). Besides, who can say whether it is the question (AI) or the answer (UI?) that wakes a player up to the fact that s/he has misbid? Responses that convey information not on the CC, or not previously disclosed in some other way, should be UI, of course. Partner may be hearing something s/he didn't know before. > > In general, I think we could use some official guidance on situations > where both authorized and unauthorized channels make the same > information available. Indeed. 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 Nov 7 18:07:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA776pW16090 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:06:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA776kt16086 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:06:46 +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, 6 Nov 2000 23:04:03 -0800 Message-ID: <014101c04889$1eaabfc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <002b01c0484d$a63a63a0$695908c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:55:50 -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 > Grattan Endicott wrote: Jesper wrote: > > > > > And it is definitely not a good idea to > > rule by different standards depending on > > whether it is a TD or an AC that gives the > > ruling: then we will have the (current) situation > > where TD rulings need to be appealed before > > the "correct" result can be assigned. > > > +=+ I would not agree that one is ruling > "by different standards" because the AC > has more time in which to consider its > judgement. Both judgements should > surely seek to apply the same standards > though the one may sometimes do it > more comprehensively than the other. > This applies to judgemental areas of > law in general and is not a new feature. > It is a major reason why we advocate > arrangements for Directors to consult > players about bridge judgements. Maybe Jesper is alluding to the L12C3 that is in the Laws, which can only be employed by ACs. Where the optional CoP for Appeals is not in use, as in Australia (I believe), an OS has to appeal an L12C2 ruling in order to get better treatment from 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 Tue Nov 7 18:27:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA77Qwi16107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:26:58 +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 eA77Qqt16103 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:26:53 +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, 6 Nov 2000 23:24:11 -0800 Message-ID: <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:16:34 -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 Ed Repper wrote: > > It seems what you're saying here is that if we're playing in, say, > the Thursday night club open pairs, we have to keep to the original > card, but if we're playing in a Swiss Teams, we can change cards > between matches. Is that right? If so, I guess I have to agree (for > the pairs particularly, in view of your second paragraph.) > Yes right, in a way. However, the TD has to be on the same track, agreeing that a match is a session of play. Otherwise you wouldn't be allowed to change systems. I don't like the idea of pairs being able to play different systems against weak and strong teams in a Swiss, so if I were in charge I wouldn't allow it except maybe for one switch when there is a valid reason for it. Maybe the ACBL should officially define what constitutes a session of play. Until then, each SO can define the term as it sees fit. By the way, you can change systems because of vulnerability, according to Gary Blaiss. I played against a pair in the LM Pairs who had two sets of CCs, vul and not-vul. That was okay, Gary says. Don't like that either. Why should I have to peruse two CCs on a two-board round? I have to look into this matter further, because there may be an illegal change of basic system, not just a system variance, involved. I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a system change based on vulnerability only. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 18:30:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA77UAY16121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:30:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA77U4t16117 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:30:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p62-max20.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.171.254]) by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06849 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:29:56 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p62-max20.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.171.254] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:26:30 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A while ago I received an article for inclusion in the Australian Bridge Directors Bulletin of which I am the editor. The following is a small snipit to which list members might wish to comment: Teams Dealer N EW Vul W N E S 1NT(1) 2S X(2) P 2NT P P 3S 3NT All pass 1. NS play a variable NT (12-14 not vul, 16-18 vul) 2. takeout Before bidding 2S, East checks the NS system card for the strength of 1NT. The system card is poorly completed and it is not totally clear to East what 1NT is. He asks for clarification: "Is this strong or weak?" North points to, and says 12-14. NS +400. North had forgotten the system and opened a 16-18 NT. East's question has alerted him to his error. Had South replied to East's enquiry, as is appropriate under the Laws, the information that North had made a mistake would have been deemed to have come from South's explanation and would have been unauthorised to North. Holding a minimum 16 points, North would not have been permitted to bid on to 3NT. The information received by North (which caused him to realise that he had made a mistake) came not from his partner, but from a question of his opponent. This would normally be authorised information. The way the laws are interpreted, it seems that had South answered East's query, the information would suddenly have become unauthorised. Confused yet? On the other hand, had NS's system card been properly filled in, East wouldn't have said anything and North may not have had a clue that there was anything amiss. In the end, I ruled (rightly or wrongly) that there had been no UI and allowed the score to stand. Would anyone like to attempt to clarify the application of the laws in situations like this? I find it quite perplexing. There appear to be other issues here besides just the UI/AI determination! Opinions please? Laurie (In Australia) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 18:40:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA77eGn16138 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:40:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA77e6t16130 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:40:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.36] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13t3MQ-000Jbk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 07:40:02 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:35:52 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 11:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situatio> > ----- > Playing with bid boxes but without screens, I see RHO open with 1S. I > have a nice opening hand with a good heart suit so overcall 2H. When > the bidding gets back to me, I see that RHO's bid was really 1C, and > I've made a weak jump overcall! > > 1. May I take an unusual action -- say bidding 3NT -- to try to > recover? > > EK: Unless your side has committed an infraction of Law, you are free > to bid whatever you think will be successful. Here, there is no > infraction, only a misbid, so there is no restriction. > +=+ This reply is not well expressed. It should say "unless you are in possession of UI" (no infraction has necessarily occurred for this to be so). +=+ > > 2. Does the answer change if an opponent has > asked the meaning of 2H, and partner has > (correctly) answered "weak?" (The 1C bid card > has been sitting on the table all the time.) > +=+ This takes us back to an earlier post of mine in which I said that you cannot be reminded of your system by something partner does - unless it is purely from the meaning of his legal call. If this problem does not arise because you have not forgotten your agreement (and you can persuade the Director/ AC of this) then, as Edgar says below, you are already awake. You are not then basing your action on the information from partner. +=+ > > EK: Yes, this is different. Partner's explanation has > given you unauthorized information. (A Director or > Committee should assume that this is what woke > you up, unless you have evidence to the contrary.) > You may not take action on this basis. > ----- > > So the DBF LC seems to have reiterated Kaplan's position. > +=+ I am not altogether sure what the DBF LC has done. It depends so much on whether there was satisfactory evidence to show that the player had forgotten his partnership agreement, or rather that he had not done so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 7 18:40:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA77eHs16139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:40:17 +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 eA77e7t16131 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:40:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.36] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13t3MR-000Jbk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 07:40:04 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c0488d$f521de40$245408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 07:39:18 -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 "I only ask for information." - Rosa Dartle in 'David Copperfield'. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > > Thanks. This is, of course, quite reasonable. It seems to lead to > the approach David G. explained, but because the IMP and matchpoint > scales are non-linear, there may be an ambiguity about exactly how > to separate the two parts of the adjustment for the NOS. (There is > no problem for the OS, of course.) > ----------- \x/ --------------- > > All this is just fine _provided_ we keep clear just which irregularity > the L12C3 approach seeks to rectify. For example, in a hesitation > Blackwood case, the infraction to be redressed is the slam bid, NOT the > hesitation. The NOS are entitled to the result of "bid 5, made 6" even > if that is a cold top; they should not be given any percentage of an > illegal bid on the part of the OS. > > Of course the law writers must face the question of which > irregularities call for equity-based redress and which call for fixed > penalties (or -- shudder! -- a mix of the two), but that's separate > from the question of how to apply an equity approach when it's > appropriate. > +=+ I would hope the denizens of this list are all able to identify 'what is the irregularity', although just occasionally someone finds an irregularity where none exists. It is to be noted that neither the CoP nor Law 12C3 (nor its antecedent footnote) tell the Director/AC how to judge. They state the principle and the objective. Quite deliberately so; bridge jurists who seek to define in law or regulation not only the principle and the mechanics but also how bridge judgement shall be exercised are stepping out of their medium into that of the Directors and Appeals Committees. In making laws we must not seek to impose our personal judgements universally; we should leave guidance in these areas to the closer-to-the-ground organizations. I do sometimes wonder these days if I am meeting a below-the-surface swell of desire to instruct the whole bridge world in the 'one and only true belief'. What we should aim for is consistency of principle and practical mechanisms. ~ 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 Nov 7 19:57:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA78vH616225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:57:17 +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 eA78vCt16221 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:57:12 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:54:31 -0800 Message-ID: <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 00:52:53 -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 Laurie Kelso wrote: > > The information received by North (which caused him to realise that he had > made a mistake) came not from his partner, but from a question of his > opponent. This would normally be authorised information. The way the laws > are interpreted, it seems that had South answered East's query, the > information would suddenly have become unauthorised. Confused yet? On the > other hand, had NS's system card been properly filled in, East wouldn't > have said anything and North may not have had a clue that there was > anything amiss. In the end, I ruled (rightly or wrongly) that there had > been no UI and allowed the score to stand. Would anyone like to attempt to > clarify the application of the laws in situations like this? I find it > quite perplexing. > When the CC is not clear, causing an opponent to question something on it, I think the answer should be UI. The unclear CC caused the question, and whether it was the question or the answer that woke up North, neither would have occurred had the CC been properly filled in. If the question had been unnecessary, the answer clearly shown on the CC, then I would agree with your ruling. N/S would not have caused the question, and anyway there is no way to tell whether it is the question or the answer that wakes up a forgetful partner. It might be logical to FORBID the answering of an unnecessary question, lest it give useful information to the partner (who can claim it came from the question, not the answer). 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 Nov 7 20:24:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA79OVB16265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:24:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA79OPt16261 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:24:26 +1100 (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 <20001107092420.LSJS10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@cc283631-a.twsn1.md.home.com> for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 01:24:20 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 04:24:23 -0500 Message-ID: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> 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, 6 Nov 2000 23:16:34 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >I have to look into this matter further, because there may be an >illegal change of basic system, not just a system variance, involved. >I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a system >change based on vulnerability only. > You might find that there's some demand to allow it based on *all* vulnerability conditions, too. There was a point, a couple of years ago, where I was playing Precision at three of the four vulnerability combinations with one partner, but we switched to Acol at unfavourable ONLY, due to the inevitable interference if we opened 1C. BTW, before anyone questions the legality of this, it was on OKBridge, and therefore perfectly legal under OKBridge's systems policy. 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 Nov 7 21:13:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7ACSM16311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:12:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7ACMt16307 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:12:22 +1100 (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 LAA10521; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:10:17 +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 LAA13228; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:12:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001107112258.00901e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:22:58 +0100 To: Laurie Kelso , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:26 7/11/00 +1000, you wrote: >Teams >Dealer N >EW Vul > >W N E S > 1NT(1) 2S X(2) >P 2NT P P >3S 3NT All pass > >1. NS play a variable NT (12-14 not vul, 16-18 vul) >2. takeout > >Before bidding 2S, East checks the NS system card for the strength of 1NT. >The system card is poorly completed and it is not totally clear to East >what 1NT is. He asks for clarification: "Is this strong or weak?" North >points to, and says 12-14. > >NS +400. > >North had forgotten the system and opened a 16-18 NT. East's question has >alerted him to his error. Had South replied to East's enquiry, as is >appropriate under the Laws, the information that North had made a mistake >would have been deemed to have come from South's explanation and would have >been unauthorised to North. Holding a minimum 16 points, North would not >have been permitted to bid on to 3NT. AG : the information was transmitted to North before his second turn came. And he was quite correct to bid only 2NT. A 3NT bid would most probably be disallowed. Now, at his 3rd turn, having already stated he was minimum, and after his RHO's mistake to decide to go further, he bid 3NT, ostensibly taking a shoot, but in fact bidding a safe game because he is overstrength. Could one not assume that, at this time at least, he would have realized his error ? I find it reasonable, although difficult to argue. I expect some heavy disapproval. In any case, why did West bid 3S, knowing his opponents had a majority of high cards ? (presumably 12-13 + 10-11) 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 Nov 7 21:56:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Askr16336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:54:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7Asct16331 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:54:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-93.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.93]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19169 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:54:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A06F864.C68BFB34@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 19:28:52 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <00af01c0445f$52fbf600$26d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3.0.1.32.20001105173606.01248298@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > There has always been a problem of information which is garnered both > from an authorised source and from an unauthorised source. I do not > think it is sufficient to say you can use it if is available from an > authorised source. > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 2H P 3D P > P > > East to West: "You prat, you cannot pass, I forced to game with 2D!" > West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." > West to TD: "Please may I change my call under L25B: I have realised > from authorised information [the auction] that I have made a mistake." > > Are you going to accept this? > Almost a good example David. But not good enough. Apart from the L25B problem (that we don't want that Law in the first place) this is not a L16 issue. L16 says you can base calls and plays solely on AI. It says nothing about other actions (such as asking for a L25B ruling). Would you allow a L25B correction if partner says "you prat, this is forcing" ? That is the real question you are asking. Nothing to do with whether or not the auction is AI. Please change your example, David. I do see where you're heading though, and I don't know the answer either. -- 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 Nov 7 21:56:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Asfq16332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:54:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7AsYt16326 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-93.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.93]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA19081 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:54:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A06F601.B35135F6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 19:18:41 +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] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> <000e01c0480b$8612e800$66053dd4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: > > Herman, > Jouw benadering vind ik rekenkundig correct. In Nederland hebben wij volgens > het cursusboek geleerd 10% van het aantal scores te laten vervallen, zowel > van de hoogste als van de laagste. > Er bij is vermeld dat dit geen vaste regel is, maar wel dat je de te > gebruiken regels van te voren bekend moet maken. > Hoe maak je jouw methode bekend? Dat lijkt mij niet eenvoudig uit te leggen. > Doe ik eigenlijk niet. Maar de formule zit in het programma ingebakken. Er is geen keuze. Dus is het "bekend" gemaakt. > Hartelijke groeten,Ben > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Herman De Wael" > To: "Eitan Levy" ; "Bridge Laws" > > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:04 PM > Subject: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler > > > > > > > Eitan Levy wrote: > > > > > > I am sending this to DWS, Herman and John, and it follows from John's > > > excellent article on L12c3 varied scores in match point scoring. (Should > I > > > also send it to BLML??) > > > > I don't see why not - I'm sending my reply to blml, in any > > case. > > > > > > > > What about L12C3 and Butler-type IMP scoring? > > > Let's assume we have 13 results. We ignore the two highest, say +800 and > > > +660, and the two lowest, say -200 and -500, in order to calculate the > > > mean from the 9 remaining scores. > > > > There is no single standard for these discards. > > Personally, I find 13 scores a bit soon to be discarding 2 > > each side. > > In my form of Butler, there are always 10% of discards. > > > > That would mean that you discard the +800 and the -500, as > > well as 30% of the +660 and the -200. > > Which means adding 70% of those (+462 and -140) to the total > > and dividing by 10.4 (80% of 13) > > > > > Now one of the (previous)middle scores is > > > changed by L12C3 ruling, say 60% of +690 and 40% of something else. > > > Two questions: > > > 1. How does the above case affect the discarded results and therefore > the > > > average? Are the extreme results still +800 and +660, or are they now > +800 > > > and +690, or something else? > > > > In my calculation, this would mean discarding the +800 and > > 30% of a +690, leaving 10% of a +690. Of course we also add > > the 40% of something else. Again we have a full set of > > 1040%. > > > > > 2. Assume the two varied scores were within the "average" scores, say > 60% > > > of +600 and 40% of -100. Would the 9th score for average calculation > now > > > be +320 (.6*600-.4*100) ? > > > > It would indeed turn out that way. > > > > Then of course, we have a single average, and we calculate > > the IMP balance for both pieces of the weighted score and > > average these balances with the correct weights. > > > > I handle split scores exactly the same way (both splits > > count for 50%). > > > > -- > > 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/ > > -- 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 Nov 8 00:27:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7DPeH16514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:25:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7DPWt16510 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:25:33 +1100 (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 eA7DP6J03382 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 08:25:11 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@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, 07 Nov 2000 08:24:51 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-Reply-To: <012a01c0487b$172127c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200011062239.RAA15222@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 12:21 AM 11/7/00, Marvin wrote: >Steve Willner wrote: > > > The interesting thing is that this approach rejects "keep the table > > score." The NOS still get redress for the part of the damage that >was > > caused by the infraction. In other words, if NS use hesitation > > Blackwood to bid a slam that should go down, but then EW let it make >by > > "irrational, wild, or gambling" play, the EW score will be something > > like 5S+1, not 6S=. Or am I still confused? > > >I hope so. With a better score handed to them on a silver platter, the >damage they experienced was irrationally self-inflicted--not a >consequence of the infraction, but subsequent to it. No redress, 6S=. Surely not in the ACBL. This may be what would (should?) happen elsewhere, but only because L12C3 can be interpreted to justify it. In North America, we must apply L12C2. It may be difficult to determine "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred", but, whatever it is, it must be a result that would have been *possible* "had the irregularity not occured". Here, had the irregularity not occured, 6S would not have been bid, so I don't see how L12C2 allows us to award 6S=. 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 Nov 8 02:07:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7F7Ni16672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7F7Et16666 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:15 +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 13tAKo-0000AE-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:07:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:34:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.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 Brian Meadows wrote: >On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 23:16:34 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >> >>I have to look into this matter further, because there may be an >>illegal change of basic system, not just a system variance, involved. >>I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a system >>change based on vulnerability only. >> > >You might find that there's some demand to allow it based on *all* >vulnerability conditions, too. There was a point, a couple of years >ago, where I was playing Precision at three of the four vulnerability >combinations with one partner, but we switched to Acol at unfavourable >ONLY, due to the inevitable interference if we opened 1C. > >BTW, before anyone questions the legality of this, it was on OKBridge, >and therefore perfectly legal under OKBridge's systems policy. You can do that at Level 4 in England, so long as each stanza is 7 boards or more, but not otherwise. Is this the right regulation? I do not know, but the main point it that we have laid it down: it is something that the SO should decide and promulgate. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 02:07:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7F7BR16662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:11 +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 eA7F72t16651 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:03 +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 13tAKl-0000AB-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:06:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:29:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@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: >L12C2 can be overly harsh on the OS at times, very true, but the cure >is worse than the disease. Laws should be applied in the same manner >from the World Olympics down to the local club championship--same >offense, same penalty. That requires simple Laws, easily understood >and easy to apply. Some have suggested that L12C3 be used for big >important events, with big important TDs and ACs at hand, letting the >lesser folk make do with L12C2. That aristocratic approach wouldn't >sit well in these parts. Actually, Marv, I could live with the opposite. The advantage of L12C3 is that the players like it. When we gave 20 or so L12C3 rulings at Brighton, in many cases both sides said that they considered the ruling quite fair. Furthermore, I believe that a poor TD, armed with L12C3 is more likely to make an intermediate ruling, and thus one that is less wrong. Thus I believe L12C3 improves jurisprudence at club level. My dislike of L12C2 for one side only comes from the fact that majority of the feelings I express about the Laws are because of my worries at the lower levels: I always worry about comments on how to do things in Flt A, for example, because I am worrying about Flt C. At the top level, I am perfectly happy to give the Os the worst score under L12C2. It is at lower levels I want L12C3 for all. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 02:07:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7F7J416671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:19 +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 eA7F78t16657 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:09 +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 13tAKm-0000AG-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:06:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:39:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> <3.0.6.32.20001107112258.00901e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001107112258.00901e50@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 18:26 7/11/00 +1000, you wrote: > >>Teams >>Dealer N >>EW Vul >> >>W N E S >> 1NT(1) 2S X(2) >>P 2NT P P >>3S 3NT All pass >> >>1. NS play a variable NT (12-14 not vul, 16-18 vul) >>2. takeout >> >>Before bidding 2S, East checks the NS system card for the strength of 1NT. >>The system card is poorly completed and it is not totally clear to East >>what 1NT is. He asks for clarification: "Is this strong or weak?" North >>points to, and says 12-14. >> >>NS +400. >> >>North had forgotten the system and opened a 16-18 NT. East's question has >>alerted him to his error. Had South replied to East's enquiry, as is >>appropriate under the Laws, the information that North had made a mistake >>would have been deemed to have come from South's explanation and would have >>been unauthorised to North. Holding a minimum 16 points, North would not >>have been permitted to bid on to 3NT. > >AG : the information was transmitted to North before his second turn came. >And he was quite correct to bid only 2NT. A 3NT bid would most probably be >disallowed. >Now, at his 3rd turn, having already stated he was minimum, and after his >RHO's mistake to decide to go further, he bid 3NT, ostensibly taking a >shoot, but in fact bidding a safe game because he is overstrength. Could >one not assume that, at this time at least, he would have realized his >error ? I find it reasonable, although difficult to argue. I expect some >heavy disapproval. >In any case, why did West bid 3S, knowing his opponents had a majority of >high cards ? (presumably 12-13 + 10-11) Perhaps we might offer sympathy to the NOs and criticism to the Os, rather than vv. Why did West bid 3S? No idea, but why should he not? North got a good result because of an infraction. Adjust under L12A1 if nothing else seems to fit. As to realising his error on the third round, people often do not, so why should we assume this player has? -- 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 Wed Nov 8 02:07:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7F7HY16667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:17 +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 eA7F76t16654 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:07:07 +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 13tAKo-0000AD-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:07:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:32:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@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: >Ed Repper wrote: >> >> It seems what you're saying here is that if we're playing in, say, >> the Thursday night club open pairs, we have to keep to the original >> card, but if we're playing in a Swiss Teams, we can change cards >> between matches. Is that right? If so, I guess I have to agree (for >> the pairs particularly, in view of your second paragraph.) >> >Yes right, in a way. However, the TD has to be on the same track, >agreeing that a match is a session of play. Otherwise you wouldn't be >allowed to change systems. It is not a matter for the TD. The SO is required to define a session. Naturally it is up to the SO to inform its TDs. >I don't like the idea of pairs being able to play different systems >against weak and strong teams in a Swiss, so if I were in charge I >wouldn't allow it except maybe for one switch when there is a valid >reason for it. > >Maybe the ACBL should officially define what constitutes a session of >play. Until then, each SO can define the term as it sees fit. Surely the ACBL *is* the SO in all major events? In other ones, the Laws give the SO the right to decide the session, so why should the ACBL overrule this? A good idea would be to advise what is reasonable [as the EBU does via its White book] but not to define it for other SOs. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 04:10:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7H9cp16825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:09:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7H9Wt16821 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:09:32 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:06:50 -0800 Message-ID: <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:02:56 -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 Edgar Kaplan wrote (as quoted by Steve Willner): > > Partner's explanation has > > given you unauthorized information. (A Director or > > Committee should assume that this is what woke > > you up, unless you have evidence to the contrary.) > > You may not take action on this basis. Another old-timer and I once experimented for about a year with weak notrumps (11-13 HCP) 4th seat only, in a weekly afternoon club game. The understanding was very clearly shown on our CCs, both in plain view on the table. After 40-50 years of opening only strong 1NTs, the main outcome of the experiment was that one of us would forget, either opening a strong NT in 4th seat or responding as if the weak NT were strong. At that time nearly everyone in these parts would immediately ask for range when someone opened 1NT. We both agreed that the question itself would *always* wake us up, but the TD said we could not recover after hearing the answer. So we decided not to reply to the question, referring the questioner to the CC instead, so no UI. I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, wear it) might, that an oral response is required. 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 Nov 8 04:13:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7HDhv16841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:13:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HDat16837 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:13:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from p01s06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.2] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13tCG5-0003T5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:10:06 -0800 Message-ID: <007801c048de$08a451a0$bb8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:30 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott>>>>>>> > > Surely not in the ACBL. This may be what would (should?) happen > elsewhere, but only because L12C3 can be interpreted to justify it. In > North America, we must apply L12C2. It may be difficult to determine > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred", but, whatever it is, it must be a result that would have > been *possible* "had the irregularity not occured". Here, had the > irregularity not occured, 6S would not have been bid, so I don't see > how L12C2 allows us to award 6S=. > +=+ I am intrigued. It is now a little clearer to me what Rich Colker was thinking about when he sought the assurance that the WBF has no prohibition on including the table score amongst the results allowed for in a weighted adjustment. Without the UI there may have been some measure of probability that 6S would be bid, I think he would say. So after the UI is made available, the extent to which redress following use of the UI exceeds the chances of 6S not being bid is the extent to which it exceeds "the number of points required to offset the irregularity" (sic). Hmm..... so I ask myself, where does this lead? ~ 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 Nov 8 04:30:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7HTlX16855 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:29:47 +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 eA7HTft16851 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:29:42 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:26:58 -0800 Message-ID: <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:19:33 -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 Brian Meadows wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a > > system change based on vulnerability only. > > > > You might find that there's some demand to allow it based on *all* > vulnerability conditions, too. There was a point, a couple of years > ago, where I was playing Precision at three of the four > vulnerability combinations with one partner, but we switched to Acol at > unfavourable ONLY, due to the inevitable interference if we opened 1C. > > BTW, before anyone questions the legality of this, it was on > OKBridge, and therefore perfectly legal under OKBridge's systems policy. > Well, that settles it. Multiple systems may be employed if based on vulnerability, and I'll include that in the proposed L40E Election. It is odd that the ACBL TD organization has been allowing this, considering that the current L40E election clearly says that the basic system may not be changed during a session 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 Nov 8 04:38:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Hccc16867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm3.texas.rr.com (sm3.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.210]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HcWt16863 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:38:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from satx.rr.com ([24.160.153.181]) by sm3.texas.rr.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id eA7HcSK17339; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:38:28 -0600 Message-ID: <3A083DF8.A17E58D3@satx.rr.com> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:38:00 -0600 From: Albert W Lochli Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com Organization: Internet Coordinator ACBL D-16 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@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 may be in the minority on this but I read it as: The question must be answered -- particularily in view of the inadequately filled out convention card. (Get it correctly filled out or your are on the green card - convention free - until you do and lose a tenth or a quarter per board until you do -- that is the unenforced ACBL regulation. I wish it was enforced -- it may help active disclosure.) The information that he obtained that he should have the other type hand is definitely UI to the opening NT bidder. If he acts on it he is wrong. He may proceed bidding as if he had the hand he was supposed to have only -- he cannot gain the extra values. 2NT would be allowed. Therefore I roll the contract back to 2NT making that which he should -- usually the nine tricks unless his deception caused an additional problem where he may lose a trick or two. Usually this is not the case. Or it may be that I should take the contract to the opponents spade contract -- either 2 or 3 making whatever, or in the soup. In answering this I have not looked at the hand to see what spades would do. (LAZY me.) "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > > The information received by North (which caused him to realise that > he had > > made a mistake) came not from his partner, but from a question of > his > > opponent. This would normally be authorised information. The way > the laws > > are interpreted, it seems that had South answered East's query, the > > information would suddenly have become unauthorised. Confused yet? > On the > > other hand, had NS's system card been properly filled in, East > wouldn't > > have said anything and North may not have had a clue that there was > > anything amiss. In the end, I ruled (rightly or wrongly) that there > had > > been no UI and allowed the score to stand. Would anyone like to > attempt to > > clarify the application of the laws in situations like this? I find > it > > quite perplexing. > > > When the CC is not clear, causing an opponent to question something on > it, I think the answer should be UI. The unclear CC caused the > question, and whether it was the question or the answer that woke up > North, neither would have occurred had the CC been properly filled in. > > If the question had been unnecessary, the answer clearly shown on the > CC, then I would agree with your ruling. N/S would not have caused the > question, and anyway there is no way to tell whether it is the > question or the answer that wakes up a forgetful partner. > > It might be logical to FORBID the answering of an unnecessary > question, lest it give useful information to the partner (who can > claim it came from the question, not the answer). > > 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 Nov 8 04:59:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7HwkO16896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip177.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HwVt16884 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 50601D818E for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:58:24 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:58:25 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <9keg0tc04ngemj9imk78v28k1436u50gbf@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <002b01c0484d$a63a63a0$695908c3@dodona> <014101c04889$1eaabfc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <014101c04889$1eaabfc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA7HwZt16887 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:55:50 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >Maybe Jesper is alluding to the L12C3 that is in the Laws, which can >only be employed by ACs. Yes, indeed. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 04:59:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7HwiE16894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip177.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HwUt16882 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0182CD7D5D for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:58:23 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:58:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <1agg0to09vhogqbrs15n0r6r93dkpdiorb@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <002b01c0484d$a63a63a0$695908c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002b01c0484d$a63a63a0$695908c3@dodona> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA7HwYt16885 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 22:52:16 -0000, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: >From: Jesper Dybdal >> >> And it is definitely not a good idea to >> rule by different standards depending on >> whether it is a TD or an AC that gives the >> ruling: then we will have the (current) situation >> where TD rulings need to be appealed before >> the "correct" result can be assigned. >> >+=+ I would not agree that one is ruling >"by different standards" because the AC >has more time in which to consider its >judgement. Both judgements should >surely seek to apply the same standards >though the one may sometimes do it >more comprehensively than the other. I agree completely with that. Clearly the AC has more time and may produce a better ruling. That will always be the case. My objection is primarily to laws or guidelines (like the current L12C3) that tell the TD and AC to do their job in different ways - but also, secondarily, to guidelines that are difficult to follow for a busy TD and thus too often result in TD and AC rulings that are different. When an AC changes a TD's ruling to a "better" one, the reason should be that the AC disagrees with the TD's ruling, not that the AC and TD use different rules or guidelines (as they do today, except where TDs have been allowed to use L12C3). > I think the easier part of the job for >the Director in such a case is deciding >whether the player ought to have known >better, so I do not buy this one at all. In WBF events, that is probably correct: all players are expected to know the laws and to be able to produce sensible bridge judgement even when confused by the availability of UI. At lower levels, I disagree: in a club or even at some fairly high levels in-between, I would not like to judge whether players deserve a PP: * Even at fairly high levels, players get confused and act strangely when they have UI, even though they normally understand the laws and the UI implications quite well. I dislike giving PPs for confusion.. * Players have very different amounts of experience, not always known to the TD. * It will be considered unfair if a player is penalized for a L16A violation, and another is not penalized for the same violation. And even if the TD does find it easy to determine that the player ought to have known better, it will often happen at lower levels that the TD does not want to ruin the nice friendly atmosphere by giving that as a reason for a PP. L12C2 is IMO simply much better than PPs as an educational tool. And I believe that is the case even at quite high levels, though possibly not at international championship level. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 04:59:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Hwja16895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip177.virnxr2.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HwVt16883 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:58:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id AB70BD818F for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:58:24 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:58:25 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA7HwZt16886 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:22:23 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. > I find this so strange I had to read it three times ..... > > In judgement cases, TDs do not rule fairly quickly, ... > In judgement situations, TDs *never* rule alone. It does happen in Denmark, though you are perfectly right that it is not good. At lower levels, it happens all the time in Denmark (does it really not happen in clubs in England?). If we say "Use L12C3 to give a single score, and a PP if the OS deserves it", then such guidance should IMO cover all levels of the game. Some clubs will not follow the guidance, but those clubs that basically want to play by the rules of the game should be able to follow the same guidance to these situations as is used at the top. In addition I simply dislike giving PPs for these offences: I think a rather strict (L12C2-like) adjustment is a much better way to teach people how to act when they have UI than PPs are. When you give a player a PP for UI use, he will do everything he can to make himself believe that the TD is an idiot and that he had done nothing wrong. When you give a L12C2 score adjustment ("no penalty, just making sure in the law-prescribed way that you do not gain from your inadvertent L16A violation"), I think he will be much more motivated to realize that he will get better scores in the future by following L16A. In practice a procedure of "single L12C3 score and possible PP" would probably lead to a situation where TDs except in events at the highest levels will not give a PP. Then the players who really ought to get either the PP or a L12C2 adjustment will continue using UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 05:00:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7I02L16925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:00:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7Hxut16917 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:59:57 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:57:13 -0800 Message-ID: <01a501c048e4$560845e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:56:00 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 12:21 AM 11/7/00, Marvin wrote: > > >Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > The interesting thing is that this approach rejects "keep the table > > > score." The NOS still get redress for the part of the damage that > >was > > > caused by the infraction. In other words, if NS use hesitation > > > Blackwood to bid a slam that should go down, but then EW let it make > >by > > > "irrational, wild, or gambling" play, the EW score will be something > > > like 5S+1, not 6S=. Or am I still confused? > > > > >I hope so. With a better score handed to them on a silver platter, the > >damage they experienced was irrationally self-inflicted--not a > >consequence of the infraction, but subsequent to it. No redress, 6S=. > > Surely not in the ACBL. Especially in the ACBL, right or wrong. Look at the casebooks. > This may be what would (should?) happen > elsewhere, but only because L12C3 can be interpreted to justify it. In > North America, we must apply L12C2. It may be difficult to determine > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred", but, whatever it is, it must be a result that would have > been *possible* "had the irregularity not occured". Here, had the > irregularity not occured, 6S would not have been bid, so I don't see > how L12C2 allows us to award 6S=. It doesn't, but L12C2 doesn't apply. The argument goes like this: An adjusted score is appropriate for the OS only if damage is a direct consequence of an infraction. If the damage was subsequent to the infraction, but not directly caused by it, no score adjustment, no L12C2. This is a standard legal principle, not something peculiar to duplicate bridge. A driver cuts me off by an illegal lane change, I lose control and total my car. Full redress for the damage, because it was a direct consequence of the infraction. A driver cuts me off by an illegal lane change. I do not lose control of my car, but road rage prompts me to drive 100 mph, trying to catch the rat. I lose control and total my car. No redress for the damage, even though it would not have occurred absent the original infraction. Damage was subsequent to it, but not a direct consequence of it. And what about the OS? Well, the WBFLC has declared that for the OS subsequent damage is still damage. No redress for the NOS, but adjust the score of the OS. 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 Nov 8 05:04:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7I40i16937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:04:00 +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 eA7I3rt16933 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:03:54 +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 NAA28030; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19434; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:03:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011071803.NAA19434@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mlfrench@writeme.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Tue Nov 7 12:30:12 2000 > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > considering that the current L40E election clearly says that the basic > system may not be changed during a session of play. The "basic system" may include variability with vulnerability. For example, my 1NT opener might be "15-17 if vul, 12-14 if non-vul." This is the _definition_ of my basic system. Once I've adopted this definition, of course I cannot change it during a session. ("Variable notrump except always strong at Table 3" would be disallowed, for example.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 05:09:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7I9ep16949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:09:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.h.dybdal.dk (ip122.virnxr1.ras.tele.dk [195.249.193.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7I9Xt16945 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:09:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.h.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C820D7D5D for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:09:26 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 19:09:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eA7I9at16946 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:30:52 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Oh well, we can no doubt come up with an example that does not involve >L25B. > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 3C P 3D P > ..4C > > While hesitating over what to call West pulled a Pass card halfway out >of the box, but then bid 4C. > > East to West: "You prat, why were you thinking of passing, I forced >to game with 2D!" > West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." > > The auction continues: > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 3C P 3D P > ..4C P 4D P > 7C AP > >which [of course] makes. When the TD is called, West points outt hat >East jumped to 2D which is AI because it is part of the auction. > > Well? Let me try out the suggestion I made yesterday: the auction is AI, so W's 7C bid is legal. But afterwards we look at L72B1: * Could E have known at the time of his illegal outburst that it "would be likely to damage the non-offending side"? Yes. * Does the TD "consider[s] that the offending side gained an advantage through the irregularity"? Yes. So we adjust the score (most probably to 4D with 13 tricks). I think it works. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 05:22:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7IMAO16966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:22:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7IM3t16962 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:22:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA11922; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:17:04 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:17:06 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >By the way, you can change systems because of vulnerability, according >to Gary Blaiss. I played against a pair in the LM Pairs who had two >sets of CCs, vul and not-vul. That was okay, Gary says. Don't like >that either. Why should I have to peruse two CCs on a two-board round? > >I have to look into this matter further, because there may be an >illegal change of basic system, not just a system variance, involved. >I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a system >change based on vulnerability only. The current version of Romex, according to Dr. Rosenkranz' latest book (_Godfrey's Stairway to the Stars_) is a two-card system, full Romex in most cases, but "Romex Forcing Club" not vulnerable in first and second seat, or at favorable in third. In fact, he says in the book that he believes such systems are going to be the coming trend. Two system methods *are* legal, but they should be pre-alerted. See Also written there is "As an aside, please note that it is not legal to vary your system during a session for subjective reasons, such as the skill level of the opponents which you happen to be playing at the time. You may, of course, alter your defenses in response to the opponents methods. " Of course, if a "session" in a Swiss Teams is an individual match, this caveat seems to be inapplicable. I'd kind of like to try the two card Romex system, but I suppose I ought to concentrate on thoroughly learning Standard American first. :-) 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/AwUBOghIQL2UW3au93vOEQI0ogCePHysdk4bbaGfal4kEp7KCBd+jR8An2QY /Jv9cZXorlrwPgnEn6kuqcdm =yrZq -----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 Nov 8 05:42:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Ig8V16986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:42:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7Ig1t16982 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:42:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA14790; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:30:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:32:44 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >At that time nearly everyone in these parts would immediately ask for >range when someone opened 1NT. We both agreed that the question itself >would *always* wake us up, but the TD said we could not recover after >hearing the answer. So we decided not to reply to the question, >referring the questioner to the CC instead, so no UI. > >I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is >more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With >no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player >is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly >shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by >claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, >wear it) might, that an oral response is required. Interesting. I've mentioned here before an incident where an opponent asked a question, my partner stumbled over the answer, and I suggested the opponent refer to our CC, on which the answer was clearly written. Opponent's response was "I don't look at convention cards; I ask questions." i would think that "Please refer to our CC" ought to be an allowable answer to a question. Perhaps with "and then please ask if you require further information" or some such. A procedure that *requires* a player to give UI to his partner when that is unnecessary, and then restricts that partner's actions because he has UI, seems fundamentally unfair to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOghM6r2UW3au93vOEQLd8QCfUCKSkScnqYJ9JF/Zl3PdjSrZSzcAoOBY NS1qkR07bGzVSFvHyMAj+v8z =QM36 -----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 Nov 8 05:50:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7IoOf16999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:50:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7IoIt16995 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:50:19 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:47:37 -0800 Message-ID: <01a801c048eb$5f8c0460$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:42:16 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >L12C2 can be overly harsh on the OS at times, very true, but the cure > >is worse than the disease. Laws should be applied in the same manner > >from the World Olympics down to the local club championship--same > >offense, same penalty. That requires simple Laws, easily understood > >and easy to apply. Some have suggested that L12C3 be used for big > >important events, with big important TDs and ACs at hand, letting the > >lesser folk make do with L12C2. That aristocratic approach wouldn't > >sit well in these parts. > > Actually, Marv, I could live with the opposite. The advantage of > L12C3 is that the players like it. When we gave 20 or so L12C3 rulings > at Brighton, in many cases both sides said that they considered the > ruling quite fair. But "we" were highly qualified people, no doubt, and fairness is not a popularity contest. I imagine some of those involved were just relieved at not getting a worse adjustment, or relieved at getting some redress instead of none. L12C2 is more apt to give great joy to one side and great sorrow to the other, as opposed to the blandness of L12C3. The choice seems to be more of a philosophical one than a legal one. > > Furthermore, I believe that a poor TD, armed with L12C3 is more likely > to make an intermediate ruling, and thus one that is less wrong. Thus I > believe L12C3 improves jurisprudence at club level. > > My dislike of L12C2 for one side only comes from the fact that > majority of the feelings I express about the Laws are because of my > worries at the lower levels: I always worry about comments on how to do > things in Flt A, for example, because I am worrying about Flt C. > > At the top level, I am perfectly happy to give the Os the worst score > under L12C2. It is at lower levels I want L12C3 for all. > There are other aspects of L12C3 that can be argued, perhaps as a matter of local preference (suitable benefit of doubt for the OS, for instance). Leaving those aside, and addressing only the implementation of L12C3, it seems that lower-level TDs on your side of the ocean are more saavy about the game than those on this side. I shudder to think of our TDs trying to do the analysis and arithmetic required by L12C3, even in an approximate fashion. It seems to me that it is easier for them to decide on the most favorable result that was likely absent an infraction than it would be to figure probabilities for each possible result, even in a rough way. De gustibus non est disputandum, to each his own. 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 Nov 8 05:52:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Ipx017012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:51:59 +1100 (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 eA7Ipqt17007 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:51:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA16996; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:47:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A083DF8.A17E58D3@satx.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A083DF8.A17E58D3@satx.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:48:59 -0500 To: biigal@satx.rr.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:38 AM -0600 11/7/00, Albert W Lochli wrote: >The question must be answered -- particularily in view of the >inadequately filled out convention card. (Get it correctly filled >out or your are on the green card - convention free - until you >do and lose a tenth or a quarter per board until you do -- that is >the unenforced ACBL regulation. I wish it was enforced -- it may >help active disclosure.) I wish it was enforced, too. Still... I can see it now. The scene is my local club, Thursday afternoon game. Two LOLs show up at our table with no CCs. "Director, please!" TD rules they must play with the "Classic" card until they have two complete cards filled out - which, BTW, they mustn't interrupt this round to do. So we play the round -slowly, as usually happens in this club. The next round is called while we're still playing the last board. After we're done, they go, instead of to the next table, to a side table, to fill out their cards. From the next table we hear: "Director, please!" "Where are our opponents?" So the TD warns the LOLs about slow play. After another round of this, he starts hitting them with PP for slow play, plus the penalties for not having a proper card. LOLs leave at the end of the day, complaining bitterly about being poorly treated, and never come back. TD decides this regulation is counter-productive, and never enforces it again. Eventually, somebody with some "pull" at ACBL HQ complains, and the club's sanction is pulled. Not exactly the desired outcome. :-/ Last Sunday, at the Buffalo regional, in a Swiss Teams, one match was against a pair who had no cards, and another against a pair in which one player had a wadded up card stuck in a pocket. I know this because he pulled it out while looking for something else, and immediately put it back. Why didn't I call the TD? What would be the point? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOghPP72UW3au93vOEQJmvACg3RVEUB9yHr5GIrPQyfxQk1GhdD4AoITl uonJ9WlSZzVVG3r6drjw6bV6 =LFEk -----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 Nov 8 05:52:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Iq9r17019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:52:09 +1100 (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 eA7Iq0t17013 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:52:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17032; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:48:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01a501c048e4$560845e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> <01a501c048e4$560845e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:50:53 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Cc: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:56 AM -0800 11/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >A driver cuts me off by an illegal lane change, I lose control and >total my car. Full redress for the damage, because it was a direct >consequence of the infraction. > >A driver cuts me off by an illegal lane change. I do not lose control >of my car, but road rage prompts me to drive 100 mph, trying to catch >the rat. I lose control and total my car. No redress for the damage, >even though it would not have occurred absent the original infraction. >Damage was subsequent to it, but not a direct consequence of it. Please don't do that. We would miss you. :-) Good example though. 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/AwUBOghPRb2UW3au93vOEQLHIACfYK+K/dte6VFeNdKiBDNN6X+n0skAoLiU HixR+BNhPVU8I+yGPMAurSH6 =Djtx -----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 Nov 8 05:56:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Iu1b17037 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:56:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7Ittt17033 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 05:55:56 +1100 (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 <20001107185550.QRVZ7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:55:50 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 10:53:47 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't understand why you are submitting this to the LC. They will only say this has nothing to do with them - it needs to go to the board... Then the BOD will look at it in KC and decide if they want to make a change and then maybe refer it to the LC... Who will look at it in Toronto..... And then it might get back to the Board in Las Vagas... :-) :-) Heck Marv - your district director is going to be President of the ACBL next year... maybe you should send it to him. If he doesn't respond, maybe you want to try a different CA BOD member... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 06:07:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7J6tX17055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:06:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7J6mt17051 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:06:49 +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 LAA03345; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:06:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200011071906.LAA03345@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Nov 2000 18:26:30 PST." <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 11:06:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > A while ago I received an article for inclusion in the Australian Bridge > Directors Bulletin of which I am the editor. > > The following is a small snipit to which list members might wish to comment: > > > > Teams > Dealer N > EW Vul > > W N E S > 1NT(1) 2S X(2) > P 2NT P P > 3S 3NT All pass > > 1. NS play a variable NT (12-14 not vul, 16-18 vul) > 2. takeout > > Before bidding 2S, East checks the NS system card for the strength of 1NT. > The system card is poorly completed and it is not totally clear to East > what 1NT is. He asks for clarification: "Is this strong or weak?" North > points to, and says 12-14. > > NS +400. > > North had forgotten the system and opened a 16-18 NT. East's question has > alerted him to his error. Had South replied to East's enquiry, as is > appropriate under the Laws, the information that North had made a mistake > would have been deemed to have come from South's explanation and would have > been unauthorised to North. Holding a minimum 16 points, North would not > have been permitted to bid on to 3NT. > > The information received by North (which caused him to realise that he had > made a mistake) came not from his partner, but from a question of his > opponent. This would normally be authorised information. The way the laws > are interpreted, it seems that had South answered East's query, the > information would suddenly have become unauthorised. Confused yet? On the > other hand, had NS's system card been properly filled in, East wouldn't > have said anything and North may not have had a clue that there was > anything amiss. In the end, I ruled (rightly or wrongly) that there had > been no UI and allowed the score to stand. Would anyone like to attempt to > clarify the application of the laws in situations like this? I find it > quite perplexing. I may be on thin ice here . . . It's clear to me that this is not UI. UI, according to Law 16, comes either from partner, from extraneous sources, or from withdrawn calls and plays, and this is clearly none of the above. Questions from an opponent are not an "extraneous source", and, in fact, it's definitely legal to allow an opponent's question or comment to wake you up to the realization that you've forgotten the system. (Once, in Vancouver, LHO opened 1NT, partner bid 2S, RHO bid 3NT, not alerted; I asked a question that woke LHO up to the fact that he had forgotten Lebensohl, thus letting LHO get out of a hopeless 3NT he would have played in if I hadn't said anything. Partner was, of course, justifiably annoyed with me for asking. Of course, I should have kept my mouth shut, but I was sick that day and not thinking clearly. But of course LHO did nothing illegal.) It's legitimate to use Law 12A1, ruling that the violation of the Law (40E1) requiring an adequate convention card has caused damage. I think that if the TD thinks it right, he can also let the score stand and assess a PP for the faulty convention card. However, I just can't see twisting L16 to make it fit this case. Some people have tried to do so, since it "seems" like a case where North has benefited from a "wake-up" in a manner similar to the case where South had answered the opponent's question. But I think this is stretching the language of L16 too far. The reason I say I'm on thin ice is because I've been recently accused of doing the same thing with regard to the definition of a "trick" after a claim has taken place. Somewhere, there has to be a line in between the two extremes---one extreme being that we follow the Laws to the letter, even when we have good reason to believe their authors made a mistake or failed to consider the effects of one Law on another or failed to predict all the different possible situations that could arise or didn't notice that the conjunction of two or more Laws produces a weird conclusion that the authors couldn't possibly have found desirable---and the other extreme being that we do whatever seems right to us and bend the Law as far as we need to to justify it. I hate both extremes, but I have no idea where to draw the line between them, or what hermeneutical principles we should start with in deciding where to draw the line, or even how we would decide what those principles should be. It's a very difficult problem, not just in interpreting the Laws of bridge but also in interpreting the laws of a nation, a situation that has become a major factor in the U.S. Presidential elections that are taking place this very day. Unfortunately, an attempt to discuss a solution to this problem or to elucidate the correct hermeneutical principles to be applied will probably lead to a lot of lengthy, abstruse, obscure rants on BLML such as the one I'm in the middle of right now, so I guess I'd better shut up now. -- 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 Nov 8 06:10:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7JAX817069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:10:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7JARt17065 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:10:28 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:07:46 -0800 Message-ID: <01bd01c048ee$2fc17dc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:01:59 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Ed Repper wrote: > >> > >> It seems what you're saying here is that if we're playing in, say, > >> the Thursday night club open pairs, we have to keep to the original > >> card, but if we're playing in a Swiss Teams, we can change cards > >> between matches. Is that right? If so, I guess I have to agree (for > >> the pairs particularly, in view of your second paragraph.) > >> > >Yes right, in a way. However, the TD has to be on the same track, > >agreeing that a match is a session of play. Otherwise you wouldn't be > >allowed to change systems. > > It is not a matter for the TD. The SO is required to define a > session. Naturally it is up to the SO to inform its TDs. > But they don't, in these parts, so the TD has to decide. There are many things an SO should do, such as publish Conditions of Contest. I have seldom seen a CofC anywhere below the NABC level. The TD (or DIC) has to fill the vacuum. 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 Nov 8 06:16:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7JGHE17086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:16:17 +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 eA7JGCt17082 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 06:16:12 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:13:30 -0800 Message-ID: <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 11:14:25 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Two system methods *are* legal, but they should be pre-alerted. See > which reads, in part: "Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over one" vulnerable." Permitted, evidently, but arguably conflicting with the L40E ACBL Election in the back of the Laws, hence illegal. I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. 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 Nov 8 07:15:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7KEs817118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:14:54 +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 (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7KEkt17114 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:14:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06619; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:09:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:13:18 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:14 AM -0800 11/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. You see an implication I don't. Vulnerability and position are known at the beginning of the auction; it is *then* that conventions may be switched, not during the auction. I don't see how you infer one can change in the middle of the auction. 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/AwUBOghirL2UW3au93vOEQJVSgCeM71LC6Vj/9V6xbR/37mCki5R7/AAn2n/ rETM0ujL5g4i/sjNNibZObz4 =VKDl -----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 Nov 8 08:08:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7L8LF17142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:08:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7L8Ft17138 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:08:16 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:05:33 -0800 Message-ID: <01fe01c048fe$a1e1d980$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:06:13 -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 The sharp-eyed Linda Trent wrote: > > I don't understand why you are submitting this to the LC. > > They will only say this has nothing to do with them - it needs to go to the > board... > > Then the BOD will look at it in KC and decide if they want to make a change > and then maybe refer it to the LC... > > Who will look at it in Toronto..... > > And then it might get back to the Board in Las Vagas... > > :-) :-) Well, there's plenty of time before the next revision, thank goodness. Thanks, Linda. Gary steered me in the wrong direction, but I should be able to read. Linda is correct, the ACBL ELECTIONS come from the Board of Directors according to the title for ELECTIONS in the back of the Laws. Actually, I don't see why some of the ELECTIONS are there (those that apply to sponsoring organizatons [SOs] rather than Zones). L12C3 - okay (varying an assigned score) L16A1 - no, SO optional (reserving the right to call the TD) L18F - okay (bidding boxes) L40D - okay (although the barring of 1NT openings with fewer than 8 HCP is of doubtful legality) L40E - no, SO optional L41A/L45A - no, SO optional (face-down leads) L61B - okay (asking about a possible declarer revoke) L93B1 - okay (who shall hear an appeal) The ACBL is not the SO for all ACBL-sanctioned tournaments. The SO can also be a club, unit, district, or even an *ad hoc* SO established for a special event. SO-optional items are matters for SO's Conditions of Contest and ACBL regulations, which don't belong in the Laws. L18F, for instance. When the ACBL declares that a certain SO option *must* be adopted by all SOs, as with face-down opening leads, is that legal? If so, I suppose such a mandate is okay to be put into the Laws, since an SO no longer has a choice in the matter. L40E is another example. Got a little off-subject there. The C&C committee advises the BoD on many matters, so perhaps it should also be an addressee for ELECTION suggestions. Accordingly, I'll cover all bases by sending the suggested rewording of the L40E ELECTION to Jim Kirkham (my district director & future prez), Chip Martel/Ralph Cohen (LC), and Bart Bramley (C&C). > > 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 Nov 8 08:28:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7LSH317159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:28:17 +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 eA7LSBt17155 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:28:12 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:25:29 -0800 Message-ID: <022201c04901$6aa88d80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 13:19:37 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > At 11:14 AM -0800 11/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: > >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be > >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say > >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. > > You see an implication I don't. Vulnerability and position are known > at the beginning of the auction; it is *then* that conventions may be > switched, not during the auction. I don't see how you infer one can > change in the middle of the auction. > "Position" means position in the auction, not position at the table. You don't know if you are going to be opening the bidding in third seat until the auction has started. 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 Nov 8 08:53:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7Lqtl17197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:52:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7Lqmt17193 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust8.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.8]) by smtppop3pub.verizon.net with ESMTP for ; id PAA54845020 Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:48:30 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002001c048fc$ac447560$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 12:52:00 -0800 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" > > Brian Meadows wrote: > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >I suppose I'll have to reword my suggested Election to allow a > > > system change based on vulnerability only. > > > > > > > You might find that there's some demand to allow it based on *all* > > vulnerability conditions, too. There was a point, a couple of years > > ago, where I was playing Precision at three of the four > > vulnerability combinations with one partner, but we switched to Acol at > > unfavourable ONLY, due to the inevitable interference if we opened 1C. > > > > BTW, before anyone questions the legality of this, it was on > > OKBridge, and therefore perfectly legal under OKBridge's systems policy. > > > Well, that settles it. Multiple systems may be employed if based on > vulnerability, and I'll include that in the proposed L40E Election. > > It is odd that the ACBL TD organization has been allowing this, > considering that the current L40E election clearly says that the basic > system may not be changed during a session of play. A system is a comprehensive set of agreements. Position and vulnerability are valid factors in determining the meaning of a bid. Its quite possible that one set of agreements is a subset of another but they can both be systems. It is common to vary the meaning of some bids based on position or vulnerability, its only a matter of degree to change your entire approach. Your system might be described as standard american with UDCA and mine might be described as SA not vulnerable, precision vulnerable but we are each playing only one set of agreements-one system. The ACBL convention card provides a convenient way to show varying NT ranges and positional changes in 4/5 card majors but surely that doesn't limit the possible variations. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 09:21:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7ML2u17220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:21:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA7MKtt17216 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:20:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (user-2ivf8d7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.161.167]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07841 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:20:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001107172124.00c484b0@sujja.com> X-Sender: dkent@sujja.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:21:24 -0500 To: From: David Kent Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION In-Reply-To: <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$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 11:14 7/11/00 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> > Two system methods *are* legal, but they should be pre-alerted. >See >> > >which reads, in part: > >"Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the >opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over >one" vulnerable." > >Permitted, evidently, but arguably conflicting with the L40E ACBL >Election in the back of the Laws, hence illegal. > >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. > Having on more than a couple of occasions to have been in the unfortunate circumstance of having been knocked out of the Vanderbilt or Spingold before the final, I usually end up kibbitzing pairs whose system I can understand (and whom I respect as bridge players). On more than one occasion, I have watched Soloway and Goldman. They not only changed their system based on vulnerability (exactly as stated above - i.e. Precision V, 2/1 NV), but also on the state of the match. However, they would change their system to Precision V vs NV, 2/1 at all other vulnerabilities usually at the beginning of the 4th qtr of a match in which they were leading by 40+ IMPs. I do not mean to imply that they changed their system in the middle of a quarter - I am sure that never happened (or at least not while I was kibbitzing). They had a convention card which consisted of the defensive bidding and signalling, and 2 other sections which would be flipped over to identify the system being played for each vulnerability situation (or when a change was required). They did this assiduously - I never remember a situation wherby the wrong "system" was displayed on the cc. Do you feel the system(s) they were playing was "illegal"? If so, why? Dave Kent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 09:40:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7MeFe17240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:40:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7Me4t17236 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:40:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial6.isi.com [192.103.52.197]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id OAA27195 for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 14:28:16 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:39:25 -0500 Message-ID: <000301c0490b$94e9ebc0$c53467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ... > Well, that settles it. Multiple systems may be employed if based on > vulnerability, and I'll include that in the proposed L40E Election. ... > Marv (Marvin L. French) > mlfrench@writeme.com > San Diego, CA, USA Quick suggestion. You might want to explicitly mention that system can also be changed based on seat. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOghHQ7FdMFbo8dHHEQIFjQCg9P2uRl45BBC/w4gJpnF2UbT4LqgAoK0h 9p9+LvTcs6wvlnHG5KGB7Q7B =uQ7e -----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 Nov 8 10:06:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7N64v17265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:06:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f181.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.181]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7N5xt17261 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:06:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 15:05:51 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 07 Nov 2000 23:05:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 15:05:51 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Nov 2000 23:05:51.0653 (UTC) FILETIME=[4624D550:01C0490F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Ed Reppert wrote: > > At 11:14 AM -0800 11/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be > > >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say > > >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. > > > > You see an implication I don't. Vulnerability and position are known > > at the beginning of the auction; it is *then* that conventions may >be > > switched, not during the auction. I don't see how you infer one can > > change in the middle of the auction. > > >"Position" means position in the auction, not position at the table. >You don't know if you are going to be opening the bidding in third >seat until the auction has started. I'm dealer. LHO makes an OBOOT. Sure, I've moved from 1st to 4th seat. Otherwise position is known before the auction starts. I still haven't changed my system. Are your bidding system and your CC equivalent under the law? Is the CC explicitly one sheet of ACBL-approved paper? The system I employ uses these agreements for 1st seat favorable, those for 1st seat unfavorable, those for 2nd seat, and so on, on several sheets of paper. I don't see the illegality. A different CC for each of the 16 seat/vul combination openers (while so far unheard of, best I've seen) doesn't sound in anyway illegal. -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 Nov 8 10:27:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7NQrd17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:26:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (root@new-smtp2.ihug.com.au [203.109.250.28]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7NQnt17282 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (p55-max16.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.172.247]) by new-smtp2.ihug.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA25774 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:26:47 +1100 X-Authentication-Warning: new-smtp2.ihug.com.au: Host p55-max16.mel.ihug.com.au [203.173.172.247] claimed to be default Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001108102319.00b2f9d0@pop.ihug.com.au> X-Sender: lskelso@pop.ihug.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:23:19 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Laurie Kelso Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-Reply-To: <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:52 7/11/00 -0800, you wrote: >Laurie Kelso wrote: >> >> The information received by North (which caused him to realise that >he had >> made a mistake) came not from his partner, but from a question of >his >> opponent. This would normally be authorised information. The way >the laws >> are interpreted, it seems that had South answered East's query, the >> information would suddenly have become unauthorised. Confused yet? >On the >> other hand, had NS's system card been properly filled in, East >wouldn't >> have said anything and North may not have had a clue that there was >> anything amiss. In the end, I ruled (rightly or wrongly) that there >had >> been no UI and allowed the score to stand. Would anyone like to >attempt to >> clarify the application of the laws in situations like this? I find >it >> quite perplexing. >> >When the CC is not clear, causing an opponent to question something on >it, I think the answer should be UI. The unclear CC caused the >question, and whether it was the question or the answer that woke up >North, neither would have occurred had the CC been properly filled in. > >If the question had been unnecessary, the answer clearly shown on the >CC, then I would agree with your ruling. N/S would not have caused the >question, and anyway there is no way to tell whether it is the >question or the answer that wakes up a forgetful partner. > >It might be logical to FORBID the answering of an unnecessary >question, lest it give useful information to the partner (who can >claim it came from the question, not the answer). In this case it was the player who had forgotten, that actually answered the question! This in itself is a violation of normal (non-screen) procedure. Surely we don't want players flouting regulation/Law in their efforts to minimize UI? Laurie -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 11:04:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803nX17345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA803Pt17318 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:26 +1100 (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 13tIhw-000IvM-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:34:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.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 that time nearly everyone in these parts would immediately ask for >>range when someone opened 1NT. We both agreed that the question itself >>would *always* wake us up, but the TD said we could not recover after >>hearing the answer. So we decided not to reply to the question, >>referring the questioner to the CC instead, so no UI. >> >>I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is >>more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With >>no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player >>is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly >>shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by >>claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, >>wear it) might, that an oral response is required. > >Interesting. I've mentioned here before an incident where an opponent >asked a question, my partner stumbled over the answer, and I >suggested the opponent refer to our CC, on which the answer was >clearly written. Opponent's response was "I don't look at convention >cards; I ask questions." > >i would think that "Please refer to our CC" ought to be an allowable >answer to a question. Perhaps with "and then please ask if you >require further information" or some such. A procedure that >*requires* a player to give UI to his partner when that is >unnecessary, and then restricts that partner's actions because he has >UI, seems fundamentally unfair to me. Oh come one, taking cards out of a bidding box is required, and if you look carefully, you can deduce lots from pd's methodology of taking cards out. Are you going to stop him bidding because it gives UI? It is just not satisfactory that players should be allowed to flout the Law because they may be UI problems. Answers to questions are nearly always different from what is written on a CC, and much more complete and useful. Plus why should you be allowed to ignore a procedure because it gives you an advantage to do so? -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:04:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803ke17342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA803Pt17320 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:26 +1100 (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 13tIi1-000IvM-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:48:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A083DF8.A17E58D3@satx.rr.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 11:38 AM -0600 11/7/00, Albert W Lochli wrote: > >>The question must be answered -- particularily in view of the >>inadequately filled out convention card. (Get it correctly filled >>out or your are on the green card - convention free - until you >>do and lose a tenth or a quarter per board until you do -- that is >>the unenforced ACBL regulation. I wish it was enforced -- it may >>help active disclosure.) > >I wish it was enforced, too. Still... > >I can see it now. The scene is my local club, Thursday afternoon >game. Two LOLs show up at our table with no CCs. "Director, please!" >TD rules they must play with the "Classic" card until they have two >complete cards filled out - which, BTW, they mustn't interrupt this >round to do. So we play the round -slowly, as usually happens in this >club. The next round is called while we're still playing the last >board. After we're done, they go, instead of to the next table, to a >side table, to fill out their cards. From the next table we hear: >"Director, please!" "Where are our opponents?" So the TD warns the >LOLs about slow play. After another round of this, he starts hitting >them with PP for slow play, plus the penalties for not having a >proper card. LOLs leave at the end of the day, complaining bitterly >about being poorly treated, and never come back. TD decides this >regulation is counter-productive, and never enforces it again. >Eventually, somebody with some "pull" at ACBL HQ complains, and the >club's sanction is pulled. Not exactly the desired outcome. :-/ I can see it myself. The TD does the obvious, and does not enforce it. Some players play fairly complex things, but they never bother with CCs. Eventually you notice that some of your weaker and older players are no longer coming. It's their age, you think. Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing against fancy systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:04:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803ra17346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:53 +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-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 eA803Ot17317 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:25 +1100 (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 13tIhy-000GQK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:41:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002001c048fc$ac447560$0b00000a@mike> In-Reply-To: <002001c048fc$ac447560$0b00000a@mike> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: >A system is a comprehensive set of agreements. Position and vulnerability >are valid factors in determining the meaning of a bid. Its quite possible >that one set of agreements is a subset of another but they can both be >systems. It is common to vary the meaning of some bids based on position or >vulnerability, its only a matter of degree to change your entire approach. >Your system might be described as standard american with UDCA and mine might >be described as SA not vulnerable, precision vulnerable but we are each >playing only one set of agreements-one system. That is one way of looking at it, but I would say it is the less popular way. To me, you are playing different systems at different vulnerabilities. However, it does not matter which of us is right, it is up to the SO to regulate conventions and thus systems in any way they see fit. You do not get them to say something and then twist it round to your view: they do the analysing. So it is up to the ACBL or whoever whether you are allowed to play SA nv and Precision vul. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:04:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803kW17343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA803Ot17316 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:25 +1100 (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 13tIhy-000GQJ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:36:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01a801c048eb$5f8c0460$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01a801c048eb$5f8c0460$fb981e18@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: >There are other aspects of L12C3 that can be argued, perhaps as a >matter of local preference (suitable benefit of doubt for the OS, for >instance). Leaving those aside, and addressing only the implementation >of L12C3, it seems that lower-level TDs on your side of the ocean are >more saavy about the game than those on this side. I shudder to think >of our TDs trying to do the analysis and arithmetic required by L12C3, >even in an approximate fashion. It seems to me that it is easier for >them to decide on the most favorable result that was likely absent an >infraction than it would be to figure probabilities for each possible >result, even in a rough way. Aren't they just giving 60/40 anyway? -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:04:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803mv17344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA803Ut17329 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:31 +1100 (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 13tIi1-000IdW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:26:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@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 Jesper Dybdal wrote: >On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 20:22:23 +0000, David Stevenson > wrote: > >>Jesper Dybdal wrote: >>>But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. > >> I find this so strange I had to read it three times ..... >> >> In judgement cases, TDs do not rule fairly quickly, >... >> In judgement situations, TDs *never* rule alone. > >It does happen in Denmark, though you are perfectly right that it >is not good. > >At lower levels, it happens all the time in Denmark (does it >really not happen in clubs in England?). Well, I cannot tell you what untrained TDs do in odd clubs around the place. It is told to Club TDs on training courses as an absolute requirement, and around here all the TDs consult. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:04:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA803kk17341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA803Pt17319 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:03:26 +1100 (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 13tIhy-000IvL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:03:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:30:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: >I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is >more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With >no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player >is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly >shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by >claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, >wear it) might, that an oral response is required. Also, an oppo who is not shrewd at all might like to insist on his rights - as I would do. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 11:21:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA80L4D17399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:21:04 +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 eA80Kwt17395 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:20:58 +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 QAA09175; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:20:50 -0800 Message-Id: <200011080020.QAA09175@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:23:19 PST." <3.0.6.32.20001108102319.00b2f9d0@pop.ihug.com.au> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:20:51 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laurie Kelso wrote: > In this case it was the player who had forgotten, that actually answered > the question! This in itself is a violation of normal (non-screen) > procedure. Surely we don't want players flouting regulation/Law in their > efforts to minimize UI? Well, it's a violation, but the Law being violated is a "should" law (20F1: "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player who made a call in question"), so it's not a particularly serious infraction. (It does give UI to South.) Furthermore, I doubt that most Norths, unless they are regular BLML readers, would be aware enough of the intricacies of the Laws to think "well, now that he's asked, I realize I goofed and I made the wrong call, but if my partner answers, I'm going to have UI and I won't be able to correct for my mistake, so I'd better jump in and answer first, which I know is a violation of the Law but it's just a 'should' Law so it will be a lesser infraction in any case"---and to think all of this quickly enough to jump in before South answers the question. More likely, it seems to me, North just forgot the correct procedure, or East asked the question in a manner that led North to think it was being asked of him; or South's mind was wandering so North decided to be helpful. -- 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 Nov 8 11:51:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA80pIW17417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:51:18 +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 eA80pBt17413 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:51:11 +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 QAA09775; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 16:51:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200011080051.QAA09775@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 07 Nov 2000 23:48:13 PST." Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 16:51:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > I can see it myself. The TD does the obvious, and does not enforce > it. Some players play fairly complex things, but they never bother with > CCs. Eventually you notice that some of your weaker and older players > are no longer coming. It's their age, you think. > > Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing against fancy > systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they > realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. Please remember that this is an international newsgroup, and that while what you say may be true in Britain, given that you guys have all those British comedies you can watch, we over here in the U.S. have the New Fall Season to contend with, the consequence of which is that it would take a whole lot worse than a plethora of fancy systems and inadequate explanations and poorly-filled-out CCs to make an evening of bridge at the club less fun than watching TV at home. :) :) -- 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 Nov 8 12:27:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA81PqS17511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:25:52 +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 (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA81MPt17498 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:22:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:22:05 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:22:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 17:22:05 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2000 01:22:05.0444 (UTC) FILETIME=[4E1A5C40:01C04922] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Marvin L. French wrote: > >I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is > >more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With > >no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player > >is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly > >shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by > >claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, > >wear it) might, that an oral response is required. > > Also, an oppo who is not shrewd at all might like to insist on his >rights - as I would do. I see a right to an explanation, but I see no requirement that it be delivered orally. I also see no requirement that the question be asked verbally. Have I missed them? If not for the trouble and time involved, I'd write my response to the question for my opponent. -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 Nov 8 12:36:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA81Zng17524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:35:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA81Zet17520 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 12:35:41 +1100 (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 13tK9B-0007yD-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:35:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:33:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes snip >> >>But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. > > I find this so strange I had to read it three times ..... > > In judgement cases, TDs do not rule fairly quickly, except in >emergencies [eg last board of an event]. Even then you take a >reasonable amount of time. > > In judgement situations, TDs *never* rule alone. If there is no other >TD present, you either telephone one, defer the decision until you can >talk to another TD, or consult with one of the best uninvolved players. >But you never rule alone. In a club event I think one does do so, but only if one is on certain ground. I probably consult on about two thirds of my judgement rulings, at club level. The others are clear enough that one can think about it for ten minutes and then make a considered ruling. > > An example of this came from the English trials, a hand that was >promulgated here. At the end of the event, with players crowding round >him wanting the final results, Mike Amos had to rule. He rode the >pressure, telephoned me, and we discussed it carefully. OK, he told me >of the time pressure, and our phone call only lasted for about eight >minutes, when it might have been fifteen otherwise. > The Acol has a tradition of giving its results one minute after the last board is complete. My recent "Toughie from the Acol" held us up for a good five minutes. The players understood this, and indeed it exchanged first and second places. I was on the phone to DWS as the event finished. cheers john -- 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 Wed Nov 8 13:25:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA82Ot117571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:24:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA82Ojt17563 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:24:46 +1100 (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 13tKui-00072D-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:24:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:22:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor References: <3.0.6.32.20001108102319.00b2f9d0@pop.ihug.com.au> <200011080020.QAA09175@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200011080020.QAA09175@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: >Laurie Kelso wrote: > >> In this case it was the player who had forgotten, that actually answered >> the question! This in itself is a violation of normal (non-screen) >> procedure. Surely we don't want players flouting regulation/Law in their >> efforts to minimize UI? > >Well, it's a violation, but the Law being violated is a "should" law >(20F1: "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player >who made a call in question"), so it's not a particularly serious >infraction. (It does give UI to South.) Furthermore, I doubt that >most Norths, unless they are regular BLML readers, would be aware >enough of the intricacies of the Laws to think "well, now that he's >asked, I realize I goofed and I made the wrong call, but if my partner >answers, I'm going to have UI and I won't be able to correct for my >mistake, so I'd better jump in and answer first, which I know is a >violation of the Law but it's just a 'should' Law so it will be a >lesser infraction in any case"---and to think all of this quickly >enough to jump in before South answers the question. More likely, it >seems to me, North just forgot the correct procedure, or East asked >the question in a manner that led North to think it was being asked of >him; or South's mind was wandering so North decided to be helpful. But it does not matter, Adam. Violations of Law which damage the NOs should be dealt with to give them redress. It does not matter [usually] whether the Violation of Law is totally innocent, or deliberate. Yes, deliberate is more rare, and a good thing too, but we still give redress for people who are wronged by inadvertent breaches of the Law. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 13:25:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA82OsT17570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:24:54 +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 eA82Ojt17562 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:24:45 +1100 (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 13tKui-000352-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:24:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 02:19:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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 >>Marvin L. French wrote: >> >I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is >> >more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With >> >no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player >> >is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly >> >shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by >> >claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, >> >wear it) might, that an oral response is required. >> >> Also, an oppo who is not shrewd at all might like to insist on his >>rights - as I would do. > > I see a right to an explanation, but I see no requirement that it be >delivered orally. I also see no requirement that the question be asked >verbally. Have I missed them? If not for the trouble and time involved, >I'd write my response to the question for my opponent. I do agree that the methodology has grown up as a Custom+Practice affair, rather than a written requirement in the Laws. However, I do not see that that gives a person a right to flout this procedure just because it benefits them. -- 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 Wed Nov 8 13:29:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA82TK317589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:29:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA82TFt17585 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:29:15 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:26:33 -0800 Message-ID: <00aa01c0492b$a30e0400$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:28:49 -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 > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >I think our experience was typical, in that the question itself is > >more likely than the answer to wake up a player to hir mistake. With > >no way of knowing, a better course for TDs/ACs than assuming a player > >is lying is to declare a reply AI when it only recites what is clearly > >shown on the CC. After all, a shrewd opponent could force UI by > >claiming poor eyesight, or by insisting, as David (if the shoe fits, > >wear it) might, that an oral response is required. > > Also, an oppo who is not shrewd at all might like to insist on his > rights - as I would do. Ah, the shoe fits. Disclosure required, yes, "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization," which could well prohibit a player from asking a question if the answer is easily viewed on the opposing CC, "fully and freely available." And, of course, we know that L20F1 (as confirmed by the WBFLC in Lille) says that the proper way to inquire further than the CC or Alert explanations is to ask for an explanation of the auction, avoiding calling attention to a particular call unless necessary to do so during that explanation. Actually, the combination of CC regulations, the CC itself, Alerts and Announcements in ACBL-land makes inquiries rarely necessary if the rules are followed. I can't remember the last time I had to interrupt an auction to ask questions about it, including 9 days at the Anaheim NABC, except for obvious failures to Alert. Of course I routinely ask for an explanation when there is an Alert, and routinely examine the opposing CC. On defense, I may ask for an explanation of the opposing auction (for my benefit, not partner's). Altogether, those measures usually are sufficient. I readily concede that the generally more complex partnership agreements outside ACBL-land may require a different approach. 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 Nov 8 14:01:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA830sj17625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:00:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA830mt17621 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:00:49 +1100 (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 <20001108030043.GRJV7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:00:43 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 18:58:29 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <01fe01c048fe$a1e1d980$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Thanks, Linda. Gary steered me in the wrong direction, but I should be > able to read. LOL.... > L16A1 - no, SO optional (reserving the right to call the TD) I've been working on this one for at least 3 years.... just trying to allow reservation of rights for tempo situations.... been getting nowhere.... Some day.... Anyway - with the double system thing... just play a "system" that is defined by mixing other "systems" together... ie. - Romex - which as I recall is vulnerability sensitive... the key is, their agreements are firm and not dependent on the opponents system.... Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 14:06:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA836Q717640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:06:26 +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.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 eA836Kt17636 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:06:21 +1100 (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 <20001108030616.GVMU7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:06:16 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:04:02 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200011080051.QAA09775@mailhub.irvine.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > David Stevenson wrote: > > > I can see it myself. The TD does the obvious, and does not enforce > > it. Some players play fairly complex things, but they never bother with > > CCs. Eventually you notice that some of your weaker and older players > > are no longer coming. It's their age, you think. > > > > Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing against fancy > > systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they > > realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. > > Please remember that this is an international newsgroup, and that > while what you say may be true in Britain, given that you guys have > all those British comedies you can watch, we over here in the U.S. > have the New Fall Season to contend with, the consequence of which is > that it would take a whole lot worse than a plethora of fancy systems > and inadequate explanations and poorly-filled-out CCs to make an > evening of bridge at the club less fun than watching TV at home. > > :) :) > -- Adam You mean you're watching Titans on wednesday nights???? :-p :-p Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 14:24:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA83OGZ17678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:24:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cpimssmtpa05.msn.com ([207.46.181.109]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA83OAt17674 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:24:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by cpimssmtpa05.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 19:24:03 -0800 Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au - 150.203.20.9 by msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:16:33 -0800 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA7HDhv16841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:13:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA7HDat16837 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:13:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from p01s06a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.86.2] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13tCG5-0003T5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 09:10:06 -0800 Message-ID: <007801c048de$08a451a0$bb8d93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 17:12:30 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2000 03:24:03.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[57C8EFC0:01C04933] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott>>>>>>> > > Surely not in the ACBL. This may be what would (should?) happen > elsewhere, but only because L12C3 can be interpreted to justify it. In > North America, we must apply L12C2. It may be difficult to determine > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > occurred", but, whatever it is, it must be a result that would have > been *possible* "had the irregularity not occured". Here, had the > irregularity not occured, 6S would not have been bid, so I don't see > how L12C2 allows us to award 6S=. > +=+ I am intrigued. It is now a little clearer to me what Rich Colker was thinking about when he sought the assurance that the WBF has no prohibition on including the table score amongst the results allowed for in a weighted adjustment. Without the UI there may have been some measure of probability that 6S would be bid, I think he would say. So after the UI is made available, the extent to which redress following use of the UI exceeds the chances of 6S not being bid is the extent to which it exceeds "the number of points required to offset the irregularity" (sic). Hmm..... so I ask myself, where does this lead? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 14:50:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA83oOP17717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:50:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA83oHt17713 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:50:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA29004; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:38:33 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <022201c04901$6aa88d80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <022201c04901$6aa88d80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:48:33 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >"Position" means position in the auction, not position at the table. >You don't know if you are going to be opening the bidding in third >seat until the auction has started. Huh? If South is dealer, and I'm North, I'm either going to be opening the bidding in third seat (in which case I'll use one option at favorable - which is also predetermined-and the other otherwise) or somebody else is going to open before I do, in which case what I might have done after two passes is irrelevant. 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/AwUBOgjNb72UW3au93vOEQIDhQCdGWj2zPAyD08mn7p8R8n++6G/R28AoIAR YJ5ul0F5qwhltee/FouDqhry =bp/b -----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 Nov 8 15:42:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA84edw17755 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:40:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA84eWt17751 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:40:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06544; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:28:47 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:30:50 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Oh come one, taking cards out of a bidding box is required, and if you >look carefully, you can deduce lots from pd's methodology of taking >cards out. Are you going to stop him bidding because it gives UI? Give me a break, David. This is *not* the situation of which I was speaking. In the first place, I said "when that [i.e., requiring a player to give UI to his partner] is unnecessary". Absent screens, it would be impossible for one player to hide his "methodology [sic] of taking cards out" from another. Second, while it doesn't directly address them, the spirit, at least, of Law 74C5 would seem to suggest one ought not to "look carefully" at partner's method of pulling his bidding cards. > It is just not satisfactory that players should be allowed to flout >the Law because they may be UI problems. Answers to questions are >nearly always different from what is written on a CC, and much more >complete and useful. Maybe so. Personally, I think that argument is a red herring. And I'm not talking about "flouting the law". I'm talking about changes in the way explanations are given, or questions are asked, that are intended to minimize damage to the side asked which occurs, essentially, simply because they are using a method of which their opponents are (or may be) ignorant. I am looking, right now, at the 1993 edition of the EBU Orange Book. It says in part (section 2.6, on page 9) "you are expected to know all the above, regardless of alerts, and if you are later embarrassed because you failed to find them out, it will be your fault." Has this changed in the latest edition? All I'm suggesting is that it would, it seems to me, be more fair to all concerned if the principle expressed in this quote from the Orange Book were extended to include explicitly the principle that alerted opponents should refer first to the convention card, and only ask questions if that device does not fully satisfy their need for information. I don't see why that should be considered "flouting the laws", nor do I see why it should be considered unsatisfactory. > Plus why should you be allowed to ignore a procedure because it >gives you an advantage to do so? I am going to give "you" in that sentence the benefit of the doubt, and assume you meant it in the general, rather than the personal sense. That being the case, I simply refer you to my previous paragraph in this message. 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/AwUBOgjZLb2UW3au93vOEQJiiQCdGQMrmR10annOpF0LNrl6wKADDA4AnRDj FLEofCU5yvTSHdjLwfyK16aC =w5BZ -----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 Nov 8 15:42:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA84fhn17765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:41:43 +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 eA84fFt17761 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:41:38 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:38:29 -0800 Message-ID: <00b801c0493e$11ff06e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011071803.NAA19434@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:38:33 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > considering that the current L40E election clearly says that the basic > > system may not be changed during a session of play. > > The "basic system" may include variability with vulnerability. For > example, my 1NT opener might be "15-17 if vul, 12-14 if non-vul." This > is the _definition_ of my basic system. > > Once I've adopted this definition, of course I cannot change it during > a session. ("Variable notrump except always strong at Table 3" would > be disallowed, for example.) All agreed. "The basic system may not be changed" was a poor choice of words, I guess. It does not mean varying details of the system, it means going to a whole new system. When I say I am going to change my clothes, that doesn't mean I might just change my shirt. 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 Nov 8 15:50:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA84oB417784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:50:11 +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 (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA84o4t17780 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:50:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01531; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:45:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002001c048fc$ac447560$0b00000a@mike> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:46:15 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:41 PM +0000 11/7/00, David Stevenson wrote: >That is one way of looking at it, but I would say it is the less >popular way. To me, you are playing different systems at different >vulnerabilities. Interesting. ISTR, from the EBU "Green Book" (1991?) which preceded the 1993 Orange Book, the statement that the EBU would no longer license "systems", but instead would only license conventions. I believe the grounds for this was that it had become too difficult to define what made a "system," since wherever people started, they invariably added their own mix of conventions and treatments, so that their "system," whatever it might be called, would bear little resemblance to anyone else's version of the same name. I think you would say that, all other things being equal, a pair playing Acol with a variable NT are not playing two different systems. So I don't see why you would feel that varying whether 1C or 2C is the primary forcing bid (for example) makes for two different systems. 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/AwUBOgjbdL2UW3au93vOEQKQ0wCgh8/kYLiFqx2m27TW71ao2jzzwagAnizB HQ2zqc+CiiukXJ9VUHskt42N =w2Kn -----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 Nov 8 15:50:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA84oaH17796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:50:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA84oTt17792 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:50:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01562; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:45:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001107182630.00b2bc70@pop.ihug.com.au> <016501c04898$8bde3b80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A083DF8.A17E58D3@satx.rr.com> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 23:49:06 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:48 PM +0000 11/7/00, David Stevenson wrote: >I can see it myself. The TD does the obvious, and does not enforce >it. Some players play fairly complex things, but they never bother with >CCs. Eventually you notice that some of your weaker and older players >are no longer coming. It's their age, you think. > > Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing against fancy >systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they >realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. So what do we do? Just live with it? I would rather find a way to keep as many folks playing as possible. Not to mention introducing new players. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOgjbjr2UW3au93vOEQJZ/wCfZNLc3dqj/l9WoNq7t8XyJPuHHdMAn3R7 Mz0dAgEJeZcktTjP3ihwqWSO =MG1E -----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 Nov 8 16:01:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA851Q917816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:01:26 +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 eA851Kt17812 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:01:21 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:58:38 -0800 Message-ID: <00be01c04940$e277a3c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <019f01c048e0$1c5ceca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002001c048fc$ac447560$0b00000a@mike> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 20:55:20 -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 Mike Dodson wrote: > > A system is a comprehensive set of agreements. Position and vulnerability > are valid factors in determining the meaning of a bid. Its quite possible > that one set of agreements is a subset of another but they can both be > systems. It is common to vary the meaning of some bids based on position or > vulnerability, its only a matter of degree to change your entire approach. > Your system might be described as standard american with UDCA and mine might > be described as SA not vulnerable, precision vulnerable but we are each > playing only one set of agreements-one system. It never occurred to me that the term "basic system" could include both SA and Precision, but I suppose that interpretation is possible. To me those are two different basic systems. I would draw the line at the point where two different convention cards are needed to disclose a partnership's methods. If it takes two cards, you're playing two systems. Legal, according to Memphis, if a switch of system is based on vulnerability. I am waiting on an answer as to whether a switch of system is okay based on opening bid position. The ACBL CC has a place at the top for showing "General Approach." To me that discloses what a partnership's basic system is, without looking elsewhere. > > The ACBL convention card provides a convenient way to show varying NT ranges > and positional changes in 4/5 card majors but surely that doesn't limit the > possible variations. > Those are variances of system, not changes of the basic system, using my nomenclature. 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 Nov 8 16:11:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA85BXY17837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:11:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA85BOt17829 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:11:24 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:08:42 -0800 Message-ID: <00c901c04942$4aae9b00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001107172124.00c484b0@sujja.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:04:16 -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 David Ken wrote: ----- > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > >> > Two system methods *are* legal, but they should be pre-alerted. > >See > >> > > > >which reads, in part: > > > >"Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a > >combination of the two. While this is legal, it is also something the > >opponents may need to know ahead of time. One example of this is > >agreeing to play a forcing club system not vulnerable and "two over > >one" vulnerable." > > > >Permitted, evidently, but arguably conflicting with the L40E ACBL > >Election in the back of the Laws, hence illegal. > > > >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be > >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say > >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. > > > > Having on more than a couple of occasions to have been in the unfortunate > circumstance of having been knocked out of the Vanderbilt or Spingold > before the final, I usually end up kibbitzing pairs whose system I can > understand (and whom I respect as bridge players). On more than one > occasion, I have watched Soloway and Goldman. They not only changed their > system based on vulnerability (exactly as stated above - i.e. Precision V, > 2/1 NV), Legal. but also on the state of the match. Not legal during a session of play. > However, they would change > their system to Precision V vs NV, 2/1 at all other vulnerabilities usually > at the beginning of the 4th qtr of a match in which they were leading by > 40+ IMPs. I do not mean to imply that they changed their system in the > middle of a quarter - I am sure that never happened (or at least not while > I was kibbitzing). If a quarter is a session of play according to the SO, no doubt true, they're okay. > They had a convention card which consisted of the > defensive bidding and signalling, and 2 other sections which would be > flipped over to identify the system being played for each vulnerability > situation (or when a change was required). They did this assiduously - I > never remember a situation wherby the wrong "system" was displayed on the cc. The CC is supposed to be a reasonable facsimile of the ACBL card. If what they had was one ACBL-like left hand side and alternate ACBL-like right hand sides, that would be perfectly acceptable, I'm sure. If the format was their own, much different from the ACBL card, not acceptable. > > Do you feel the system(s) they were playing was "illegal"? If so, why? Answered, I think. 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 Nov 8 16:11:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA85BXc17838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:11:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA85BPt17830 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:11:25 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:08:43 -0800 Message-ID: <00ca01c04942$4b0baf20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000301c0490b$94e9ebc0$c53467c0@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:07:55 -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 > ... > > Well, that settles it. Multiple systems may be employed if based on > > vulnerability, and I'll include that in the proposed L40E Election. > ... > > Marv (Marvin L. French) > > mlfrench@writeme.com > > San Diego, CA, USA Richard Willey wrote: > > Quick suggestion. > You might want to explicitly mention that system can also be changed > based on seat. > First I have to find out from CTD Gary Blaiss if that is okay. I hope it is not. I would hate to examine one convention card, and then have opponents whip out another after one of them passes instead of opening. 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 Nov 8 16:32:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA85Vni17885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:31:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA85Vft17878 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:31:42 +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; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:28:56 -0800 Message-ID: <00e101c04945$1e6ced00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <007701c04550$2619d020$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A028EAA.6836F177@village.uunet.be> <00c801c04637$c5f3aac0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0gw3KRAHKDB6Ewtl@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <010001c046ef$8a80d180$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c0473a$5d011080$a6053dd4@default> <00a101c047df$172d55a0$33053dd4@default> <00f901c0483e$41115100$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002c01c0484d$a72d0100$695908c3@dodona> <013201c04880$b60887c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01a801c048eb$5f8c0460$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] hypothetical question Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:28:50 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >There are other aspects of L12C3 that can be argued, perhaps as a > >matter of local preference (suitable benefit of doubt for the OS, for > >instance). Leaving those aside, and addressing only the implementation > >of L12C3, it seems that lower-level TDs on your side of the ocean are > >more saavy about the game than those on this side. I shudder to think > >of our TDs trying to do the analysis and arithmetic required by L12C3, > >even in an approximate fashion. It seems to me that it is easier for > >them to decide on the most favorable result that was likely absent an > >infraction than it would be to figure probabilities for each possible > >result, even in a rough way. > > Aren't they just giving 60/40 anyway? > Actually, 60 (or 60+, done by the computer) and table result. :) Hey, the players are quite satisfied with such a ruling, does that justify it? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 16:32:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA85Vle17884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:31:47 +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 eA85Vdt17875 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:31:40 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:28:52 -0800 Message-ID: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 21:23:17 -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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >Ed Reppert wrote: > > > At 11:14 AM -0800 11/7/00, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >I am surprised that the ACBL would permit convention cards to be > > > >switched during the auction, as the above implies but doesn't say > > > >explicitly. I'll have to ask Gary Blaiss about this. > > > > > > You see an implication I don't. Vulnerability and position are known > > > at the beginning of the auction; it is *then* that conventions may > >be > > > switched, not during the auction. I don't see how you infer one can > > > change in the middle of the auction. > > > > >"Position" means position in the auction, not position at the table. > >You don't know if you are going to be opening the bidding in third > >seat until the auction has started. > > I'm dealer. LHO makes an OBOOT. Sure, I've moved from 1st to 4th > seat. Otherwise position is known before the auction starts. I still > haven't changed my system. We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention cards because you don't know which will apply. > Are your bidding system and your CC equivalent under the law? I believe so. The CC discloses what your basic system comprises, in fairly good detail. > Is the > CC explicitly one sheet of ACBL-approved paper? The system I employ uses > these agreements for 1st seat favorable, those for 1st seat unfavorable, > those for 2nd seat, and so on, on several sheets of paper. I don't see the > illegality. A different CC for each of the 16 seat/vul combination openers > (while so far unheard of, best I've seen) doesn't sound in anyway illegal. The CC has to be a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. Your system of CCs, with stuff written on different sheets of paper, doesn't seem to fit that description. The regulation (July 97) says two cards must be physically [!] available, must have approximately the same size and general format of the ACBL CC, have all Alertable methods marked in red and all Announceable methods marked in blue. The General Approach and names of the partnership must be shown. I refer to that whole shebang as "a reasonable facsimile." I'm still waiting to find out if changing system per seat position is allowed. 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 Nov 8 17:22:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA86Luv17963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:21:56 +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 eA86Lpt17959 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:21:51 +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 ; Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:19:09 -0800 Message-ID: <011101c0494c$21f32960$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c046fb$68cd6240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <002a01c047c1$2db0de00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <015101c0488b$ee1e6fc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <01c001c048ee$fcd35ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <022201c04901$6aa88d80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000 22:12:46 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Marvin L. French" > > >"Position" means position in the auction, not position at the table. > >You don't know if you are going to be opening the bidding in third > >seat until the auction has started. > > Huh? If South is dealer, and I'm North, I'm either going to be > opening the bidding in third seat (in which case I'll use one option > at favorable - which is also predetermined-and the other otherwise) > or somebody else is going to open before I do, in which case what I > might have done after two passes is irrelevant. > We must not be talking about the same thing. That's not "you" Ed Reppert, but "you" plural, your partnership. Blame it on me, or blame it on the English language. I should have used y'all. We sit down to play a board. Your partner is dealer. If your side is going to open the bidding, you don't know if it is going be in first position (your partner) or in third position (you). I don't want to have to look at two convention cards before playing the board, and I don't want to wait until one of you opens to look at the applicable convention card. 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 Nov 8 17:36:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA86aQs17987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:36:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA86aJt17983 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:36:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA14639; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 00:57:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 01:07:20 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for >that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention >cards because you don't know which will apply. Why is that such a big deal? :-) 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/AwUBOgj0Wb2UW3au93vOEQLiDACgnzcNt5uDQwYBXy7DqbKuVIQeQhAAoPOJ /2wnurKZN0mp+EmSbInjdlno =XZ+w -----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 Nov 8 23:31:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CTj618260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:29:45 +1100 (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 eA8CTct18256 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:29:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id EAA19497 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:31:30 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:29:02 -0500 Message-ID: <000201c0497f$79eca500$c13467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > The CC has to be a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. Your system > of CCs, with stuff written on different sheets of paper, doesn't > seem to fit that description. > > The regulation (July 97) says two cards must be physically [!] > available, must have approximately the same size and general format > of the ACBL CC, have all Alertable methods marked in red and all > Announceable methods marked in blue. The General Approach and names > of the partnership must be shown. I refer to that whole shebang as > "a reasonable facsimile." Marv I think that you are placing too much emphasis on the role of the convention card within the ACBL. Hypothetically, assume that the ACBL redesigned the convention card so that it could only be used to describe a single bidding system. (For all intents and purposes, the convention card is pre-printed and describes a wonderful description of Roman Club.) The ACBL convention charts allow players to play whatever system they want, but no other system can be described on a convention card. What rule takes precedence??? BTW, since we seem to be involved in very serious nitpicking here, you are correct in pointing out that the ACBL requires that two cards are physically present. Please show me where it states that more than two card may not be present. I can make a very convincing argument that if I display two convention cards on the table (one describing openings for first and second seat, one for third and fourth), that my system information is at least a "physically available" as the average pair's in any ACBL tournament that I have ever attended. Richard -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOglHDLFdMFbo8dHHEQLRnQCfZllLv7z3GKCbysIo4UYpQ8vn9V8An0ke pIDqLARTx/LkHL1WJEOhCdUk =8RR6 -----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 Nov 8 23:33:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CXOL18283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8CXDt18269 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.45]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13370 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A07E689.84CC3330@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:24:57 +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] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B709@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3A066F5B.6E75538D@village.uunet.be> <7b0e0t0aabvsm1iag6e8mtvp7nctvc6fvu@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2000 09:44:11 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > >By applying equity + PP, you really treat offenders as they > >should. "you really ought to have known better, and I apply > >a double fine". > > I would agree completely I we were talking only about AC's with > multiple persons and sufficient time to actually consider > seriously whether or not the player really ought to have known > better. > Isn't that the standard we are talking of ? I agree that in lower circumstances, we need "easier" laws. But we are discussing the standard, and I think that the standard should be the higher level. Maybe that is the only thing we disagree over. Which is the standard - and which is the exception ? > But a TD has to rule fairly quickly, and sometimes alone. In > that situation I prefer that the TD does not have to judge > whether they ought to have known better (and then spend time > filling out appeals forms when it turns out that the players > themselves disagree). > I agree that I too prefer not to have to do this. But isn't it then better to presume innocence ? After all, in those case where we really know they should have known better, isn't it better to then give the PP, which should be more effective. Rather than assume everyone cheats ? And having no further ammunition against actual cheaters ? > And it is definitely not a good idea to rule by different > standards depending on whether it is a TD or an AC that gives the > ruling: then we will have the (current) situation where TD > rulings need to be appealed before the "correct" result can be > assigned. > I don't think the standards differ, and I am not certain that it is such a bad thing for rulings to need appeal before being correct. After all, those TD's that have L12C3 powers always receive them under the express understanding that they use them only after consultation. > -- > Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . > http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 8 23:33:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CXRD18285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8CXFt18270 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.45]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13391 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A07E8EA.A897CFDA@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:35:06 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <005501c0480c$988a9400$d9d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <7lvd0to81bfec8rj6aokekqv8rh8u5unb4@nuser.h.dybdal.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >(By the way, that WBFLC statement would also apply in David's > >example - a fact that I had overlooked when I answered David a > >few minutes ago.) > My response on David's original example has since been sent to the list. > Oh well, we can no doubt come up with an example that does not involve > L25B. > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 3C P 3D P > ..4C > > While hesitating over what to call West pulled a Pass card halfway out > of the box, but then bid 4C. > Better example, but not good enough. > East to West: "You prat, why were you thinking of passing, I forced > to game with 2D!" This is UI. Again your example is tainted with two possible sources of UI, so it cannot serve. Why don't we just forget East's remark, and make the question : After the hand is over, opponent's ask what West was thinking of, and he replies that he was thinking of passing. Then they answer him why he bid 7C afterwards, now he says : > West to East: "Whoops, sorry, I was thinking you had not jumped." > > The auction continues: > > W N E S > 1C P 2D P > 3C P 3D P > ..4C P 4D P > 7C AP > > which [of course] makes. When the TD is called, West points outt hat > East jumped to 2D which is AI because it is part of the auction. > > Well? > Would you still say that the jump to 2D was UI ? What's the difference with any of David's examples ? The difference is that East tells West that 2D is game-forcing. While the bidding itself is (IMO) always AI, the fact that some part of it is important can be UI, when that fact is revealed by partner. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 8 23:33:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CXV818289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8CXHt18274 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.45]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13397 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A07EA0C.6EA494E8@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2000 12:39:56 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > I have a letter from EK that bears on the question. My query to him > was dated 1995 Sept. 20; he would have answered a month or so later. > His answer was no doubt based on the 1987 Laws, but I don't think > anything relevant changed in 1997. I've abridged my query but not his > responses, which are quoted with permission. > > ----- > Playing with bid boxes but without screens, I see RHO open with 1S. I > have a nice opening hand with a good heart suit so overcall 2H. When > the bidding gets back to me, I see that RHO's bid was really 1C, and > I've made a weak jump overcall! > > 1. May I take an unusual action -- say bidding 3NT -- to try to > recover? > > EK: Unless your side has committed an infraction of Law, you are free > to bid whatever you think will be successful. Here, there is no > infraction, only a misbid, so there is no restriction. > > 2. Does the answer change if an opponent has asked the meaning of 2H, > and partner has (correctly) answered "weak?" (The 1C bid card has been > sitting on the table all the time.) > > EK: Yes, this is different. Partner's explanation has given you > unauthorized information. (A Director or Committee should assume > that this is what woke you up, unless you have evidence to the > contrary.) You may not take action on this basis. > ----- > > So the DBF LC seems to have reiterated Kaplan's position. > > We need to distinguish two questions: a) are the above answers correct > under current Laws? -- by definition the DBF LC one is correct in > Denmark! -- I believe they are. EK says : A Director or Committee should assume that this is what woke you up, unless you have evidence to the contrary. This is the crux. Find evidence that you have noticed 1C after you bid 2H and without partner's explanation and you are free to do what you want. and b) what should the Laws say? Having had five years to > think about the matter, I am still not sure about the answer to 1. It > does seem to me that the legal auction can never be UI according to the > first sentence of L16, yet we have two respectable opinions to the > contrary. > I don't think we do. We have two opinions that say that the I that was passed was the fact that the auction was NOT the one the player was assuming it was. That I is UI if coming from partner. The bidding itself is still AI. > As to what the laws should say, it seems to me that it would be a great no comment. -- 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 Nov 8 23:33:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CXci18290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8CXNt18284 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:33:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-45.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.45]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13422 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 13:33:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 12:43:45 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Having read all the replies on this thread, and after a longish (for our standards, 45 minutes is only longISH) telephone discussion with Jan Boets, I have some points to make on the Danish case. Allow me to return to the original post Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > South dealer, EW vulnerable. > A83 > Q10964 S W N E > 875 P P P 1H > 72 P 2S* P 4H > KJ952 10 P 4S P 5C > - AK753 P P P > 942 A63 > K10843 AJ95 > Q764 > J82 > KQJ10 > Q6 > > 12 tricks, -620. > > 2S is artificial: it shows primary heart support and a singleton > or void in spades. It was alerted. W did not use the stop card > before bidding 2S. > > Please consider it established that: > * W made an inadvertent 2S call - he had intended to bid 1S (and > could have made a L25A correction if he had been aware of L25A). > * W knew perfectly well what a jump in spades meant in his > system. > * When E alerted 2S, W realized that he had actually bid 2S and > not 1S. He did not know L25A, so he said nothing at all at the > time. He tried later to repair the situation by bidding 4S. > > The question is: does W have UI that makes his 4S call a L16A > violation? I would like to begin with making two assertions that are perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually written down : 1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the same content is also available to him, then there are no L16 restrictions upon him. This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have AI with the same content. 2) All information that a player is entitled to, by Law, is AI. This should also be well accepted, even if perhaps it is not. As an example, let me give the following hypothetical : My 2 opponents are regular partners of my current partner, but not of each other. They have agreed to play the system of my partner. One of them forgets a particular meaning and offers to have my partner explain to me the meaning of their bidding. Even if the actual information is now given by my partner, this is still AI to me, because it is information I am entitled to receive. (it is of course UI to them, even if coming from opponent) Similarly, the following are AI : - the actual bidding, since a player is always entitled to a review - the Laws of the game, since he is entitled to have them read to him by the TD Let me immediately counter some of the comments you are likely to make: while these things are always AI, the fact that partner tells me them may add some additional information, which of course remains UI. Now back to Jesper's case. The alert, and explanation, contains 3 pieces of information : 1) The call was 2Sp. This is also available to W as AI (actual bidding) 2) 2 Spades shows a void in spades. This is also available to W as AI (his own system, which we accept he knows) 3) There is something strange in the bidding. This third piece of information is UI. It tells W that he'd better ask for a review of the bidding. When he does, he discovers the truth. L16 only refers to bidding and play, which may not be based on UI. It says nothing of other actions. The action of asking for a review of the bidding (or of deciding to look again at the bidding cards on the table) is not covered by L16. However, by extension it is accepted that a call that is subsequent to and dependent on the result of some action that was taken based on UI, is covered by L16. OK, we now have a piece of UI, and L16 applies on this. Provided however that W not also have a piece of AI to suggest that there is something strange in the bidding. Together with Jan, I've come up with some examples that are of this nature : 1Sp 1NT (*) pass 2Di (*) player intended to bid 2NT for the minors, but fejlgrabbed. The 2Di bid (over a presumed 2NT) is "something strange". 1Sp 2NT (*) pass 3Di (*) the player intended to bid 1NT showing 16-18, but fejlgrabbed. The 3Di (a jump?) may be considered "something strange". This second example being less obvious than the first. Back to the original case : 1He pass 2Sp (*) pass 4He (*) a fejlgrab of 1Sp. Consider this (spoken bidding) : 1He pass 1Sp pass 4He You have shown your spades, your 6 HCP, and said nothing that denies a void in hearts. Is there any reason to expect that there is anything strange in this auction ? IMO even less than in the second example above. There is IMHO no AI to suggest something strange in the bidding. Therefor, the action of reviewing the auction may be based on the UI. I now believe the DLC made the correct ruling. -- 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 Nov 8 23:40:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8CeHI18329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:40:17 +1100 (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 eA8CeBt18325 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:40:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial2.isi.com [192.103.52.193]) by hermes.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Hermes 991202 TroyC) with SMTP id EAA19561 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 04:42:04 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:39:36 -0500 Message-ID: <000701c04980$f3f2efc0$c13467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: 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 > *** PGP Signature Status: good > *** Signer: Ed Reppert (Invalid) > *** Signed: 11/7/00 11:50:22 PM > *** Verified: 11/8/00 6:21:23 AM > *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE *** > > At 11:48 PM +0000 11/7/00, David Stevenson wrote: > > Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing > against fancy > >systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they > >realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. > > So what do we do? Just live with it? I would rather find a way to > keep as many folks playing as possible. Not to mention introducing > new players. I think that you accept that there have been a series of demographic changes over the years. Any number of rather simple forms of mass entertainment that once appealed to a broad population have become less attractive to younger generations. This trend is not limited to bridge, but applies to any number of previously popular leisure activities. (For all those players who claim that convention and complexity are responsible for bridge's declining appeal for a mass audience, I wonder who you explain parallel declines in the popularity of other forms of card games, checkers and other board games, ...) In short, I think that you give up on trying to continually simplify the game chasing after a disappearing demographic segment. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOglJhrFdMFbo8dHHEQLazgCeLOFAjBAeq4BpkoGGPGyDUzomK3EAnjYn 270SC9euVELWwWTnpx1kAX5k =xwr+ -----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 Nov 8 23:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8Crwl18346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:53:58 +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-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 eA8Crqt18342 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:53:52 +1100 (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 eA8Crlw42593 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 07:53:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001108074708.00b3d720@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, 08 Nov 2000 07:53:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) In-Reply-To: <007801c048de$08a451a0$bb8d93c3@pacific> References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 11/7/00, Grattan wrote: > > Surely not in the ACBL. This may be what would (should?) happen > > elsewhere, but only because L12C3 can be interpreted to justify > it. In > > North America, we must apply L12C2. It may be difficult to determine > > "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not > > occurred", but, whatever it is, it must be a result that would have > > been *possible* "had the irregularity not occured". Here, had the > > irregularity not occured, 6S would not have been bid, so I don't see > > how L12C2 allows us to award 6S=. > > >+=+ I am intrigued. It is now a little clearer to >me what Rich Colker was thinking about when >he sought the assurance that the WBF has no >prohibition on including the table score amongst >the results allowed for in a weighted adjustment. >Without the UI there may have been some >measure of probability that 6S would be bid, I >think he would say. So after the UI is made >available, the extent to which redress following >use of the UI exceeds the chances of 6S not >being bid is the extent to which it exceeds "the >number of points required to offset the >irregularity" (sic). This is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote "L12C3 can be interpreted to justify it" -- and Grattan tells us that the WBL has done precisely that. But L12C2 does not allow an adjustment to the contract that was actually reached if it is "at all probable" that it would have been missed absent the infraction. I assume that Mr. Colker's concern was with the WBF interpretation for WBF play; it is L12C3 being interpreted here, so the interpretation can't be applied to ACBL play. > Hmm..... so I ask myself, where does this >lead? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Logically, for better or worse, it would seem to lead to an even greater divergence between practice in the ACBL and in the rest of the world. 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 Nov 9 00:37:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8Db6H18414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:37:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thor.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@thor.inter.net.il [192.114.186.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8Dawt18410 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-7-30.access.net.il [213.8.7.30] (may be forged)) by thor.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ADW04363; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 15:36:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0956F1.A8D352E8@inter.net.il> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 15:36:49 +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 - October 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 25th 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(RB 2/2000), Gus (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) Olivier Beauvillain - 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 01:45:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8EjBM18462 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:45:11 +1100 (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 eA8Ej0t18458 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:45:01 +1100 (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 JAA28892 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:48:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011081448.JAA28892@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 09:48:31 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Warning: way too much of this is ACBL specific. mdf On 7 November 2000 at 21:23, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for >that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention >cards because you don't know which will apply. > First, I know exactly which one will apply - that one if he opens, this one if I get to :-). Doesn't help you much, though, I know. Second, you must be at least warned *before the round starts* that this situation is present; so you have time to check out the situation before the thick of things. When Ken Warren and Keith Balcolme[sp?] were still a partnership up here, they used to play 2/1 1st and 2nd, and K/S opposite a passed hand. Their one ACBL CC was conscienciously filled out, and had all the required information. It was also a complete pain to read, as everything was different [1&2] or [3&4]. I would have much preferred them to have two CCs, one containing their 2/1 system, one their K/S system, both clearly labelled as only applying part of the time (and giving basic ideas as to what applied the rest of the time). General Approach: Kaplan/Scheinwold (in 3rd or 4th seat only). Note: we play 2/1 GF in 1st/2nd; see other card. As another idea, I want to play the Piranha Club[1] (http://www.kvac.uu.se/~christer/bridge.html#pirclub) at some point (it's only legal on Mid-Chart, so I have to find someone willing to learn it for one or two games a year). It's only one system, but one of its cornerstones is variant strengths for opening bids based on position (3rd hand limited openers are 3 points heavier than 1st and 2nd, and in 4th seat the weak part of the forcing 1C is removed). >> Are your bidding system and your CC equivalent under the law? > >I believe so. The CC discloses what your basic system comprises, in >fairly good detail. > I agree with the argument, but not the conclusion. The CC does a good job of giving a one-page precis of my bidding system. I happen to like science; my system notes (incomplete yet, but I'm working on it) are around 80 pages. The CC cannot be equivalent to my system - that's why I have system notes. >The CC has to be a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. Your system of >CCs, with stuff written on different sheets of paper, doesn't seem to >fit that description. > >The regulation (July 97) says two cards must be physically [!] >available, must have approximately the same size and general format of >the ACBL CC, have all Alertable methods marked in red and all >Announceable methods marked in blue. The General Approach and names of >the partnership must be shown. I refer to that whole shebang as "a >reasonable facsimile." > I think I'd allow a three-section card with one LHS and two RHS, with clear explanations as to when each RHS applies, as a "reasonable facsimile". At least that's what I did when I was playing "Precision when you are vul, 2/1 when you are NV". >I'm still waiting to find out if changing system per seat position is >allowed. > >From the Alert Procedure, Part III, Pre-Alerts: Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a combination of the two. While this is legal,... I would say that's pretty clear - at least in the ACBL. And if that's a stretch of the Laws to be legal, I think it's one of the ones I agree with. Michael. [1] if you take a look, realize that Christer has embued me with a significantly higher knowledge of Swedish than I do, in fact, have. All I did was rewrite his translation so that it read more like English than Babelfished Swedish. But if he wishes to call that "translation", who am I to gainsay him? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 01:54:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8EsZX18482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:54:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8EsPt18474 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:54:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from p83s06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.132] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13tWaV-0005Ou-00 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:52:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:04:47 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott>>>>>>> +=+ 'Election' did you say? Oh, let Florida decide. That's the American way........ :-)) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 01:54:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8Esa818483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:54:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8EsPt18475 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 01:54:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from p83s06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.132] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13tWaW-0005Ou-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:52:32 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c04993$c0d3cca0$847693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200011062239.RAA15222@cfa183.harvard.edu><4.3.2.7.1.20001107081906.00ab4400@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20001108074708.00b3d720@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 14:52:29 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: 08 November 2000 12:53 Subject: Re: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) > At 12:12 PM 11/7/00, Grattan wrote: > > Eric Landau wrote: > I assume that Mr. Colker's concern was with > the WBF interpretation for WBF play; it is L12C3 > being interpreted here, so the interpretation can't > be applied to ACBL play. > > > Hmm..... so I ask myself, where does this > >lead? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Logically, for better or worse, it would seem to > lead to an even greater divergence between > practice in the ACBL and in the rest of the world. > +=+ It may be, as they say, "too close to call". When I suggested Rich was anti-12C3 a while back I had an immediate protest from him. (My understanding was faulty. He wanted to find a basis for 12C3 that would fit the ACBL comfortably.) So I think he may be clawing his way to a solution. You will notice that the WBF has been careful to make the road very broad. None of this straight and narrow stuff for us! ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 02:33:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8FXe818526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 02:33:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA8FXUt18522 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 02:33:30 +1100 (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 KAA29861 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:37:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:37:01 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 7 November 2000 at 23:34, David Stevenson wrote: > Ed Reppert: >> >>i would think that "Please refer to our CC" ought to be an allowable >>answer to a question. Perhaps with "and then please ask if you >>require further information" or some such. A procedure that >>*requires* a player to give UI to his partner when that is >>unnecessary, and then restricts that partner's actions because he has >>UI, seems fundamentally unfair to me. > > Oh come on, taking cards out of a bidding box is required, and if you >look carefully, you can deduce lots from pd's methodology of taking >cards out. Are you going to stop him bidding because it gives UI? > Others have pointed out the absurtidy in this leap, so I won't. Instead, I'll restate the question: Why should not "please look at our card, further information available on request" be a legitimate answer to a question (barring dyslexia, poor vision, or inability to read dutch)? > It is just not satisfactory that players should be allowed to flout >the Law because they may be UI problems. Answers to questions are >nearly always different from what is written on a CC, and much more >complete and useful. > I believe the question starting this sub-thread was "what's your NT range?" That's an extreme example, however, and your argument is in general correct (though I hope you mean "different" in the sense of "not identical", not "CC is wrong"). Again, why should not "please look at our CC, further details available" not be a legitimate answer? It doesn't preclude anything in your statement. My most recent gripe (Hey, Ed, why didn't I see you in Buffalo?) is the number of people who won't take "It's complicated, please look at our CC" as an answer to "what's your carding?" (that and the number of pairs who have nothing filled out in that section, not even "standard or UD" - and how many of those come up with "Oh, yeah, we play Lavinthal/Odd-Even." Strange that - almost as if they didn't want me to know.) Ok, here goes... "[3/5 vs suits|4th best vs NT], [top of nothing against suits], A/AK unless he wants the Q to drop. UD everything, including suit preference, frequent suit preference, attitude to partner's leads, but count T1 if can't beat dummy, [Trump suit preference|Reverse Smith]. Oh, and we consider ourselves under no obligation to give you any information partner doesn't need." Much easier - on all concerned - to say "please look at our CC. We also play U/D Suit preference", no? Especially as that's one of the parts of the CC the ACBL has unequivocally got right. > Plus why should you be allowed to ignore a procedure because it gives >you an advantage to do so? > Good point. Why should you be allowed to ignore the CC because you can constrain us with UI by doing so? No, David, I don't believe you, personally, would ask for this reason. But people do. Why should I be considered ignoring a procedure when I direct you to full and complete information (I am not talking about ducking full disclosure here. That's another story altogether), and you are not considered ignoring a procedure when you refuse to read the answer to your question on the paper I am, by regulation, required to give you? Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 03:43:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8GgZd18616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 03:42:35 +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 eA8GgSt18612 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 03:42:29 +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 IAA25600; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 08:42:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200011081642.IAA25600@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 2000 02:22:52 PST." Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2000 08:42:23 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Laurie Kelso wrote: > > > >> In this case it was the player who had forgotten, that actually answered > >> the question! This in itself is a violation of normal (non-screen) > >> procedure. Surely we don't want players flouting regulation/Law in their > >> efforts to minimize UI? > > > >Well, it's a violation, but the Law being violated is a "should" law > >(20F1: "replies should normally be given by the partner of a player > >who made a call in question"), so it's not a particularly serious > >infraction. (It does give UI to South.) Furthermore, I doubt that > >most Norths, unless they are regular BLML readers, would be aware > >enough of the intricacies of the Laws to think "well, now that he's > >asked, I realize I goofed and I made the wrong call, but if my partner > >answers, I'm going to have UI and I won't be able to correct for my > >mistake, so I'd better jump in and answer first, which I know is a > >violation of the Law but it's just a 'should' Law so it will be a > >lesser infraction in any case"---and to think all of this quickly > >enough to jump in before South answers the question. More likely, it > >seems to me, North just forgot the correct procedure, or East asked > >the question in a manner that led North to think it was being asked of > >him; or South's mind was wandering so North decided to be helpful. > > But it does not matter, Adam. Violations of Law which damage the NOs > should be dealt with to give them redress. Hmmm . . . did this violation cause damage? I think we're both agreed that having an improperly filled out CC is a violation that was a major cause of the problem, and this is sufficient reason to adjust. But suppose the card were filled out properly, and everything else had happened the same way. Suppose this happened: North opened a strong NT and forgot he was playing a weak NT. Eventually, even though N-S had a properly filled out CC, East asked a question about their notrump range. North answered 12-14 and showed East the CC---at which point, his brain suddenly made the connection and he realized that he had misbid. So he bid one more to compensate for his previous underbid. E-W argue that they were damaged by North's violation of L20F1. If South had answered the question, as should have happened, North would then be under UI restrictions and would be required to bid as if he had not heard the answer, which means he would have had to pass 3S. Thus, E-W's expectation at that point was the score for 3S, down 1 (just a guess), for -100, and they were therefore damaged by getting -400. Is this a legitimate argument? Referring to the definition of "damage" in the Code of Practice: Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. can NO's claim, as part of their "expectation", a result that would have taken place because of UI restrictions in response to UI that would have occurred *after* the infraction? The answer isn't clear to me at all. > It does not matter [usually] > whether the Violation of Law is totally innocent, or deliberate. Yes, > deliberate is more rare, and a good thing too, but we still give redress > for people who are wronged by inadvertent breaches of the Law. I completely agree that for ruling purposes, it doesn't matter whether an infraction was deliberate or not. My point was to try to address Laurie's concern about people "flouting" the law. -- 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 Nov 9 03:51:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8GpCD18630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 03:51:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8Gout18626 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 03:50:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eA8GpQf17402 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:51:26 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011081651.eA8GpQf17402@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 11:51:26 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> from "Michael Farebrother" at Nov 08, 2000 10:37:01 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother writes: > Instead, I'll restate the question: Why should not > "please look at our card, further information available on request" be a > legitimate answer to a question (barring dyslexia, poor vision, or > inability to read dutch)? Well for one thing it's apt to come out in an offensive manner. Or to convey an attitude that you in fact wish to avoid full disclosure. Maybe you can say it in a way that doesn't give offence or convey what I know to be the wrong impression, but not everybody can. If I'm asking, I've already checked your convention card and found it lacking in the information I need. In other words, you're wasting my time. Names of conventions on a card are quite simply worthless. Your impression of what a convention means are what I need to know. More to the point though, I can't fathom the attitude of someone who won't answer in the first place. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 04:58:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8Hw7d18678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 04:58:07 +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 eA8Hw2t18674 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 04:58:02 +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 ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:55:19 -0800 Message-ID: <017001c049ad$645c14e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000201c0497f$79eca500$c13467c0@isi.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 09:53:06 -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 Richard Willey wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > The CC has to be a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. Your system > > of CCs, with stuff written on different sheets of paper, doesn't > > seem to fit that description. > > > > The regulation (July 97) says two cards must be physically [!] > > available, must have approximately the same size and general format > > of the ACBL CC, have all Alertable methods marked in red and all > > Announceable methods marked in blue. The General Approach and names > > of the partnership must be shown. I refer to that whole shebang as > > "a reasonable facsimile." > > Marv I think that you are placing too much emphasis on the role of > the convention card within the ACBL. > Hypothetically, assume that the ACBL redesigned the convention card > so that it could only be used to describe a single bidding system. > (For all intents and purposes, the convention card is pre-printed and > describes a wonderful description of Roman Club.) The ACBL > convention charts allow players to play whatever system they want, > but no other system can be described on a convention card. What rule > takes precedence??? Not understood. If you play more than one system, you have a pair of convention cards for each system. What's the problem? > > BTW, since we seem to be involved in very serious nitpicking here, > you are correct in pointing out that the ACBL requires that two cards > are physically present. Please show me where it states that more > than two card may not be present. I can make a very convincing > argument that if I display two convention cards on the table (one > describing openings for first and second seat, one for third and > fourth), that my system information is at least a "physically > available" as the average pair's in any ACBL tournament that I have > ever attended. > Nitpicking indeed. To everyone but you and maybe 6 others in the world, it is obvious that they mean you have to have two essentially identical CCs on the table for the system in force, keep any other system's CCs off the table, and swap pairs of CCs when a different system is brought on line. 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 Nov 9 05:48:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8ImWg18719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 05:48:32 +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 eA8ImQt18715 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 05:48:26 +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 ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:45:43 -0800 Message-ID: <019201c049b4$6f81eaa0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011081448.JAA28892@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 10:40:41 -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 Michael Farebrother wrote: > > Warning: way too much of this is ACBL specific. mdf Maybe you should have commented on rgb, but the subject is of universal interest I think. > , "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > >We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for > >that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention > >cards because you don't know which will apply. Dumb statement. Of course I probably want to look at them. As I see it, the correct procedure is that you Pre-Alert the use of two basic systems, based on whatever. I can examine the CCs at that time. When hands are taken out of the board, you have only one system's cards on the table. If that system becomes inapplicable, you remove its CCs and replace them with the CCs for the new system. > When Ken Warren and Keith Balcolme[sp?] were still a partnership up > here, they used to play 2/1 1st and 2nd, and K/S opposite a passed hand. > Their one ACBL CC was conscienciously filled out, and had all the > required information. It was also a complete pain to read, as > everything was different [1&2] or [3&4]. > > I would have much preferred them to have two CCs, one containing their > 2/1 system, one their K/S system, both clearly labelled as only applying > part of the time (and giving basic ideas as to what applied the rest of > the time). > > General Approach: Kaplan/Scheinwold (in 3rd or 4th seat only). Note: we > play 2/1 GF in 1st/2nd; see other card. Using my nomenclature (and the ACBL's, I believe) these are two basic systems, for which two pairs of convention cards should be made out. Two general approaches, two convention cards. Yes, otherwise a pain to read. > > >> Are your bidding system and your CC equivalent under the law? > > > >I believe so. The CC discloses what your basic system comprises, in > >fairly good detail. > > > I agree with the argument, but not the conclusion. The CC does a good > job of giving a one-page precis of my bidding system. I happen to > like science; my system notes (incomplete yet, but I'm working on it) > are around 80 pages. The CC cannot be equivalent to my system - that's > why I have system notes. Mine goes to over 300 pages. "Fairly good detail" isn't right. Change that to "The CC provides a good summary of your basic system. > > >The CC has to be a reasonable facsmile of the ACBL CC. Your system of > >CCs, with stuff written on different sheets of paper, doesn't seem to > >fit that description. > > > >The regulation (July 97) says two cards must be physically [!] > >available, must have approximately the same size and general format of > >the ACBL CC, have all Alertable methods marked in red and all > >Announceable methods marked in blue. The General Approach and names of > >the partnership must be shown. I refer to that whole shebang as "a > >reasonable facsimile." > > > I think I'd allow a three-section card with one LHS and two RHS, with > clear explanations as to when each RHS applies, as a "reasonable > facsimile". At least that's what I did when I was playing "Precision > when you are vul, 2/1 when you are NV". Seems like a reasonable facsimile. > > >I'm still waiting to find out if changing system per seat position is > >allowed. > > > >From the Alert Procedure, Part III, Pre-Alerts: > > Some pairs vary their system by position, by vulnerability, or a > combination of the two. While this is legal,... Thank you, I missed that. It's on page 8 of 16, and appears nowhere else to my knowledge. Why is it so difficult to dig out the details of ACBL regulations? So, I have my answer, no need to wait for the Memphis opinion. Now, can you crowd two basic systems ("General Approaches" different) onto one ACBL CC? I wouldn't think so. I am asking Gary Blaiss, and should have the answer shortly. If only the right hand half of the CC is different, surely it would be okay to have just two such halves instead of two complete CCs. > I would say that's pretty clear - at least in the ACBL. And if that's a > stretch of the Laws to be legal, I think it's one of the ones I agree > with. > Right, and right. Thanks for your assistance, 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 Nov 9 07:15:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8KF1n18777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA8KErt18773 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:14:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA29298 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:14:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 20:14 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor 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: > But it does not matter, Adam. Violations of Law which damage the NOs > should be dealt with to give them redress. It does not matter [usually] > whether the Violation of Law is totally innocent, or deliberate. Yes, > deliberate is more rare, and a good thing too, but we still give redress > for people who are wronged by inadvertent breaches of the Law. > A compelling paragraph the truth of which I find to be self evident. However I do not understand how opponents in the given situation were damaged by North answering the question. True, North avoids being in an "apparent" UI situation by forestalling South's answer. However, had he realised immediately, and said nothing, then heard his partner say 12-14 it would be no different for him. He *already* knows his partner will take him for 12-14 so the UI suggests nothing to him. Granted a TD would adjust "because he may have been woken by the UI" but so what. A TD in a position to establish the facts (difficult, I know) would not rule like that. I'm assuming that opponent's questions are AI. I am also assuming that North did not realise his mistake from looking at his own CC inappropriately. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 09:26:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8MPw018851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:25:58 +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 eA8MPpt18847 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:25:52 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA22572 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:25:44 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 22:25 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: <200011081651.eA8GpQf17402@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Ron Johnson wrote: > > Instead, I'll restate the question: Why should not > > "please look at our card, further information available on request" > > be a > > legitimate answer to a question (barring dyslexia, poor vision, or > > inability to read dutch)? > > Well for one thing it's apt to come out in an offensive manner. Or to > convey an attitude that you in fact wish to avoid full disclosure. > > Maybe you can say it in a way that doesn't give offence or convey what I > know to be the wrong impression, but not everybody can. Some people will *take* offence at anything. But, a friendly tone and "Have a quick look at the CC, there's quite a lot on there and I don't want to miss out something important." doesn't seem offensive to me. The CC says eg: 1NT - treated as 12-14 balanced. May include poor 5CM or a 6Cm. 10,11, and 15 counts may be shaded according to our judgement, as may very occasional hands with singletons or 22(72) distributions. Very poor twelve counts will not be opened, and very good 14s will be treated as 15. Tim applies these judgements much more often than Emily. Alternatively. Me: 1NT LHO: Is that weak or strong Emily: Er- weak... Me: You might want to see the details on the CC > If I'm asking, I've already checked your convention card and found > it lacking in the information I need. In other words, you're wasting > my time. If you are asking me the range of my NT then I am damn sure you haven't looked at the CC - if you ask me what sort of eleven counts Emily shades I'll do my best to give you an honest answer. > Names of conventions on a card are quite simply worthless. > Your impression of what a convention means are what I need to know. Absolutely. > More to the point though, I can't fathom the attitude of someone who > won't answer in the first place. Perhaps it pisses us off when we try to complete a detailed and helpful CC and some a**ehole can't even be bothered to read it. To be fair I think even those with the "I shouldn't have to answer that" opinion don't normally go so far as to refuse to answer. Certainly I wouldn't refer someone to a CC which had been sketchily filled in, but if I know there is a lot of detail there it's a different matter. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 09:48:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA8MmV418875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:48:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA8MmOt18871 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 09:48:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA22630 for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:36:41 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <017001c049ad$645c14e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <000201c0497f$79eca500$c13467c0@isi.com> <017001c049ad$645c14e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 17:43:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv French wrote: >Nitpicking indeed. To everyone but you and maybe 6 others in the >world, it is obvious that they mean you have to have two essentially >identical CCs on the table for the system in force, keep any other >system's CCs off the table, and swap pairs of CCs when a different >system is brought on line. I must be one of the six then, 'cause it ain't obvious to me. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOgnYM72UW3au93vOEQLmPgCgyFG8irE8o5klEonm6DX9KudgiF8AoMBi M3O5cvRab3J59ppm+TK+3Nnw =EDmR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 11:40:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA90dYY18953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:39:34 +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.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 eA90dRt18949 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 11:39:28 +1100 (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 <20001109003922.ORCQ7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a>; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:39:22 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Dany Haimovici" , "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] D-BLML list - the clever friends - October 2000 Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 16:36:26 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3A0956F1.A8D352E8@inter.net.il> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have a new member for the club: Gizmo is a 10 lb. 6 yr old brown and white Shih Tzu.... Her owners showed up at my vet's office and said they were going to take her to the pound if a new home wasn't found for her in 4 days... I know who I'd like to take to the pound! She is a sweetie... Linda > Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member > > Here is the 25th 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(RB 2/2000), Gus (none) > Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) > Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) > Irv Kostal - Molly (3) > Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) > Nutmeg , Lucky > Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) > Eric Landau - Wendell (4) > Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) > Jack Kryst - Darci (2) > Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) > Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) > Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) > Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) > Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) > Roger Pewick - Louie (none) > Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) > Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) > Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) > Olivier Beauvillain - 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 9 18:53:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA97n8919398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:49:08 +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 eA97n1t19394 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:49:03 +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 ; Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:46:18 -0800 Message-ID: <01c601c04a21$7d4abc80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011081651.eA8GpQf17402@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2000 23:42:04 -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 Ron Johnson wrote: > Michael Farebrother writes: > > > Instead, I'll restate the question: Why should not > > "please look at our card, further information available on request" be a > > legitimate answer to a question (barring dyslexia, poor vision, or > > inability to read dutch)? > > Well for one thing it's apt to come out in an offensive manner. Michael would never act in an offensive manner, I'm sure. His suggested response looks good, I'm going to use it from now on. With a smile. > Or to > convey an attitude that you in fact wish to avoid full disclosure. "Further information available on request" doesn't sound like avoidance. > > Maybe you can say it in a way that doesn't give offence or convey what I > know to be the wrong impression, but not everybody can. Nearly everyone can handle "May I have a review of the auction?", "Would you mind explaining your auction to me?", "May I look at your convention card," etc., etc., without giving offense or conveying the wrong impression. I don't see why Michael's polite request should be a problem. > > If I'm asking, I've already checked your convention card and found > it lacking in the information I need. Michael surely would have noticed that you have looked at the CC, and would not ask you to do so again. > In other words, you're wasting > my time. It is you who are wasting time if you insist on an oral recitation of what you could easily read on the CC. > Names of conventions on a card are quite simply worthless. > Your impression of what a convention means are what I need to know. Looking at the CC, I see that the only unAlertable/unAnnounceable named conventions are Stayman, strong artificial 2C, negative double, Michaels, ace-asking conventions, and DOPI/DEPO/ROPI. The meanings of all these would be known to 99% of players, including you. All other named conventions on the CC will either be Alerted or Announced, so their meanings are readily available to you. Other conventions added by a pair are Alertable, and the explanations provided on request will give you the meanings. > > More to the point though, I can't fathom the attitude of someone who > won't answer in the first place. > I doubt that Michael would refuse to answer orally if someone is so contrary as to refuse his polite request to look at the CC for the answer. The "attitude" is of one who knows that unnecessary questioning is a source of needless UI, and is too often a "pro question," asked for client's benefit. When CCs are correctly filled out and on the table, with Alerts and Announcements, and with requests for an explanation of the opposing auction after the auction is over, I can't remember the last time I had to ask for the meaning of a call. Many times I would like to ask for partner's benefit, but we are not supposed to do 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 Thu Nov 9 19:13:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA989IB19439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:09:18 +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 eA989Ct19435 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 19:09:13 +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 ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:06:29 -0800 Message-ID: <01ce01c04a24$4ef91a40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 00:01:49 -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 Linda Trent wrote: > > > L16A1 - no, SO optional (reserving the right to call the TD) > > I've been working on this one for at least 3 years.... just trying to allow > reservation of rights for tempo situations.... been getting nowhere.... > > Some day.... > A popular practice among many pairs is that first, they agree or disagree on a break in tempo. If they disagree, that's the end of it usually, as calling the TD probably won't help (but he may be called anyway). If they agree, there is nothing the TD can do at that time, so they follow L16A2 (not an option, by the way), which says: "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith..." A footnote says that the time to do this is either when dummy is spread or when play ends. Most of the time there is obviously no damage and no need for wasting the TD's time. If the TD is called, he is pleased to find that the break has been agreed and all he has to do is determine whether there was damage for which redress is due. This feels right, because there is usually no TD call until an infraction is either a strong possibility or definitely perceived, in the opinion of the other side. A break in tempo is not an infraction, after all. Calling a TD when there is no evidence of an infraction, merely a possibility that one may occur, doesn't seem right. An unnecessary "reserving the right" statement doesn't appeal to me. The ACBL ELECTION says that players "should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." Poor syntax, if not poor grammar, and a blunder ("calls or bids"?). It should be "...to the opponents that could result in calls or plays that damage their side." (The antecedent of "their" is clear enough, but note that I am a which-hunter). Anyway, L16A1 gives an SO the right to prohibit a "reserving of right" statement, but that is all. It does not give an SO the right to require that the TD be called immediately, as the ACBL ELECTION does (with a mild "should"), in violation of L16A2. 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 Nov 9 23:03:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9C1rl19754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:01:54 +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 eA9C1jt19750 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:01:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA30382 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:01:40 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Nov 09 13:03:17 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 <01JWC5DRRJ0I00068N@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:01:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 12:57:39 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:01:11 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: FW: [BLML] Non-balancing AAS (SBU trials) To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B713@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 > > > > Eric Landau wrote: > > I assume that Mr. Colker's concern was with > > the WBF interpretation for WBF play; it is L12C3 > > being interpreted here, so the interpretation can't > > be applied to ACBL play. > > > > > Hmm..... so I ask myself, where does this > > >lead? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > Logically, for better or worse, it would seem to > > lead to an even greater divergence between > > practice in the ACBL and in the rest of the world. > > > +=+ It may be, as they say, "too close to call". When > I suggested Rich was anti-12C3 a while back I had > an immediate protest from him. (My understanding > was faulty. He wanted to find a basis for 12C3 that > would fit the ACBL comfortably.) So I think he may > be clawing his way to a solution. You will notice that > the WBF has been careful to make the road very > broad. None of this straight and narrow stuff for us! > ~ Grattan ~ > > When I reacted on this subject with: 'In my opinion the WBF AC in Maastricht went into a wrong direction', I referred to the fact that it demanded the same equity based score for non- and offenders and to the suggestion made by Grattan to penalise offenders automatically to diminish their score. That is a strange approach, which expresses the fact that you don't want to give one, on equity based, score and furthermore uses the procedural penalty in a wrong way. Nothing in he laws does say that we have to give one score when applying 12c3, on the contrary, being an amendment of 12c2 there seems to be a suggestion to make it possible to give different adjusted scores when applying 12c3. And since I very much like the ACBL to join us in this approach, we should keep the possibilities as broad as possible. The more so when hardly any argument has been used to explain why one score should be given(I was not in the EBL LC a century ago). Let me use another argument. I have applied 12c3 that same century ago. My first international event was the Eur. Ch. in Wiesbaden in 1983. And there in a match Denmark was involved in, their opponents bid up to 6 clubs and after the Danish lead made that contract. Now it appeared that the opponents had given wrong information about the meaning of a call. The Danish said that they would have found the defeating lead. That was not obvious but a possibility. And I decided to give a score based on partly defeating, partly having 6C made. The appeal comittee was delighted and may be that was the first time this was done! (I made a well known mistake in the calculation which I discovered myself in time to inform the AC). Never in my mind I considered this possibity for the reason that the opponents would have been punished too severe by giving them 6C - 1. The reason for this was my reluctance to give the defenders the whole 6C - 1. And that has been the case for ever (yes, only as AC member during the last decade). I applied 12c3 when in my opinion the non offenders would have received too much, never because the offenders got not enough. 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 Nov 9 23:20:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9CK5719784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:20:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9CJwt19780 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:19:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.96]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17422 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:19:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0A9617.BB20876A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 13:18:31 +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] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott ================================= > " Under proper conditions, a Florida bear > may be fat and sweet at the end of the winter." > - 'Cross Creek' > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>> > > +=+ 'Election' did you say? Oh, let Florida decide. > That's the American way........ :-)) +=+ > Yes indeed, let Kojak decide this L40E stuff. Very probably the most sensible way to get out of this mess. My prediction for the (real) election. The votes in Florida will be tied on the 15th. Then on the 16th a final postal vote will arrive from Central Borneo. Under live CNN coverage and in presence of the candidates, the envelope will be opened and it will be a vote for ... Nader. TMTBLR : do all regulations allow for tie-splitting procedures ? TMTNBLRA (*) : does the US constitution ? (*) to make this non bridge laws related again -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 00:04:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9D2cf19863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:02:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA9D2Vt19859 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:02:32 +1100 (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 eA9D2RJ60644 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:02:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@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, 09 Nov 2000 08:02:15 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION In-Reply-To: <3A0A9617.BB20876A@village.uunet.be> References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:18 AM 11/9/00, Herman wrote: >TMTNBLRA (*) : does the US constitution ? > >(*) to make this non bridge laws related again Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). That can't happen this year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. 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 Nov 10 00:25:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9DP5719895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:25:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9DOwt19891 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:24:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eA9DPSS13430 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:25:29 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011091325.eA9DPSS13430@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:25:28 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Nov 08, 2000 10:25:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: <200011081651.eA8GpQf17402@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> > Ron Johnson wrote: > > > > Instead, I'll restate the question: Why should not > > > "please look at our card, further information available on request" > > > be a > > > legitimate answer to a question (barring dyslexia, poor vision, or > > > inability to read dutch)? > > > > Well for one thing it's apt to come out in an offensive manner. Or to > > convey an attitude that you in fact wish to avoid full disclosure. > > > > Maybe you can say it in a way that doesn't give offence or convey what I > > know to be the wrong impression, but not everybody can. > > Some people will *take* offence at anything. But, a friendly tone and > "Have a quick look at the CC, there's quite a lot on there and I don't > want to miss out something important." doesn't seem offensive to me. Sure, tone and attitude matter here. > > The CC says eg: > > 1NT - treated as 12-14 balanced. May include poor 5CM or a 6Cm. 10,11, > and 15 counts may be shaded according to our judgement, as may very > occasional hands with singletons or 22(72) distributions. Very poor twelve > counts will not be opened, and very good 14s will be treated as 15. Tim > applies these judgements much more often than Emily. And my section on 1D is checked off 3+ but with a note that says only with 4=4=3=2 in 1st or 2nd seat, 11-14 or 18-19 HCP. It's very unusual to have that level of info. And because there's no space on the ACBL card I have to write small. Hard to read. > > Alternatively. > > Me: 1NT > LHO: Is that weak or strong > Emily: Er- weak... > Me: You might want to see the details on the CC > > > > If I'm asking, I've already checked your convention card and found > > it lacking in the information I need. In other words, you're wasting > > my time. > > If you are asking me the range of my NT then I am damn sure you haven't > looked at the CC - if you ask me what sort of eleven counts Emily shades > I'll do my best to give you an honest answer. Right. And if this is about NT range I apologize. It's more about support doubles (mandatory, two way, off on some sequences), negative doubles ( does a "negative" double of 1H promise 4S, deny them or simply deny the ability to make a free bid. ), equal level conversion (I've never seen that on a CC) and a host of conventions that seem to have vastly different meanings to many players. > > > Names of conventions on a card are quite simply worthless. > > Your impression of what a convention means are what I need to know. > > Absolutely. > > > More to the point though, I can't fathom the attitude of someone who > > won't answer in the first place. > > Perhaps it pisses us off when we try to complete a detailed and helpful CC > and some a**ehole can't even be bothered to read it. To be fair I think > even those with the "I shouldn't have to answer that" opinion don't > normally go so far as to refuse to answer. Certainly I wouldn't refer > someone to a CC which had been sketchily filled in, but if I know there is > a lot of detail there it's a different matter. Never occurred to me and these days I have both an unusually detailed CC and a very simple one. I've simply never found it a burden to answer questions and really can't comprehend why some people seem to find it so. On the other hand I did find Michael's example of complex defensive carding to be a good one. If you have agreements that are best explained on the card, it makes a world of sense to point them to the card. And explain if they don't get it. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 00:29:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9DTT219907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:29:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9DTNt19903 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 00:29:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eA9DTsN13507 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:29:54 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011091329.eA9DTsN13507@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:29:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@127.0.0.1> from "Eric Landau" at Nov 09, 2000 08:02:15 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes: > > At 07:18 AM 11/9/00, Herman wrote: > > >TMTNBLRA (*) : does the US constitution ? > > > >(*) to make this non bridge laws related again > > Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House > of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). That can't happen this > year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. > > However, in theory at least 9 members of the E.C. nominally belonging to Bush could cast their votes for Gore -- bringing about a 269 all tie. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 01:36:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9EZsE19964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-he.global.net.uk (cobalt7-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9EZkt19960 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 01:35:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb6s01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.183] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13tsn8-0006cA-00; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:35:02 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c04a5a$434548a0$b77193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Immunity Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:29:40 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:30:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-164.access.net.il [213.8.2.164] (may be forged)) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEF36090; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 17:30:35 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0AC323.C9D701F8@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:30:43 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: Peter Gill , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <035301c045c9$7f1e2940$30e436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00a401c045f5$fdb9f320$2c5608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wish every bridge player should have a CC not less than half harmonic and sensitive as his..... Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott <=> > "The art of interpretation is not to play what > is written." - Pablo Casals. > > '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' > ' > > > > > > Is Casals referring to music? I just wondered because > > I'm unaware of anyone named Casals on the WBFLC, > > and I think the context of his quote is not bridge. :) > > > > Peter Gill > > Australia. > > > +=+ I think it must be music. As far as I know > he does not have a convention card. :-)) +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 02:38:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9Fbcn20066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:37:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9FbVt20062 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:37:32 +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 KAA05747 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA01657 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:37:28 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House > of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). It's worse than that, actually. (I was about to respond to Herman that he wouldn't believe me if I told him how it's done.) Each _state_, not each representative, has one vote. Thus North Dakota has as much say as California. (As a famous comedian says, "I am not making this up.") > That can't happen this > year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. That's the practical expectation. In fact, the electors are specific individuals, and while they almost always vote as they are pledged to do, in theory they can vote for anyone. Deviations from voting as pledged have been very rare, and so far have never determined an election outcome, but I don't think there is any legal doubt whatever that it is the electors, not the citizens, who determine our president. The real election is in December 18. More details at http://www.globe.com/campaign2000/How_popular_mandate_can_mean_defeat+.shtml To bring this back to bridge, I am not sure it would be wise for the WBF to adopt this system to determine its 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 Nov 10 03:01:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9G1c320101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:01:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9G1Vt20097 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:01:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP306.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.44]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA05018 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:01:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 10:01:00 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House >> of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). > >It's worse than that, actually. (I was about to respond to Herman that >he wouldn't believe me if I told him how it's done.) Each _state_, not >each representative, has one vote. Thus North Dakota has as much say >as California. (As a famous comedian says, "I am not making this up.") That procedure is used anytime no candidate has a majority of electoral votes, not just in case of a tie. Hasn't happened for a while. (Someone before the election evisioned a number of possible scenarios under which any of about 10 people could end up as the next U.S. president. I won't bore you with the details ...) >To bring this back to bridge, I am not sure it would be wise for the >WBF to adopt this system to determine its president. :-) We might hear more about "convention disruption" in the primaries. 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 Nov 10 03:13:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9GDeK20153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:13:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA9GDXt20149 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:13:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-164.access.net.il [213.8.2.164] (may be forged)) by odin.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AFG42127; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 18:13:27 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0ACD32.B7DE56D5@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 18:13:38 +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: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A07EA0C.6EA494E8@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Well , I am back in business.... On my CC , at the general principles chapter , is something like : "...... if any peculiar auction or misbid , pass at first logical possibility..." The question is : did West understand that he misbid or only the partner's explanation described it ?? In my humble opinion , even in case West undestood his misbidding due to partner's explanation there is no UI , as described by law 16 and the interpretations by Law 75 and its examples....... Bridge is a game of mistakes and - again IMHO - any understanding of the mistake , not suggested by L16 items is AI.... Dany Herman De Wael wrote: > Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > > I have a letter from EK that bears on the question. My query to him > > was dated 1995 Sept. 20; he would have answered a month or so later. > > His answer was no doubt based on the 1987 Laws, but I don't think > > anything relevant changed in 1997. I've abridged my query but not his > > responses, which are quoted with permission. > > > > ----- > > Playing with bid boxes but without screens, I see RHO open with 1S. I > > have a nice opening hand with a good heart suit so overcall 2H. When > > the bidding gets back to me, I see that RHO's bid was really 1C, and > > I've made a weak jump overcall! > > > > 1. May I take an unusual action -- say bidding 3NT -- to try to > > recover? > > > > EK: Unless your side has committed an infraction of Law, you are free > > to bid whatever you think will be successful. Here, there is no > > infraction, only a misbid, so there is no restriction. > > > > 2. Does the answer change if an opponent has asked the meaning of 2H, > > and partner has (correctly) answered "weak?" (The 1C bid card has been > > sitting on the table all the time.) > > > > EK: Yes, this is different. Partner's explanation has given you > > unauthorized information. (A Director or Committee should assume > > that this is what woke you up, unless you have evidence to the > > contrary.) You may not take action on this basis. > > ----- > > > > So the DBF LC seems to have reiterated Kaplan's position. > > > > We need to distinguish two questions: a) are the above answers correct > > under current Laws? -- by definition the DBF LC one is correct in > > Denmark! -- > > I believe they are. > > EK says : A Director or Committee should assume that this is > what woke you up, unless you have evidence to the contrary. > > This is the crux. Find evidence that you have noticed 1C > after you bid 2H and without partner's explanation and you > are free to do what you want. > > and b) what should the Laws say? Having had five years to > > think about the matter, I am still not sure about the answer to 1. It > > does seem to me that the legal auction can never be UI according to the > > first sentence of L16, yet we have two respectable opinions to the > > contrary. > > > > I don't think we do. We have two opinions that say that the > I that was passed was the fact that the auction was NOT the > one the player was assuming it was. That I is UI if coming > from partner. The bidding itself is still AI. > > > As to what the laws should say, it seems to me that it would be a great > > no comment. > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 03:54:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9GrXQ20188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:53:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eA9GrQt20184 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:53:26 +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 IAA23208; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:53:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200011091653.IAA23208@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] U.S. Election (was Non-balancing AAS) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 Nov 2000 01:33:08 PST." Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 08:53:20 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > In article <1SuXmSA$LxB6Ewu9@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes > > > An example of this came from the English trials, a hand that was > >promulgated here. At the end of the event, with players crowding round > >him wanting the final results, Mike Amos had to rule. He rode the > >pressure, telephoned me, and we discussed it carefully. OK, he told me > >of the time pressure, and our phone call only lasted for about eight > >minutes, when it might have been fifteen otherwise. > > > The Acol has a tradition of giving its results one minute after the last > board is complete. My recent "Toughie from the Acol" held us up for a > good five minutes. The players understood this, and indeed it exchanged > first and second places. I was on the phone to DWS as the event > finished. cheers john Well, since some of the other threads on BLML are turning their attention toward the U.S. Presidential election . . . I was reminded of the above stories when I read news reports that some media types in other parts of the world were criticizing us for being unable to choose a President. This morning, I read the following quote from a CNSNews.com story: "Britain's media Thursday tried to make sense of what many consider a flawed U.S. presidential election, with many writers wondering whether it was time for a drastic reform of the electoral system." One quote from Peter Preston writing in the Guardian: "Welcome to the federal super-mess, its leadership of the free world buried amid a paper mountain of used Florida ballot papers ... Any other sophisticated country, anywhere else in the world, would be talking animatedly about constitutional reform in such a bind. But don't hold your breath. This is America." We have a quite unusual situation over here, but I just don't see that this is that big a problem that has to be described in such apocalyptic terms. It would be as if, at the Acol or at the English trials, people were grumbling that the system stinks and is in dire need of reform because they couldn't determine the winner within one minute. Baloney. (Of course, it only took eight minutes at the English trials to determine the winner, not several days or possibly a couple weeks like it might take here; but then again, our electoral process was not a one- or two-day event but has been ongoing for at least a year, so the proportion isn't too much different.) Our system is working fine. It's just taking us a little longer than usual to determine the winner, because we want to make sure we get it right. No different from the situations at the Acol or at the English trials. Just my US$0.02 (someone else will have to convert this to pounds or euros), -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 05:37:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9Iaib20278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:36:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9Iact20274 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:36:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:33:54 -0800 Message-ID: <023401c04a7b$f6d71ee0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 10:27:49 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > > > Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House > of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). That can't happen this > year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. > Not impossible, but nearly enough so to justify the statement. Voters are actually voting for "electors," loyal party hacks who are pledged to a certain candidate, not for the nominees whose names are on the ballot. Each electoral vote that a state is entitled to is assigned to one elector. It is the electors' vote in the "Electoral College" that actually determines who becomes president. That vote comes quite a while after the election Wouldn't it be great if just enough electors defected to the other side, which is perfectly legal, to cause a tie? There have been several such defections in U. S. history, so it would not be unprecedented. For those unacquainted with our process, the number of electoral votes a state gets equals the number of representatives it has in the U. S. Congress (both Senate and House of Representatives). The number of Representatives is roughly proportional to a state's population, recalculated every 10 years. Each state has two Senators. The District of Columbia gets three electoral votes, even though not a state, being entitled to the same number of electoral votes as the state with the least number. The total comes to 538. Votes may be assigned to a state's electors on a "winner take all" basis, i.e., whichever nominee gets the most votes gets all the electoral votes. An optional method is to assign votes to electors in some way related to the number of votes won by each nominee. Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, use such a method. The electors meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday of the month following the election, December 18 this time. They record their votes on six "Certificates of Vote," which are paired with the six remaining original "Certificates of Ascertainment" (Don't ask). The electors sign, seal and certify the packages of electoral votes and immediately send them to the President of the Senate, the Archivist of the United States and other designated Federal and State officials. The deadline for receipt of these results is the fourth Wednesday (December 27), 2000. The U. S. Congress will meet in joint session (Senate and House of Representatives) on January 6, 2001, to count the electoral votes (unless Congress passes a law to change the date) and officially name the new president. As may well happen in this presidential election, the winner may receive fewer popular votes than the loser. Gore seems to have won more popular votes than Bush, but that is inconsequential. The process is so simple that I don't understand why all countries don't use 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 Fri Nov 10 05:39:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9IdQ220290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:39:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freya.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@freya.inter.net.il [192.114.186.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9IdKt20286 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 05:39:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-164.access.net.il [213.8.2.164] (may be forged)) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEH50833; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 20:39:04 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0AEF53.8F102AB8@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 20:39:16 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Landau CC: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@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 E.C. ???? You mean the Ecumenic Counsil ???? Nice to see the U.S. President as.........Pope !! Dany Eric Landau wrote: > At 07:18 AM 11/9/00, Herman wrote: > > >TMTNBLRA (*) : does the US constitution ? > > > >(*) to make this non bridge laws related again > > Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House > of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). That can't happen this > year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. > > 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 Fri Nov 10 09:12:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9MBGH20485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:11:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9MB5t20481 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:11:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.149] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13tzuL-0007uv-00; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:10:57 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c04a99$f540f2e0$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200011091653.IAA23208@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] U.S. Election (was Non-balancing AAS) Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:07:22 -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 "Between balance and unbalance, fall and recovery, lay the scope of all human movement." - Walter Terry. <=> > > Our system is working fine. It's just taking us a little longer than > usual to determine the winner, because we want to make sure we get it > right. No different from the situations at the Acol or at the English > trials. > > Just my US$0.02 (someone else will have to convert this to pounds or > euros), > +=+ Do not believe what our papers tell you. I have not been hearing any suggestions that the method is flawed from the ordinary people discussing the situation. On the contrary they think you have got it just about right that neither candidate (of the two principals) has discernible qualities that make him stand out and it is very reasonable that the American public has said that it finds it difficult to choose. It is a subject that is being more discussed this time than in most past US elections I recall. The one recurring criticism that I hear from plain folk is that the funding of the candidates has too much weight in the process - too many millions of dollars in the scales. But that is your affair, not ours. All we ask is that the leader of the most powerful nation should be up to the job in what is now a very small world. And let us be patient, China is of a size to take the strain in due course. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 09:17:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9MHWD20498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:17:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eA9MHMt20494 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:17:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.95] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13u00K-00085J-00; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:17:08 +0000 Message-ID: <006b01c04a9a$d2800c40$955608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@127.0.0.1> <023401c04a7b$f6d71ee0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 22:16:44 -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 "Between balance and unbalance, fall and recovery, lay the scope of all human movement." - Walter Terry. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > > The process is so simple that I don't understand why all countries > don't use it. > +=+ Ah! Back to 12C3 are we? :-))* +=+ [* in case you don't recognize humour when you meet it.....] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 10:13:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eA9NCrh20548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:12:54 +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 eA9NClt20544 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.15] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13u0s5-0009fW-00; Thu, 09 Nov 2000 23:12:42 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Brian Baresch" , References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 23:12:16 -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 "Between balance and unbalance, fall and recovery, lay the scope of all human movement." - Walter Terry. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Baresch To: Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 4:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > >It's worse than that, actually. (I was about to respond to > >Herman that he wouldn't believe me if I told him how it's > >done.) Each_state_, not each representative, has one > >vote. Thus North Dakota has as much say as California. > > (As a famous comedian says, "I am not making this up.") > +=+ Actually North Dakota is not what is interesting us just now. I understand all the English tourists to the USA next year are targeting Palm Beach County. They want to see the exhibits and shake by the hand the man who designed the ballot paper. Palm Beach is so akin to politics as we understand them. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 16:13:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAA5CVT20930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:12:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAA5COt20926 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:12:25 +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 ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:09:40 -0800 Message-ID: <002701c04ad4$c2ff3040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@127.0.0.1> <023401c04a7b$f6d71ee0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <006b01c04a9a$d2800c40$955608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:11:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grattan Endicott wrote: Marvin L. French wrote (in regard to the USA election process): > > > > The process is so simple that I don't understand why all countries > > don't use it. > > > +=+ Ah! Back to 12C3 are we? :-))* +=+ > > [* in case you don't recognize humour > when you meet it.....] And I forgot to add a smiley. Now I'm in trouble :)))) Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 16:26:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAA5Pqv20962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:25:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAA5Plt20958 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:25:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:23:03 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 21:25:20 -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 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Actually North Dakota is not what is interesting > us just now. I understand all the English tourists to > the USA next year are targeting Palm Beach County. > They want to see the exhibits and shake by the hand > the man who designed the ballot paper. Palm Beach > is so akin to politics as we understand them. ~ G ~ +=+ > It was a woman, I believe. She thought that making the font larger would help people. That required two columns of names, with the punch holes between them. There were tests, of course, that confirmed the superiority of the design. They are saying that Florida law requires the punch holes to be on the right of the names, a slender reed that Gore might have to grasp, a reed that to him "is as the oak." 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 Nov 10 19:02:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAA81ov21156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:01:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAA81it21146 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:01:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.164] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13u97v-000FNT-00; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:01:36 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c04aec$79054660$385908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:00:47 -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 "Between balance and unbalance, fall and recovery, lay the scope of all human movement." - Walter Terry. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > It was a woman, I believe. > +=+ Incredible. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 19:31:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAA8Usf21204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:30:54 +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 eAA8Ukt21199 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:30:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.120] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13u9a4-000FjE-00; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:30:41 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 08:30:04 -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 "Between balance and unbalance, fall and recovery, lay the scope of all human movement." - Walter Terry. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > They are saying that Florida law requires the > punch holes to be on the right of the names, a > slender reed that Gore might have to grasp, a > reed that to him "is as the oak." > +=+ It is highly principled of him to support any just claims the voters of the County may have. Of course it is they who can complain, if anyone, not a candidate. Well maybe a few million other voters of the losing party, too. But I do think it is the first ever public admission world-wide that something went wrong with an election because of holes in the system! If they rerun the election in Palm Beach can we expect a 97% turn out of the electorate? and a 99% turn out of party workers and voyeurs from the whole of the USA? Better put up the barriers at the borders of the county. Mind you, there is no longer any need to spend all that money in future. Just pick the county in which to name the new President. ~ 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 Nov 10 20:47:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAA9kQw21307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:46:26 +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 eAA9kJt21303 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:46:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.2] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13uAl7-000HVu-00; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:46:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c04afb$142cc920$025408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: [BLML] Assassination of a President elect? Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:44:47 -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 "There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers." - Susan Brownell Anthony. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 5:25 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION > > > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > +=+ Actually North Dakota is not what is interesting > > us just now. I understand all the English tourists to > > the USA next year are targeting Palm Beach County. > > They want to see the exhibits and shake by the hand > > the man who designed the ballot paper. Palm Beach > > is so akin to politics as we understand them. ~ G ~ +=+ > > > It was a woman, I believe. She thought that making the > font larger would help people. That required two columns > of names, with the punch holes between them. There > were tests, of course, that confirmed the superiority of > the design. > +=+ They used dummies for the tests? Not real people surely? But anyway, the name for the history books is Theresa LePore. Can she have ever expected to make history? Well, she made it! ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 10 21:32:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAAVdS21350 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:31:39 +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 eAAAVWt21346 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:31:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-94.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.94]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA29136 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:31:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0AEBEE.731F9FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 19:24:46 +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] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003601c04993$c02bf3e0$847693c3@pacific> <4.3.2.7.1.20001109075914.00b49250@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 07:18 AM 11/9/00, Herman wrote: > > >TMTNBLRA (*) : does the US constitution ? > > > >(*) to make this non bridge laws related again > > Yes. Ties in the Electoral College are broken by a vote of the House > of Representatives (lower chamber of Congress). That can't happen this > year; the winner in Florida will have a majority in the E.C. > And what if the Florida vote is tied ? There's only 2.900.000 of them, so it could easily end up a tie. -- 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 Nov 11 02:43:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAFf7q21749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:41:07 +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 eAAFf0t21741 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:41:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.149]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23810 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:40:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0BD320.BFE617A4@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:51:12 +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] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@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: > > Mind you, there is no longer any need to > spend all that money in future. Just pick the > county in which to name the new President. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > The ultimate end is to be found in the story "Franchise" by Isaac Asimov, which can be found in the collections "Earth is Room enough" and "Robot Dreams". One man, Norman Muller of Bloomington Indiana, is chosen by the computers to represent the entire populace. His vote determines the whole thing. The story dates from 1952 and is set in 2008. -- 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 Nov 11 03:32:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAGWIh21848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:32:18 +1100 (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 eAAGWBt21844 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:32:12 +1100 (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 LAA15928 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:32:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA271863925; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:32:05 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:32:04 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:32:04 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAAGWEt21845 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, Sorry to send you a deadly dull bridge problem instead of something about our southern big neighbour's elections, but the show must goes on... Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: North K Q J 10 x J x x x J x x x South (dealer) A x x A K x x x x A Q x x The auction: S E N W 1NT 2C! 2H P P 2D 2S 3D 4H P 4S End 2C was alerted (a long suit). S forgot they play "transfer on" after Capp. 2C, did not alert and P, thinking 2H was natural. When S finally P on 4S (making), E-W called TD saying N-S used UI to get the good contract. The analysis: N-S CCs clearly define 2H as a transfer to S after 2C and this bid should have been alerted. When asked to explain his 2S bid, N said he would bid like that if S alerts and he just continued to bid normally because he has enough HPCs and knew pd has almost 2 cards in S. When S bid 4H (still sleeping) he thought N had 5 Hs and 4 Ss but was a little bit too weak to bid 3D (Stayman). With a double fit and the maximum, S bid the game. N pretended he made the normal signoff 4S bid, no matter what 4H should be. S said we awaked at this moment and P. The ruling: The "no alert" of 2H is MI to E-W but this misinformation did not cause any dammage to E-W. The subsequent P by S is a mistaken bid as defined by Law 75 (he should have bid 2S). The "no alert" and P tell to N "my pd think I have Hs". This is UI for N (Law 16A) who cannot "choose from among logical alternative actions ...". The 2S bid by N is the most critical one. P and 2S are logical alternatives. I ruled N could have bid 2S anyway and that this bid was not demontrably suggested by UI. I also ruled that the 4S bid was clearly not suggested by UI. After a 1NT opening and a transfer to S, 4H is not a bid to play there and 4S is the normal signoff. N knows his partner cannot have 6 or more Hs, not from UI but from the opening. As nobody pretended there was any gesture by N to awake his partner, the score stands. Is this ruling correct ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 03:45:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAGj9c21879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:45:09 +1100 (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 eAAGj5t21875 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:45:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua174064 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:45:01 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-202.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.202]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sea-Worthy-MailRouter V2.9c 15/3969328); 11 Nov 2000 02:45:01 Message-ID: <00dd01c04b35$68b64720$cad536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:43:52 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > I understand all the English tourists to the USA next > year are targeting Palm Beach County. They want to > see the exhibits and shake by the hand the man who > designed the ballot paper. Palm Beach is so akin to > politics as we understand them. Yet another bridge reference? After all, the World Junior Teams Championships last year were held in, or at most a few miles south of, Palm Beach County. When the Americans lost the Final of the WJTC to the Italians, there were no lawyers flown in, and no questioning of the validity of the Italians' bids. I haven't been following this thread closely - did it begin with Marv describing an ACBL election to be added to L40E? Or was it that the ACBL wanted to change a couple of words in L40E, in order to make elections less confusing? " Law 40E Ballot Paper 1. Right To Prescribe The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a ballot paper on which partners are to list their votes and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership are to employ the same vote (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method). 2. Referring to Opponents' Ballot Paper During the ballot, any player except dummy may refer to his opponents' ballot paper at his own turn to vote, but not to his own (see Footnote 12). Footnote 12: A player is not entitled, during the ballot, to any aids to his memory, calculation or technique. However, sponsoring organisations may designate unusual methods (e.g. punching holes) and allow written defences against unusual methods to be used in the ballot room." Peter Gill Australia (where our Leader received less votes than his opponent at the last election IIRC) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 03:55:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAGthx21898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:55:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r10.mail.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAGtbt21894 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 03:55:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id f.8e.cc7b033 (5775); Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:54:34 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <8e.cc7b033.273d824a@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:54:34 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8e.cc7b033.273d824a_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_8e.cc7b033.273d824a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/10/00 11:37:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes: > Is this ruling correct ? > > Yep, except you put the "E" and "W" in the wrong places in the bidding chart unless you bid counterclockwise in Quebec. (feeble attempt at humor). $$$Kojak$$$ --part1_8e.cc7b033.273d824a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/10/00 11:37:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes:


Is this ruling correct ?



Yep, except you put the "E" and "W" in the wrong places in the bidding chart
unless you bid counterclockwise in Quebec.  (feeble attempt at humor).
$$$Kojak$$$ --part1_8e.cc7b033.273d824a_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 04:00:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAH0Au21918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:00:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r08.mail.aol.com (imo-r08.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAH04t21914 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:00:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id p.6a.8527e53 (5775) for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:59:36 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <6a.8527e53.273d8378@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:59:36 EST Subject: [BLML] Election. To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6a.8527e53.273d8378_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_6a.8527e53.273d8378_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had? The next President of the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim they had trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked with arrows, names, etc. Scary, no? But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common denominator." $$$Kojak$$$ --part1_6a.8527e53.273d8378_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had?  The next President of
the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim they had  
trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked with
arrows, names, etc.  Scary, no?
But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common
denominator."

$$$Kojak$$$ --part1_6a.8527e53.273d8378_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 04:26:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAHPc721964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:25:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAHPVt21960 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:25:32 +1100 (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 RAA16466 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:25:18 GMT Message-ID: <3A0C2F89.ED0BAA1A@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:25:29 +0100 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] Law 75 (ruling) References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA a écrit : > > Hi all, > Sorry to send you a deadly dull bridge problem instead of > something about our southern big neighbour's elections, > but the show must goes on... > > Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > North > K Q J 10 x > J x > x x > J x x x > > South (dealer) > A x x > A K x x > x x > A Q x x > > The auction: S E N W > 1NT 2C! 2H P > P 2D 2S 3D > 4H P 4S End > > 2C was alerted (a long suit). S forgot they play "transfer on" > after Capp. 2C, did not alert and P, thinking 2H was natural. > When S finally P on 4S (making), E-W called TD saying N-S > used UI to get the good contract. > > The analysis: > N-S CCs clearly define 2H as a transfer to S after 2C and this > bid should have been alerted. When asked to explain his 2S bid, > N said he would bid like that if S alerts and he just continued > to bid normally because he has enough HPCs and knew pd has > almost 2 cards in S. When S bid 4H (still sleeping) he thought N > had 5 Hs and 4 Ss but was a little bit too weak to bid 3D (Stayman). > With a double fit and the maximum, S bid the game. N pretended > he made the normal signoff 4S bid, no matter what 4H should be. > S said we awaked at this moment and P. > > The ruling: > The "no alert" of 2H is MI to E-W but this misinformation did not > cause any dammage to E-W. The subsequent P by S is a mistaken > bid as defined by Law 75 (he should have bid 2S). The "no alert" > and P tell to N "my pd think I have Hs". This is UI for N (Law 16A) > who cannot "choose from among logical alternative actions ...". > > The 2S bid by N is the most critical one. P and 2S are logical > alternatives. I ruled N could have bid 2S anyway and that > this bid was not demontrably suggested by UI. I also ruled > that the 4S bid was clearly not suggested by UI. After a > 1NT opening and a transfer to S, 4H is not a bid to play there > and 4S is the normal signoff. N knows his partner cannot have > 6 or more Hs, not from UI but from the opening. > > As nobody pretended there was any gesture by N to awake his > partner, the score stands. > > Is this ruling correct ? maybe, the "no alert" is UI but "P" is AI and one could argue both don't carry exactly the same information; i am not sure 2S not to have been slightly suggested by UI, and to be complete, i would have listed one more logical alternative: calling TD about insufficient 2D bid. JP Rocafort > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Sat Nov 11 04:38:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAHcZw21990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:38:35 +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 eAAHcTt21986 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:38:30 +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 ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:35:43 -0800 Message-ID: <003801c04b3c$fda2cdc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:29:06 -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 > Grattan Endicott wrote: > If they rerun the election in Palm Beach > can we expect a 97% turn out of the electorate? > and a 99% turn out of party workers and > voyeurs from the whole of the USA? Better put > up the barriers at the borders of the county. Most assuredly only those who voted would get another chance to vote. As an aside, there is quite a bit of talk about Gore's winning of the total popular vote, and how that should count heavily in the matter. It should count not at all. There is good reason for the electoral system, which is that people in the smaller states, and those in a minority ethic group, have a larger say in the process than would be true in a direct popular vote. Take Hispanics, who make up only 5% of the U. S. population. The candidates have paid a great deal attention to them because of their large constituencies in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. In direct popular voting, the candidates would concentrate on the big cities and the more populous Eastern states, paying little attention to Hispanic concerns. The "tyranny of the majority" would tend to prevail, something that every democracy should try to avoid. 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 Nov 11 04:45:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAHim822016 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:44:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAAHigt22012 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 04:44:43 +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 JAA17491; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:44:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200011101744.JAA17491@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:59:36 PST." <6a.8527e53.273d8378@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:44:38 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had? The next President of > the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim they had > trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked with > arrows, names, etc. Scary, no? > But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common > denominator." Well, at least one other person has had this thought. A letter writer from Santa Ana, California, in this morning's L.A. Times: "I shudder at the possibility that we may choose our next president by giving a second vote to people who weren't smart enough to cast their ballots correctly the first time." -- 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 Nov 11 05:19:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAIIq022075 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:18:52 +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 eAAIIkt22071 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:18:46 +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 KAA18023; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:18:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200011101818.KAA18023@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:29:06 PST." <003801c04b3c$fda2cdc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:18:41 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > If they rerun the election in Palm Beach > > can we expect a 97% turn out of the electorate? > > and a 99% turn out of party workers and > > voyeurs from the whole of the USA? Better put > > up the barriers at the borders of the county. > > Most assuredly only those who voted would get another chance to vote. > > As an aside, there is quite a bit of talk about Gore's winning of the total > popular vote, and how that should count heavily in the matter. > > It should count not at all. There is good reason for the electoral system, > which is that people in the smaller states, and those in a minority ethic > group, have a larger say in the process than would be true in a direct > popular vote. . . . [more good arguments snipped] On top of that, we don't even know for sure who won the total popular vote, and we may never know for sure. Some states are still counting absentee ballots. The L.A. Times reported that in California, a million absentee ballots haven't been counted. They can't affect California's Electoral College vote, which went to Gore by a wide margin, so I don't know whether the ballots will ever be counted. CNSNews.com reported that "Some states won't count their absentee ballots, because the election in those states wasn't that close", but they didn't say which states. -- 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 Nov 11 05:35:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAIZW322105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:35:32 +1100 (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 (cpimssmtpu02.email.msn.com [207.46.181.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAIZQt22099 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:35:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.24.193.162 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:35:19 -0800 Message-ID: <016601c04b44$8d79c140$f1c1183f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <200011101818.KAA18023@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:32:15 -0800 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 Adam wrote > On top of that, we don't even know for sure who won the total popular > vote, and we may never know for sure. Some states are still counting > absentee ballots. The L.A. Times reported that in California, a > million absentee ballots haven't been counted. They can't affect > California's Electoral College vote, which went to Gore by a wide > margin, so I don't know whether the ballots will ever be counted. > CNSNews.com reported that "Some states won't count their absentee > ballots, because the election in those states wasn't that close", but > they didn't say which states. Surely they need to count all the ballots. There were many, many elections going on, not just the presidential races. What about all the propositions, the city and county and state offices, the local measures? My absentee ballot covered both sides of 4 or 5 cards, and by no means were all of the issues so close that a million votes one way or the other wouldn't have swung them. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 05:56:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAIuCH22140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAAIu5t22136 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 05:56:06 +1100 (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 NAA20926; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:56:00 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA012762559; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:55:59 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:55:58 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:55:57 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAAIu8t22137 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Objet : Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Sorry: was just sleeping as S did. > Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > North > K Q J 10 x > J x > x x > J x x x > > South (dealer) > A x x > A K x x > x x > A Q x x > The auction: S W N E 1NT 2C! 2H P P 3D 3S 3D 4H P 4S End 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 Sat Nov 11 06:01:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAJ1Gq22161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:01:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAAJ19t22157 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:01:10 +1100 (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 OAA21175 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA014372865; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:05 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:03 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:03 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAAJ1Ct22158 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This time I think I got it. >Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > North > K Q J 10 x > J x > x x > J x x x > > South (dealer) > A x x > A K x x > x x > A Q x x > The auction: S W N E 1NT 2C! 2H P P 3D 3S 4D 4H P 4S End 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 Sat Nov 11 06:31:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAJUbs22203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:30:37 +1100 (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 eAAJUUt22199 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:30:31 +1100 (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 NAA14880 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:30:54 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 13:32:31 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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 02:01 PM 11/10/2000 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >This time I think I got it. > >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: >> >> North >> K Q J 10 x >> J x >> x x >> J x x x >> >> South (dealer) >> A x x >> A K x x >> x x >> A Q x x >> >The auction: S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2H P > P 3D 3S 4D > 4H P 4S End > >Laval Partner's passing of a forcing bid always counts as a sign something's up, in my book. Unless N has some reason to suspect that S has psyched a first-seat 1NT bid with a heart pre-empt [and as TD I would virtually never require a player to bid under the assumption that partner has psyched], he knows that S has forgotten by virtue of the bid alone. No adjustment. I would be more concerned if W claims damage from MI for the failure to alert, since with a correct explanation he might have passed 2H. 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 Sat Nov 11 06:35:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAJZ6i22221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:35:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAJYXt22217 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:34:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-167.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.167]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CF3136CB9; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:34:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004101c04b4d$0dc5b680$a7b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:31:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0031_01C04B55.25D9ADA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C04B55.25D9ADA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am too much a teacher not to consider the possibility that a mistake = made by thousands of people within a small area might be caused by a = designers mistake. Our TV showed some people who made this mistake, and = they didn't look that stupid.=20 And you know that Jose Damiani has forbidden you to argue like you do = here. An appeal decision or a time penalty is not deciding the result of = a match, the hundreds of mistakes at the table take care for that. So = the millions of mistakes, in forms or decisions in the rest of your = lovely voting states are deciding the next president.=20 You are not telling us that you voted for Bush are you?=20 ton =20 =20 Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had? The next = President of=20 the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim = they had =20 trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked = with=20 arrows, names, etc. Scary, no?=20 But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common=20 denominator."=20 =20 $$$Kojak$$$=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C04B55.25D9ADA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am too much a teacher not to = consider the=20 possibility that a mistake made by thousands of people within a small = area might=20 be caused by a designers mistake. Our TV showed some people who made = this=20 mistake, and they didn't look that stupid.
And you know = that Jose=20 Damiani has forbidden you to argue like you do here. An appeal decision = or a=20 time penalty is not deciding the result of a match, the hundreds of = mistakes at=20 the table take care for that. So the millions of mistakes, in forms or = decisions=20 in the rest of your lovely voting states are deciding the next = president.=20
You are not = telling us that=20 you voted for Bush are you?
 
ton

 
Has=20 anybody else had the chilling thought I've had?  The next = President of=20
the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim = they=20 had 
trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot = clearly=20 marked with
arrows, names, etc.  Scary, no?
But then, = in math=20 we spent years understanding the "lowest common =
denominator."=20

$$$Kojak$$$ ------=_NextPart_000_0031_01C04B55.25D9ADA0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 06:48:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAJluI22248 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:47:56 +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 eAAJlot22244 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 06:47:51 +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 LAA19698; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:47:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200011101947.LAA19698@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:01:03 PST." Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:47:40 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval wrote: > This time I think I got it. > > >Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > > > North > > K Q J 10 x > > J x > > x x > > J x x x > > > > South (dealer) > > A x x > > A K x x > > x x > > A Q x x > > > The auction: S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2H P > P 3D 3S 4D > 4H P 4S End Most of the time, in similar situations, the partner of the player who gave MI must assume that his partner understood the auction correctly and had a legitimate reason for doing what he did. E.g.: South North 1NT 2H 3H 2H is a transfer but South failed to alert (announce); North must assume that South is making some sort of super-accept of spades. But this doesn't apply to the actual auction, because passing a transfer is just not done, under any circumstances. (North could still have quite a good hand at this point.) Thus, I think, North can conclude from the AI that South forgot the transfer, and can therefore bid whatever he wants. Score stands. -- 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 Nov 11 07:22:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAKMIT22284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:22:18 +1100 (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 eAAKMBt22280 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4gk.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.20]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA09067; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:21:50 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003501c04b54$95a92440$1412f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "ton kooijman" , , References: <004101c04b4d$0dc5b680$a7b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:26:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0032_01C04B2A.AB2F7E60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0032_01C04B2A.AB2F7E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I should certainly hope he did. I have always thought Bill had his head = on straight. :-)) But from the latest news it looks as though the Gore = people want to keep recounting until they finally get a count that puts = them ahead and then stop. Best 2 out of 3? Best 3 out of five?...Best 10 = out of 19 ad infinitum. Ironically, if Gore wins, his running mate must resign his Senate seat, = giving the GOP positive control of the upper house instead of just tie = breaking ability with the VP. But policy shaping and = judicial/ambassadorial/cabinet appointing authority makes the chief = executive position one not to be lightly given up upon. Expect more = arguing before we are done. Craig ----- Original Message -----=20 From: ton kooijman=20 To: Schoderb@aol.com ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. I am too much a teacher not to consider the possibility that a mistake = made by thousands of people within a small area might be caused by a = designers mistake. Our TV showed some people who made this mistake, and = they didn't look that stupid.=20 And you know that Jose Damiani has forbidden you to argue like you do = here. An appeal decision or a time penalty is not deciding the result of = a match, the hundreds of mistakes at the table take care for that. So = the millions of mistakes, in forms or decisions in the rest of your = lovely voting states are deciding the next president.=20 You are not telling us that you voted for Bush are you?=20 ton =20 Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had? The next = President of=20 the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim = they had =20 trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked = with=20 arrows, names, etc. Scary, no?=20 But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common=20 denominator."=20 $$$Kojak$$$=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C04B2A.AB2F7E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I should certainly hope he = did. I have=20 always thought Bill had his head on straight. :-)) But from the latest = news it=20 looks as though the Gore people want to keep recounting until they = finally get a=20 count that puts them ahead and then stop. Best 2 out of 3? Best 3 out of = five?...Best 10 out of 19 ad infinitum.
 
Ironically, if Gore wins, his running mate must = resign his=20 Senate seat, giving the GOP positive control of the upper house instead = of just=20 tie breaking ability with the VP. But policy shaping and=20 judicial/ambassadorial/cabinet appointing authority makes the chief = executive=20 position one not to be lightly given up upon. Expect more arguing before = we are=20 done.
 
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 ton=20 kooijman
To: Schoderb@aol.com ; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 = 2:31=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] = Election.

I am too much a teacher not to = consider the=20 possibility that a mistake made by thousands of people within a small = area=20 might be caused by a designers mistake. Our TV showed some people who = made=20 this mistake, and they didn't look that stupid.
And you know = that Jose=20 Damiani has forbidden you to argue like you do here. An appeal = decision or a=20 time penalty is not deciding the result of a match, the hundreds of = mistakes=20 at the table take care for that. So the millions of mistakes, in forms = or=20 decisions in the rest of your lovely voting states are deciding the = next=20 president.
You are not = telling us=20 that you voted for Bush are you?
 
ton

 
Has=20 anybody else had the chilling thought I've had?  The next = President of=20
the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim = they=20 had 
trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot = clearly=20 marked with
arrows, names, etc.  Scary, no?
But then, = in math=20 we spent years understanding the "lowest common
denominator."=20

$$$Kojak$$$ = ------=_NextPart_000_0032_01C04B2A.AB2F7E60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 07:35:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAKYkG22315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:34:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r10.mail.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAKYet22311 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 07:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id p.9f.ce3d052 (3929); Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:34:27 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <9f.ce3d052.273db5d2@aol.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 15:34:26 EST Subject: [BLML] Election(2) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9f.ce3d052.273db5d2_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_9f.ce3d052.273db5d2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >>>I am too much a teacher not to consider the possibility that a mistake >>= > made by thousands of people within a small area might be caused by a >>> designers mistake.=20 Nah, just trying to put a little bit of reality out there for all you=20 savants. Never ceases to amaze me when there is a discussion of voting,=20 democracy, etc., how the royalty adherents are so vocal. Of course re the=20 above quote of your response, I'm much too much a sceptic than to believe th= e=20 "Thousands" used in the news media. =A0The whole mess sure helps to make a=20 bunch of money for the media and the lawyers are licking their lips in glee.= =20 Besides we have a secret ballot -- so how I voted is a cherished secret. Besides, Jose Damiani doesn't forbid me from doing anything. He might make i= t=20 really tough should I go against his known desires, but then my wife, and=20 yours, do the same thing and with much greater effect than a WBF President=20 could ever have. Kojak =A0 --part1_9f.ce3d052.273db5d2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






>>>I am too much a teacher not to consider the possibility=20= that a mistake >>>
made by thousands of people within a small ar= ea might be caused by a >>>
designers mistake.

Nah, just trying to put a little bit of reality out there= for all you
savants. Never ceases to amaze me when there is a discussio= n of voting,
democracy, etc., how the royalty adherents are so vocal. Of= course re the
above quote of your response, I'm much too much a sceptic= than to believe the
"Thousands" used in the news media. =A0The whole me= ss sure helps to make a
bunch of money for the media and the lawyers are= licking their lips in glee.  
Besides we have a secret ballot -- so= how I voted is a cherished secret.

Besides, Jose Damiani doesn't forbid me from doing anything. He might ma= ke it
really tough should I go against his known desires, but then my wi= fe, and
yours, do the same thing and with much greater effect than a WBF= President
could ever have.

Kojak =A0 --part1_9f.ce3d052.273db5d2_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 08:20:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAALKMI22417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:20:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAALKBt22410 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:20:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from toshiba4020cdt (sszaharo.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.224.36]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1-AGK-0.3) with SMTP id AAA87920 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:19:23 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <006f01c04b5b$d2e983c0$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> Reply-To: "Sergei Litvak" From: "Sergei Litvak" To: Subject: [BLML] EBL TD courses Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:18:49 +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 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Who has any information about TD courses. Our NCBO has received no information about it. Thanks in advance. Sergei Litvak, Chief TD of RBL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 08:20:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAALKZE22422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:20:35 +1100 (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 eAALKKt22416 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:20:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from toshiba4020cdt (sszaharo.p2p.sci-nnov.ru [195.122.224.36]) by adm.sci-nnov.ru (8.9.3/Dmiter-4.1-AGK-0.3) with SMTP id AAA87672 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:15:31 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> Reply-To: "Sergei Litvak" From: "Sergei Litvak" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: Subject: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 00:14:56 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2417.2000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following case occured last weekend. Mixt National Championship.Swiss Teams.Table 2. Women are at W and N. Board 17, N,- x KJx Q98xx Qxxx Jx KTxxxxx AQTxx -- JTxx xx xx KJxx AQx 98xxx AK Axx The bidding and explanation W N E S p p 1NT 2D db 2S p p ...db p 3NT p p 4C db all pass 2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. hesitation) - as showing extra values. TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with her partner and said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. After the end if the board (TD was at tthe table during the play) E asks for the ruling. What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). Sergei Litvak Chief TD of RBL. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 08:27:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAALR3Q22448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:27:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAALQvt22444 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:26:58 +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 QAA21612 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:26:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA07710 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:26:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:26:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011102126.QAA07710@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Grant Sterling > Partner's passing of a forcing bid always counts as a sign something's > up, in my book. This is a good example where UI and AI give the same information. I think it's an especially easy case because passing the transfer is _so_ unusual (as Adam points out) and because agreements in competition are often less well established than, for example, the 1NT range. Unless South is a frequent psycher, the pass of 2H would surely tell North what is going on, even behind screens. (But if South _is_ a frequent psycher, then North cannot be allowed to use the failure to alert to recognize that South has misbid and not psyched.) > I would be more concerned if W claims damage from MI for the > failure to alert, since with a correct explanation he might have > passed 2H. Why does West have to "claim" damage? Hasn't David told us often enough that the TD should automatically consider both UI and MI in "wrong explanation" cases? Of course we can't tell without seeing the EW hands, but it sure looks as though an adjustment to the result in 2H was likely to have been correct. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 08:44:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAALhct22495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:43:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAALhVt22491 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:43:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAEqst04424 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:52:54 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:31:02 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> <003801c04b3c$fda2cdc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003801c04b3c$fda2cdc0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111014525401.04361@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > It should count not at all. There is good reason for the electoral system, > which is that people in the smaller states, and those in a minority ethic > group, have a larger say in the process than would be true in a direct > popular vote. It does give more weight to the smaller states, but as we have discovered in this election, it gives weight to a different set of states. Neither candidate cared about New York or Texas in this election, because New York was conceded to Gore and Texas to Bush. There was little campaigning even in California. Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, other large states, received a lot of attention, and it looks like Florida is the state which will now decide, one way or the other. Among the small states, we see the same pattern. Voters in Wyoming and Alaska have more voice than voters anywhere else; these are the states with the smallest populations and three electoral votes each. Both states are guaranteed Republican wins. The District of Columbia and Vermont were clear for Gore. These were ignored, while Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and West Virginia were important. Whether it helps minority groups depends a lot on the specfic locations. > Take Hispanics, who make up only 5% of the U. S. population. The candidates > have paid a great deal attention to them because of their large > constituencies in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Again, it depends on the areas of interest. There wasn't much campaigning here in Arizona, and Texas was conceded to Bush. Even California, with 10% of the voters in the country, received less than 10% of the campaigning. Florida, on the other hand, has a large Hispanic population. With a national vote, there would be a lot of campaigning and advertising in Los Angeles, which is the largest source of Hispanic votes in the country. > In direct > popular voting, the candidates would concentrate on the big cities and the > more populous Eastern states, paying little attention to Hispanic concerns. The big cities are where most of the minorities live; the Los Angeles area is the area with the second-most votes. New York has more total minorities than any other city -- 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 Nov 11 08:49:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAALnA722521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:49:10 +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-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 eAALn4t22516 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:49:04 +1100 (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 eAALmxV14950 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 16:48:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001110155059.00ab3100@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, 10 Nov 2000 16:48:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? In-Reply-To: <200011091325.eA9DPSS13430@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:25 AM 11/9/00, Ron wrote: [much snipped from Ron & Tim] > > > More to the point though, I can't fathom the attitude of someone who > > > won't answer in the first place. > > > > Perhaps it pisses us off when we try to complete a detailed and > helpful CC > > and some a**ehole can't even be bothered to read it. To be fair I > think > > even those with the "I shouldn't have to answer that" opinion don't > > normally go so far as to refuse to answer. Certainly I wouldn't refer > > someone to a CC which had been sketchily filled in, but if I know > there is > > a lot of detail there it's a different matter. > >Never occurred to me and these days I have both an unusually detailed >CC and a very simple one. I've simply never found it a burden to >answer questions and really can't comprehend why some people seem >to find it so. I find this entirely reasonable and hard to disagree with. But we've come a long way from the thread subject, which is UI. I suspect that the folks who are reluctant to answer questions verbally when the answers could readily be obtained from their CCs have been, or have seen others, too readily involved in UI-related hassles of the "is he now allowed to wake up to what he has done" variety. This is a legitimate concern in some jurisdictions or regions. It's not that answering is perceived as burdonsome, but rather as hazardous. What's needed isn't policy that allows these folks to avoid answering questions; it's policy that allows them to avoid UI-related hassles. The thread so far suggests the wisdom of a policy by which if a pair is in conformance with the governing regulations regarding the completion and display of their CCs, no information the essentials of which could be obtained by examining the CC can be considered unauthorized. This is a mild throwback to the defunct "you ask at your own risk" philosophy (as in the earlier example of the strong-notrumper who had just switched to a varaible range and forgot), but not by so much as has been suggested by some who feel that a pair's complete set of nominal agreements should always be AI. A disclaimer here; this isn't meant to state or interpret law; it's about common sense. Legally I would suppose it's the sort of thing that SOs can just do, not a laws issue. In practice, it would encourage proper use of CCs, which we'd all like to see. And those who want to disclose fully and freely, but feel constrained in casual partnerships, or with inexperienced partners, to avoid giving UI, would be less concerned about telling the opponents as much as they can as best they can, and wouldn't have to risk giving offense by politely referring someone (who may arguably have no reason whatsoever to take offense, but hey...) to their CC (not to mention the occasional culture clash between those who think "read the f**king card" is perfectly polite and those who strongly disagree). Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 09:13:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAAMCmT22583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:12:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAAMCbt22579 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:12:41 +1100 (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 RAA25891 for ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:16:14 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011102216.RAA25891@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200011101744.JAA17491@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200011101744.JAA17491@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 17:16:14 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Waaaaay OT - and possibly offensive (despite Marvin - thx for the vote of confidence, though). BDFH mode on... On 10 November 2000 at 9:44, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >> Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've had? The next President of >> the USA may be decided by those particular individuals who claim they had >> trouble reading and understanding a printed ballot clearly marked with >> arrows, names, etc. Scary, no? >> But then, in math we spent years understanding the "lowest common >> denominator." > >Well, at least one other person has had this thought. A letter writer >from Santa Ana, California, in this morning's L.A. Times: "I shudder >at the possibility that we may choose our next president by giving a >second vote to people who weren't smart enough to cast their ballots >correctly the first time." > That's democracy, for you, though. Government of the lusers, by the lusers, for the lusers. Candidates' tiniest little foibles exposed as if they are more important thant their ability to govern (because it's hard for the media to explain that to the average person in a 45-second news story), with the result that the last U.S. Presidential Candidate that wasn't completely bland-ed out was Reagan. 18-month long election campaigns with as little as is spin-doctorally possible actually said, to avoid offending anyone, or giving anyone a "you've broken a promise" handle - and they'll be damned if they'll actually *commit* to anything - but it still costs so much that it can only be afforded by huge donations by the richest "persons" in the country - which happen to all be corporations, and not people at all. And even though the corporate "persons" do not have a vote, they certainly made it possible for the message to be heard by real voters, and so want their voices listened to once the quid pro quo kicks in. And that's just off the top of my head. Unfortunately, Churchill was right at the time, and as far as I can see, still is. On a less cynical note, I hope the right thing happens, and the right person (or the right people behind the person) gets in, and does the right thing for Americans, and for us Canadians, and for the rest of the world. And I hope that I know enough to do the right thing when it becomes my turn to choose, later this month. Michael - wishing we had preferential voting here, but knowing that there are problems with all systems. -- "I'm from Canada...I can't teach you how to play Bridge." - one of my less-...um countrymen (in his defence, I didn't phrase my question well, and it could have been misinterpreted). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 10:31:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAANV0W22700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:31:00 +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 eAANUrt22696 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:30:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.169] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13uNd8-000F5W-00; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 23:30:46 +0000 Message-ID: <00a201c04b6e$477c7b40$a95408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <6a.8527e53.273d8378@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 22:34:57 -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 "There never will be complete equality until women themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers." - Susan Brownell Anthony. <=> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:59 PM Subject: [BLML] Election. > Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've > had? The next President of the USA may be > decided by those particular individuals who > claim they had trouble reading and understanding > a printed ballot clearly marked with arrows, > names, etc. Scary, no? > But then, in math we spent years understanding > the "lowest common denominator." > > $$$Kojak$$$ > +=+ Scary? Aren't they the same clan who have been electing your Presidents up to now? If the race had not gone to the wire, would we have heard about the events in Palm Beach County? And how many such events in earlier elections has America heard nothing about? Of course it is possible to take the view that the Presidency was decided by the half of the nation that did not vote. But I just thank y'all for the show you've put on. Not even Reagan had a script with arrows flying and the bad guys full of holes. The juvenile lead making a hash of his lines was reminiscent, though. I can't wait four years for more, or can I hope it has been just a trailer of the four years coming? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 13:46:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAB2jQm22800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:45:26 +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 eAB2jKt22796 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 13:45:21 +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 13uQfJ-0000qu-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:45:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 02:42:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >This time I think I got it. > dozy canuck :)) >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: >> >> North >> K Q J 10 x >> J x >> x x >> J x x x >> >> South (dealer) >> A x x >> A K x x >> x x >> A Q x x >> >The auction: S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2H P > P 3D 3S 4D > 4H P 4S End > Would West have passed 2H if he'd known South had passed a transfer. There's no problem with the rest of the hand. otherwise ruling fine IMO -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 14:30:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAB3TTC22846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:29:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAB3TNt22842 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:29:24 +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 ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:26:39 -0800 Message-ID: <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 19:29:04 -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 Grant Sterling wrote: Laval wrote: > >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > >> > >> North > >> K Q J 10 x > >> J x > >> x x > >> J x x x > >> > >> South (dealer) > >> A x x > >> A K x x > >> x x > >> A Q x x > >> > >The auction: S W N E > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > P 3D 3S 4D > > 4H P 4S End > > > > Partner's passing of a forcing bid always counts as a sign something's > up, in my book. Does anyone in the world play 2H as a forcing bid if it is natural?? West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). This is an MI case only, as the UI for North turned out to be inconsequential. Assuming L12C2, the proper adjusted assinged score N/S score is whatever 2H would make (most unfavorable result that was at all probable). If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" over 2C, then (in ACBL-land) an experienced West would have been expected to check on the matter before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands for E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H contract. 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 Nov 11 19:08:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAB86Vr22986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:06:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAB86Nt22982 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:06:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.82] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13uVg3-000Kv6-00; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c04bb6$4d161dc0$525408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Sergei Litvak" References: <006f01c04b5b$d2e983c0$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 08:05:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Sergei Litvak To: Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 9:18 PM Subject: [BLML] EBL TD courses > Who has any information about TD courses. > Our NCBO has received no information about it. > Thanks in advance. > +=+ I think I have seen a provisional date in the calendar for January (?) 2001; but as a member of the Tournament Directors Committee of the EBL I have not yet been consulted about any arrangements. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 20:01:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAB91W623023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:01:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAB91Pt23019 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:01:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13uWXI-000LZM-00; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:01:21 +0000 Message-ID: <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 09:00:38 -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 "O ecstatic great nephew of mine The news that you bring is just fine For to share in the bliss With Joanna and Chris Not one of us here will decline." ----------------------------------------------- [Ashley Nicole Endicott born Nov. 10th, somewhere in Canada. Yet another great, great niece.] <====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 3:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > Laval wrote: > > > >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > >> > > >> North > > >> K Q J 10 x > > >> J x > > >> x x > > >> J x x x > > >> > > >> South (dealer) > > >> A x x > > >> A K x x > > >> x x > > >> A Q x x > > >> > > >The auction: S W N E > > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > > P 3D 3S 4D > > > 4H P 4S End > > > > > ------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" > over 2C, then (in ACBL-land) an experienced West > would have been expected to check on the matter > before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands > for E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H > contract. > +=+ Interesting. Even at WBF level, where players are clearly told to protect their own backs, I doubt that it would be sufficiently culpable - in the absence of an alert - for redress to be withheld if West did not pick up this 'unexpected' convention (unless perhaps it were listed in the box for special agreements opponents need to know about). I would like to hear some of our top world TDs on whether, if West does not volunteer a statement that he would have done something different (pass) if he had been alerted, they would explore this question (a) overtly, (b) by indirect questions, or (c) not at all? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 11 20:10:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAB9ANw23044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAB9AHt23040 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:10:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-205.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.205]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B200E36B91; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:09:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001c01c04bbf$076266e0$cdb6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Sergei Litvak" , Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:08:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Who has any information about TD courses. Our NCBO has received no >information about it. >Thanks in advance. > >Sergei Litvak, >Chief TD of RBL The newest information is that the course as considered to be held at the end of January has been cancelled. No new plans yet. So let us continue education using BLML. Did anybody consider to offer Florida (or the whole nation!) our 25A now it is still available? I have a test. First answer the question whether you want 25A in our laws. Then answer the question whether you want the possibility to correct an inadvertent wrong vote in Palm Beach. My these is that a possitive correlation exists between both answers 'yes'. Which includes a similar correlation for no's. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 04:00:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABGukr23365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:56:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eABGtWt23360 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 03:55:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 09E68D81BC for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:53:58 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:53:59 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eABGugt23361 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 12:43:45 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >2) All information that a player is entitled to, by Law, is >AI. Agreed. I think this is just about exactly what I meant when I wrote a list of some things that I believe should always be AI. >Similarly, the following are AI : >- the actual bidding, since a player is always entitled to a >review >- the Laws of the game, since he is entitled to have them >read to him by the TD Yes. >Now back to Jesper's case. > >The alert, and explanation, contains 3 pieces of information >: >1) The call was 2Sp. This is also available to W as AI >(actual bidding) >2) 2 Spades shows a void in spades. This is also available >to W as AI (his own system, which we accept he knows) >3) There is something strange in the bidding. I do not agree with this. A precise description of all the information conveyed by the alert is "E believes that W has made an alertable call". Nothing else. The rest is deduced by W from that information. W, with his existing knowledge of his system and his ability to look down and check what he actually bid, can deduce all three pieces of information above. And from each of the three, he can deduce the other two. In fact, that deduction is so easy for W that it is unavoidable that he will actually perform it. So I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between the three: they are just different ways to express what (to W in this situation) is the same information. If one of the three is AI, then so must the other two be. Which is the same as saying that if (3) is UI, then so must (1) and (2) be. I still believe that provided it is considered a fact that W meant to bid 1S, there is no reason to adjust the score, unless knowledge of the auction is considered UI in this situation. Which IMO it should not be, because I believe that knowledge of the auction is always AI no matter how you got that knowledge. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 12 05:12:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABIBxS23407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:11:59 +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 eABIBgt23403 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 05:11:43 +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 ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:08:56 -0800 Message-ID: <00fb01c04c0a$cccdd7c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 10:11:14 -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 > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > Laval wrote: > > > > > >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > > >> > > > >> North > > > >> K Q J 10 x > > > >> J x > > > >> x x > > > >> J x x x > > > >> > > > >> South (dealer) > > > >> A x x > > > >> A K x x > > > >> x x > > > >> A Q x x > > > >> > > > >The auction: S W N E > > > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > > > P 3D 3S 4D > > > > 4H P 4S End > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > > > If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" > > over 2C, then (in ACBL-land) an experienced West > > would have been expected to check on the matter > > before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands > > for E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H > > contract. > > > +=+ Interesting. Even at WBF level, where players > are clearly told to protect their own backs, I doubt > that it would be sufficiently culpable - in the absence > of an alert - for redress to be withheld if West did > not pick up this 'unexpected' convention (unless > perhaps it were listed in the box for special > agreements opponents need to know about). > I would like to hear some of our top world TDs > on whether, if West does not volunteer a statement > that he would have done something different (pass) if > he had been alerted, they would explore this > question (a) overtly, (b) by indirect questions, or > (c) not at all? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > This uninvited non-TD, merely a player, opines that this sort of investigation often leads to a Catch-22 situation. If West gives the wrong answer, or doesn't volunteer one, no redress. If s/he gives the right answer, it is deemed "self-serving," no weight given to it, no redress. I prefer that a TD make a ruling based on hir own judgment, and then listen to the arguments of a disagreeing side. Players are less likely to offer a dubious argument *after* a ruling has been made than before it is made. This particular case looks like an easy one. It is hard to compose a hand that would justify (for any level of player) bidding 3D when it is known that South has failed to complete a transfer. The accepted (I believe) princple coming out of a thread some time ago is that E/W are entitled to know that an agreement has been violated, even if the misunderstanding would not have existed absent the non-Alert. The infraction in such cases is the MI, not the Alert failure *per se*, so when determining "the most favorable result that was likely had the irregularity not occurred" a TD has to imagine what would have happened if E/W had knowledge of the agreement from some source other than an Alert. 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 Nov 12 06:58:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABJvaa23460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 06:57:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eABJvUt23456 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 06:57:30 +1100 (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 <20001111195726.RTIW7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:57:26 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Election. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 11:57:15 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200011102216.RAA25891@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two things I haven't heard or read anywhere... 1. Does the whole ballot become invalidated if any section is fouled up. For example, for our city council we could vote for up to 3 candidates. If someone accidently voted for 4 people, is their entire ballot now invalid? I believe the ballot we used had 3 separate punchcards. All the federal stuff was on one - so maybe that whole ballot card is invalid if for example I voted for 2 senators instead of just one? Also, when I was done voting I couldn't have told anyone which holes I punched (ie 3rd from top or whatever). I am surprised such a large number of people know what hole they punched. Mass power of suggestion, I guess... It is also odd that Daly has quieted down now that he has found out that an identical style butterfly ballot was used in his home area also... (Chicago) 2. Has anyone investigated whether some of these invalid ballots had votes for Bush and someone else? Maybe some people punched the second hole without noticing the top hole was there? Everybody looks bad and the lawyers are licking their chops... *sigh* 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 Nov 12 08:01:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABL0KG23494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:00:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eABL0Et23490 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:00:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.137] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13uhkw-0008tr-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01c04c22$68dd3360$895408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <00fb01c04c0a$cccdd7c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:51:28 -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 "There is less in this than meets the eye." - Tallulah Bankhead <> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > This uninvited non-TD, merely a player, > +=+ I have no wish to exclude. However, you can only tell me what they ought to do, whilst my enquiry is to know what TDs have actually learnt to do, from experience. ~ 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 Nov 12 08:19:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABLJfe23512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:19:41 +1100 (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 eABLJYt23508 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 08:19:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23045 invoked by uid 0); 11 Nov 2000 21:19:25 -0000 Received: from 21.ppp1-15.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.77.21) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 11 Nov 2000 21:19:25 -0000 From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:19:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk CC: dansk@bridge.dk, jesper@dybdal.dk, ak@alesia.dk Message-ID: <3A0DC5F6.14139.2BE5BE5@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk When I attended the EBL course for Tournament Directors in Milan five years ago, we were subjected to the following case: A spectator approaches the director and says: "On board 5 at table 6, there was a revoke, but no one noticed. They have just moved on to board 7." The easy part of this case is that the spectator is in breach of Law 76B, and so chastisement is in order. The hard part is whether the Director should investigate further. While you think about it, take a look at Law 81C6, especially the words "in any manner". The DBF Laws Commission feels provoked by a recent case in Denmark to issue some guidelines for cases like these. I would like to solicit the opinions of BLML as a help towards firming up our own opinions about all this. Therefore, I have made up 127 additional example cases. It would be interesting to all of us, but especially to the Danish LC, if some of you would consider these 128 cases. As a return favor, I will make the resulting guidelines available in English as well as Danish. If there really is reasonable consensus, these guidelines should be useful outside Denmark too. The whole thing is too big to send to the list, so you will need to follow this link: http://www.alesia.dk/jens/l81c6.htm Please follow up to BLML, quoting the above link in the follow-up. -- 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 Nov 12 09:11:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABMAbm23548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:10:37 +1100 (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 eABMAVt23544 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:10:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABFJoV05076 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:19:50 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Election. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 15:12:58 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111115194900.05072@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Linda Trent wrote: > Two things I haven't heard or read anywhere... > > 1. Does the whole ballot become invalidated if any section is fouled up. For > example, for our city council we could vote for up to 3 candidates. If > someone accidently voted for 4 people, is their entire ballot now invalid? No, only that one office. The reason that the ballots were suspicious is that 19,000 voters had voted for two cadndiates for president, and less than 4000 had voter for two candidates for senator. > 2. Has anyone investigated whether some of these invalid ballots had votes > for Bush and someone else? Maybe some people punched the second hole without > noticing the top hole was there? The most likely cause of an invalid ballot is punching two holes, next to the two candidates for president and vice-president (whose names appear on different lines). The top two holes would thus be punched in a vote for Bush and Cheney, and the second and third, or third and fourth, in a vote for Gore and Lieberman. On the ballot I voted, it's not possible to make this error because only odd-numbered holes are available for punching. Gore-Lieberman was hole 17 on my ballot, and if you punch 16 and 17, or 17 and 18 (possible on an absentee ballot, for example), 116 or 18 will be ignored because it corresponds to no candidate. Punching 17 and 19 by mistake is unlikely because 19 clearly belongs to Ralph Nader. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 12 09:21:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABMKu423572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:20:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eABMKot23568 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:20:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc (csdial4.isi.com [192.103.52.195]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id OAA01169 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:08:52 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Election. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:20:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c04c2d$90d52160$c33467c0@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <00111115194900.05072@psa836> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm really not too sure why this conversation is floating around on Bridge Laws. Whatever. - From my perspective, by far the most interesting analysis of the entire butterfly ballot was the following >http://madison.hss.cmu.edu/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOg3GHbFdMFbo8dHHEQLpdQCeMcq1ZcLNZ+GxwM79YfuVuzD5tKcAn1DY 5BPqS6fx0OzGdElStgNVgm79 =W3+/ -----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 Nov 12 10:02:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABN2Jc23600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:19 +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 eABN2Dt23594 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ujez-000NPE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:02:10 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:53:04 -0000 Message-ID: <01c04c32$26ccb6c0$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Michael Farebrother > >> Plus why should you be allowed to ignore a procedure because it gives >>you an advantage to do so? >> >Good point. Why should you be allowed to ignore the CC because you can >constrain us with UI by doing so? > >No, David, I don't believe you, personally, would ask for this reason. >But people do. Why should I be considered ignoring a procedure when I >direct you to full and complete information (I am not talking about >ducking full disclosure here. That's another story altogether), and you >are not considered ignoring a procedure when you refuse to read the >answer to your question on the paper I am, by regulation, required >to give you? > >Michael. But I have been in team situations where a player was advising us all to ask questions as often as possible, since we might get to trip up the opponents in doing so. I and most others preferred not to. What we ought to be doing is working to ensure the rules don't generate situations where a side labelled NO can gain from actively generating UI. They don't sound NO to me then. Patrick Cheltenham, 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 Nov 12 10:02:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABN2Tc23608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eABN2Ft23595 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ujf1-000NPE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:02:11 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:02:08 -0000 Message-ID: <01c04c33$6ae7e7c0$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Adam Beneschan >It's clear to me that this is not UI. UI, according to Law 16, comes >either from partner, from extraneous sources, or from withdrawn calls >and plays, and this is clearly none of the above. Questions from an >opponent are not an "extraneous source", and, in fact, it's definitely >legal to allow an opponent's question or comment to wake you up to the >realization that you've forgotten the system. (Once, in Vancouver, >LHO opened 1NT, partner bid 2S, RHO bid 3NT, not alerted; I asked a >question that woke LHO up to the fact that he had forgotten Lebensohl, >thus letting LHO get out of a hopeless 3NT he would have played in if >I hadn't said anything. Partner was, of course, justifiably annoyed >with me for asking. Of course, I should have kept my mouth shut, but >I was sick that day and not thinking clearly. But of course LHO did >nothing illegal.) I've been in the same situation myself before, but felt that the problem was the expectation we (bridge players in general) seem to have that we deserve to benefit from failures in opponents memory. Sure, it is factor in bridge results but it's not why we play the game. because they are human (usually?) people seem to get more aggrieved about a missed opportunity of that nature, than about a missed chance for a brilliantly deduced switch, and they shouldn't. FWIW, I sometimes think people should be able to consult their own CCs before making a bid, to cut the random memory element, but appreciate it would slow things down too much too often. Patrick Cheltenham, 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 Nov 12 10:02:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABN2QL23607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:26 +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 eABN2Ht23599 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:02:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13ujey-000NPE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:02:08 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 22:48:49 -0000 Message-ID: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$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 -----Original Message----- from Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? From: Herman De Wael >I would like to begin with making two assertions that are >perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually written >down : > >1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the >same content is also available to him, then there are no L16 >restrictions upon him. > >This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains >my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although >this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have AI >with the same content. I suffer a bit from not having a copy of the rule book either in memory or in sight as I read BLML (which might not be a bad thing as it does keep me quieter than I might be), but .... Surely the spirit of much of the rulebook to do with UI is that you mustn't use it but you can never prove that you didn't use it so you must lean in the other direction, which is why you have to choose from other LAs etc. So even if L16 doesn't say it, it feels more like in the spirit of the game that once you get UI, you have to have some way of proving you really used the AI and not the UI, or TD must assume the worst. The concequence may be that you get fixed, but at least you can never be accused of being a cheat, and thereby bringing the game into disrepute. Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Patrick Cheltenham, 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 Nov 12 10:36:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABNaJZ23651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:36:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from balder.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@balder.inter.net.il [192.114.186.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eABNaCt23647 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:36:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-125.access.net.il [213.8.1.125] (may be forged)) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEA58025; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:36:00 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:36:18 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The quoted case is not a case IMHO - 4Sp is the contract and I can explain it for 123 reasons . But I would like to know - from this subject and some other threads : Law 16 deals with UI ,MI and any XI - ok -but where in the laws it appears that people must play non-bridge contracts , according to the laws. I feel that that some people forgot that the Laws are to improve the game and redress damage and ...chr chr chr , bla bla bla - and not to enforce the players to be in <.cucuricu...> contracts or to play <...> cards..... Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott <=> > "O ecstatic great nephew of mine > The news that you bring is just fine > For to share in the bliss > With Joanna and Chris > Not one of us here will decline." > ----------------------------------------------- > [Ashley Nicole Endicott born > Nov. 10th, somewhere in Canada. > Yet another great, great niece.] > <====> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Marvin L. French > To: > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 3:29 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > Laval wrote: > > > > > >>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: > > > >> > > > >> North > > > >> K Q J 10 x > > > >> J x > > > >> x x > > > >> J x x x > > > >> > > > >> South (dealer) > > > >> A x x > > > >> A K x x > > > >> x x > > > >> A Q x x > > > >> > > > >The auction: S W N E > > > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > > > P 3D 3S 4D > > > > 4H P 4S End > > > > > > > > ------------------------------- \x/ ------------------------ > > > > If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" > > over 2C, then (in ACBL-land) an experienced West > > would have been expected to check on the matter > > before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands > > for E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H > > contract. > > > +=+ Interesting. Even at WBF level, where players > are clearly told to protect their own backs, I doubt > that it would be sufficiently culpable - in the absence > of an alert - for redress to be withheld if West did > not pick up this 'unexpected' convention (unless > perhaps it were listed in the box for special > agreements opponents need to know about). > I would like to hear some of our top world TDs > on whether, if West does not volunteer a statement > that he would have done something different (pass) if > he had been alerted, they would explore this > question (a) overtly, (b) by indirect questions, or > (c) not at all? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 12 11:13:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC0DPV23677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:13:25 +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 eAC0DIt23673 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:13:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id AAA13640 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:13:10 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 00:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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: <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Does anyone in the world play 2H as a forcing bid if it is natural?? Marv wrote: > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were > playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). Assuming there is no MI the auction has gone: S W N E 1NT 2C! 2Ha P P ? West, presumably holding something like x,xx,AKJxxx,KJTx, is really going to pass when he expects pard to hold reasonable values and South to have xx,Axxxxx,xx,xxx or suchlike - doesn't seem at all probable to me. Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer but South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to get this information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI purposes. 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 Sun Nov 12 11:14:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC0EiN23690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:14:44 +1100 (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 eAC0Eat23685 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:14:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eABHNxR05243 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:23:59 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:00:14 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$0100007f@localhost> In-Reply-To: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111117235902.05072@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Patrick Shields wrote: > -----Original Message----- from Re: [BLML] Is this a UI > situation? > From: Herman De Wael > > >I would like to begin with making two assertions that are > >perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually > written > >down : > > > >1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the > >same content is also available to him, then there are no > L16 > >restrictions upon him. > > > >This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains > >my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although > >this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have > AI > >with the same content. > > I suffer a bit from not having a copy of the rule book > either in memory or in sight as I read BLML (which > might not be a bad thing as it does keep me quieter > than I might be), but .... > > Surely the spirit of much of the rulebook to do with UI > is that you mustn't use it but you can never prove that > you didn't use it so you must lean in the other direction, > which is why you have to choose from other LAs etc. > > So even if L16 doesn't say it, it feels more like in the > spirit > of the game that once you get UI, you have to have some way > of proving you really used the AI and not the UI, or TD must > assume the worst. But this is automatic if the UI is the same as the AI. Partner's correct explanation of your agreement is UI to you, but if you remembered the agreement, then you have AI to this effect already. The situation also applies if partner provides UI but independently provides AI. If partner opens 1D, you raise to 2D forcing, and partner fails to alert but then passes, you have AI that he forgot the agreement. If partner hesitates and then makes a forcing pass, you have UI that he isn't sure of the correct action, but also AI that he isn't sure because he passed the decision to you. The difficult case occurs when the UI and the AI provide different information but either could affect your play. You lead the C3 against a spade contract the doubleton 32. Dummy has KQT7 and plays the king. Partner hesitates and then plays the C9 (rightside-up carding). Declarer plays the C4, then loses a trump to you. May you return another club to partner's ace in order to get a ruff? You have UI about the ace from the hesitation, but AI from the signal. If it is possible on the bidding that partner has J9 doubleton, or might have signaled count with 9x, then the UI suggests a club continuation over other alternatives, and in this case, if a diamond switch might be necessary to beat the contract against these holldings, you must lead one. If it is not possible that partner would play the C9 without the ace, then the UI suggests nothing, and you may lead the C2 if you still want your ruff. -- 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 Nov 12 12:22:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC1Lps23743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:21:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAC1Lkt23739 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:21:46 +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, 11 Nov 2000 17:19:01 -0800 Message-ID: <013801c04c46$e001a600$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01c04c33$6ae7e7c0$0100007f@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:19:39 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Patrick Shields wrote: > > FWIW, I sometimes think people should be able to consult > their own > CCs before making a bid, to cut the random memory element, > but > appreciate it would slow things down too much too often. > Patrick, you are an intelligent person who realizes that once external aids are acceptable (for countering HUMs), there is no logical boundary line that separates acceptable aids from those that are unacceptable. This is a new game, divorced from the old notions, and soon we will have wrist-tops (smaller than laptops) to consult before every action. Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 12:42:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC1fvk23760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:41:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAC1fqt23756 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:41:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:39:06 -0800 Message-ID: <014101c04c49$ae14dba0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 17:37:55 -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; > > Does anyone in the world play 2H as a forcing bid if it is natural??> > > > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were > > playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). > > Assuming there is no MI the auction has gone: > > S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2Ha P > P ? > > West, presumably holding something like x,xx,AKJxxx,KJTx, is really going > to pass when he expects pard to hold reasonable values and South to have > xx,Axxxxx,xx,xxx or suchlike - doesn't seem at all probable to me. But North is unlimited, so pard may have zilch. I would not touch 2H, if I know it's a transfer. Not against a strong notrump, for sure. > > Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer but > South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to get this > information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI purposes. > Excuse me, West is not entitled to know the N/S agreement is that 2H is a transfer to spades? Why not? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 13:00:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC20jh23781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:00:45 +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 eAC20ct23777 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:00:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.213] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13umRb-000CN1-00; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 02:00:33 +0000 Message-ID: <005101c04c4c$5ec702a0$d55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Dany Haimovici" Cc: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 01:57:48 -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 "There is less in this than meets the eye." - Tallulah Bankhead <> ----- Original Message ----- From: Dany Haimovici To: Grattan Endicott Cc: Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > The quoted case is not a case IMHO - 4Sp is the contract and I can > explain it for 123 reasons . > > But I would like to know - from this subject and some other threads : > Law 16 deals with UI ,MI and any XI - ok -but where in the laws it appears > that people must play non-bridge contracts> > > > > >> A Q x x > > > > >> > > > > >The auction: S W N E > > > > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > > > > P 3D 3S 4D > > > > > 4H P 4S End > +=+ The laws do not say you must play non-bridge contracts. But they allow you to play them if you bid them. In the above sequence there is nothing to stop West passing on the second round, and West suggests that with correct information he might have done so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 13:17:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC2HEl23798 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:17:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAC2H7t23794 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:17:08 +1100 (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 UAA15775 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:16:10 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:16:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 Sorry I am coming into this election, so I might repeat some info already discussed. Everyone is paying attention to Florida, but there were lots of election irregularities in other states. At the bottom of this note are the other close races where a recount might be requested if Florida is overturned. Here in Tennessee, it is amazing to me that Gore did not carry his home state. If he had, we would not be talking about Florida at all. In Memphis alone, in one part of the city, there were a large amount of people lined up to vote at 7pm, closing time. In one spot, they let everyone standing in line by 7pm inside and then closed the doors. The last person voted close 10pm. In a different spot, with a lot of people standing outside, when 7pm came they simply closed the doors. There were occurrences of people without proper identification being allowed to vote because they "looked legitimate". There were occurrences of people making their way up to the check in desk only to find out that there was something irregular on their voting registration card. They get sent to some place in Memphis to get it fixed and then they were not able to get back to their voting location to vote by 7pm. I think there were several instances around the USA of locked vote boxes being found the next day, unopened, uncounted. There are still the absentee votes that have to be postmarked by election day and 10 days to come in (mainly soldiers). A story I heard, that "I think" comes from Missouri: there were so many people in line, and they could see they could not process these people by 7pm, someone went and found a judge who ordered the polling place to remain open till 10pm. Then someone else went and took it to the next higher court level, a panel of 3 judges, and they overturned the first judge. So people who had been standing in line for hours were not permitted to vote. And as for the Florida area where they threw out 19,000 votes, seems to me that you don't blame the people, you blame the technology. More, info from CNN and George Stefanapolis (excuse spelling). In the USA, by law, only 16 states require their electoral college to vote the popular vote. He was pointing out that, although illegal, there could be several scenarios where say a Democratic elector could talk to Bush and say, "if you promise me that you will do everything you can to make the abortion pill RU-486 illegal, I will change my vote." That a Republican could go to Gore and say, "my brother is inline for a Federal judgeship. If you promise to appoint him, I will change my vote." Then there is one other scenario that says that the first time everyone votes, they are suppose to vote the popular vote, but if that vote doesn't produce the 270 votes, then anything can happen on subsequent votes. In order to get rid of the Electoral College and go to popular vote it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. But even so, we would need for all places to have better computer equipment. Good Luck in Birmingham everyone, Chyah ========================================================= IOWA 99% of precincts reporting Candidate Votes % of vote Al Gore (DEM) 633,969 49 George W. Bush (REP) 628,716 48 Ralph Nader (GRN) 27,898 2 Pat Buchanan (RFM) 6,942 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE 100% of precincts reporting Candidate Votes % of vote George W. Bush (REP) 273,135 48 Al Gore (DEM) 265,853 47 Ralph Nader (GRN) 22,156 4 "Pat" Buchanan (IND) 2,603 0 NEW MEXICO 100% of precincts reporting Votes % of vote Al Gore (DEM) 256,335 49 George W. Bush (REP) 244,892 47 Ralph Nader (GRN) 19,196 4 Pat Buchanan (RFM) 1,279 0 OREGON 84% of precincts reporting Votes % of vote George W. Bush (REP) 585,975 48 Al Gore (DEM) 559,840 46 Ralph Nader (GRN) 54,702 4 Patrick J. Buchanan (IND) 5,706 0 WISCONSIN 100% of precincts reporting Votes % of vote Al Gore (DEM) 1,242,115 48 George W. Bush (REP) 1,235,991 48 Ralph Nader (GRN) 92,925 4 Pat Buchanan (RFM) 11,206 0 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 12 13:51:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC2ohT23827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:50:43 +1100 (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 eAC2oat23823 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 13:50:37 +1100 (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 UAA18539 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:49:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000f01c04c53$3ddc05c0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" Subject: re: [BLML] Election Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:49:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 This is where I am getting the data. I noticed they had modified New Mexico, but Kent just heard on the news that the count was now down to a difference of 17 votes! This is the main page entry for election results at msnbc. http://www.msnbc.com/m/d2k/g/overview.asp This is the story on New Mexico, where they are doing a recount and have ballot problems similar to Florida. http://www.msnbc.com/news/487297.asp There is also information on this page about Oregon who had mail only ballots and have yet to count their absentee ballots. This is one of the states that has an automatic recount "if the margin falls to less than one-fifth of 1 percent, or about 2,800 votes." -Chyah -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 12 14:16:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC3Fno23849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:15:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAC3Fht23845 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:15:44 +1100 (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 <20001112031539.XJG7471.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:15:39 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Election. Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:15:29 -0800 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: <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > There were occurrences of people without proper identification being > allowed to vote because they "looked legitimate". > In California it is illegal to ask a voter for identification. Is that typical of most states or a more unique thing? > > I think there were several instances around the USA of locked vote > boxes being found the next day, unopened, uncounted. > Isn't that just amazing? I guess all elections are approximate. Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 14:16:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC3Gm823861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:16:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAC3Ght23857 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:16:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:13:58 -0800 Message-ID: <019101c04c56$ee2e8b20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 19:16:16 -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; > >> Does anyone in the world play 2H as a forcing bid if it is natural?? > > > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S > > were playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). > > Assuming there is no MI the auction has gone: > > S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2Ha P > P ? > > West, presumably holding something like x,xx,AKJxxx,KJTx, is really > going to pass when he expects pard to hold reasonable values and South to > have xx,Axxxxx,xx,xxx or suchlike - doesn't seem at all probable to me. But North is unlimited, so pard may have zilch. I would not touch 2H, if I know it's a transfer. Not against a strong notrump, for sure. > > Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer > but South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to get > this information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI purposes. > Excuse me, West is not entitled to know that the N/S agreement is that 2H is a transfer to spades? Why not? Marv (Marvin L. French) mlfrench@writeme.com San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 12 16:30:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC5TbK23977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:29:37 +1100 (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 eAC5TVt23973 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP230.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.246]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA07925 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:29:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011112329160470.020E81C8@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:29:16 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Election. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In California it is illegal to ask a voter for identification. Is that >typical of most states or a more unique thing? Some states (Missouri is one, I think) require identification at the polling place. Seems sensible on its face. 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 Sun Nov 12 16:33:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC5XDX23996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:33:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAC5X7t23992 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 16:33:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP230.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.246]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA14957 for ; Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:33:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011112332510620.0211CA2E@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> References: <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 23:32:51 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >A story I heard, that "I think" comes from Missouri: there were so >many people in line, and they could see they could not process these >people by 7pm, someone went and found a judge who ordered the >polling place to remain open till 10pm. Then someone else went and >took it to the next higher court level, a panel of 3 judges, and they >overturned the first judge. So people who had been standing in >line for hours were not permitted to vote. Indeed: St. Louis, Missouri. The polls closed before 8pm. (ObBridge: I played in the St. Louis NABC last time it was there.) >More, info from CNN and George Stefanapolis (excuse spelling). >In the USA, by law, only 16 states require their electoral college >to vote the popular vote. Actually 26 states. >Then there is one other scenario that says that the first time >everyone votes, they are suppose to vote the popular vote, >but if that vote doesn't produce the 270 votes, then anything >can happen on subsequent votes. In fact there is only one vote in the Electoral College. The votes are sent to the House. If no candidate has a majority, the House decides, with each state's delegation getting one vote. From there on it gets complicated. 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 Sun Nov 12 20:58:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC9uvb24147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:57 +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 eAC9umt24138 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.17]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04812 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:56:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0D26D1.4E3E7FC4@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:00:33 +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] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > >> > >The auction: S W N E > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > P 3D 3S 4D > > 4H P 4S End > > > >Laval > > Partner's passing of a forcing bid always counts as a sign something's > up, in my book. Unless N has some reason to suspect that S has psyched a > first-seat 1NT bid with a heart pre-empt [and as TD I would virtually > never require a player to bid under the assumption that partner has > psyched], he knows that S has forgotten by virtue of the bid alone. No > adjustment. I couldn't agree more. > I would be more concerned if W claims damage from MI for the > failure to alert, since with a correct explanation he might have > passed 2H. > This is more difficult. W has the right to know of the system, not of the misunderstanding. Of course if he learns (perhaps from the CC, perhaps behind screens) of the system, he might well suspect the misunderstanding. "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were > playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). This is an MI > case only, as the UI for North turned out to be inconsequential. > > Assuming L12C2, the proper adjusted assinged score N/S score is > whatever 2H would make (most unfavorable result that was at all > probable). > Marv and I are on the same line here, but not : > If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" over 2C, then (in > ACBL-land) an experienced West would have been expected to check on > the matter before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands for > E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H contract. > Sorry Marv, but knowing the opponent's system is an absolute right. You are always entitled to a response once you ask. I agree with your line that it should be all-right for you to answer, "please look at our CC", but asking and relying on an alert is just as good for opponents. You cannot blame a player for relying on an alert, and no-one should lose redress simply because he has not looked at the CC. -- 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 Nov 12 20:58:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAC9uwl24148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:58 +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 eAC9uot24140 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:56:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.17]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA04816 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 10:56:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0D2AD9.C47EB9DF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 12:17:45 +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] EBL TD courses References: <001c01c04bbf$076266e0$cdb6f1c3@kooijman> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote: > > > Did anybody consider to offer Florida (or the whole nation!) our 25A now it > is still available? > I have a test. > First answer the question whether you want 25A in our laws. Then answer the > question whether you want the possibility to correct an inadvertent wrong > vote in Palm Beach. My these is that a possitive correlation exists between > both answers 'yes'. Which includes a similar correlation for no's. > I don't agree, on the correlation bit. I believe it is completely correct for law-makers to assume that card players must be "handy" with cards. That is why a card once shown must be played (by defenders). It is equally correct for law-makers to assume that bridgers need not be "handy" with bidding boxes. That is why a bidding card that leaves the box need not be the bid actually made, and can be changed. (although the time until it is changeable need not be as late as is currently the practice - I could live with a regulation that says that if you let go, it is made - looking at bidding cards is a skill we ought to have) It seems perfectly correct (in the situation of a secret ballot) for lawmakers to assume that voters are "handy" with reading and punching holes in ballot papers. After all, it would be unfeasible otherwise. So if you discover you've voted for the wrong man, the only thing left for you is to invalidate your vote. Too bad. I shudder to think what would happen if the Palm Beach vote has to be redone. I have more faith in the sensible nature of US judges than that, and I don't have much faith in them, from the little that seeps through to us. -- 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 Nov 13 00:22:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACDM1f24240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:22:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eACDLst24236 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 00:21:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-246.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.246]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DF8136C29; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:21:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002201c04cab$53e1cf00$f6b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:20:18 +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 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 Willey said: >I'm really not too sure why this conversation is floating around on >Bridge Laws. >Whatever. > For me the reason is that this is supposed to be a debating group concerning bridge laws.Not a good enough reason? 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 Nov 13 01:45:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACEg8X24285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:42:08 +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 eACEg2t24281 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 01:42:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA28418 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:41:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 14:41 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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: <019101c04c56$ee2e8b20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > > > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > > > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S > > > were playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). > > > > Assuming there is no MI the auction has gone: > > > > S W N E > > 1NT 2C! 2Ha P > > P ? > > > > West, presumably holding something like x,xx,AKJxxx,KJTx, is really > > going to pass when he expects pard to hold reasonable values and > > South to have xx,Axxxxx,xx,xxx or suchlike - doesn't seem at all > > probable to me. > > But North is unlimited, so pard may have zilch. I would not touch 2H, > if I know it's a transfer. Not against a strong notrump, for sure. Reading the auction absent infractions South has opened 1NT, alerted 2H as a transfer and *then* chosen to pass it. Unless he is certifiably insane, or trying a very bizarre psyche, he does not hold a 1NT opener (strong or otherwise). He has just exposed a weak, usually single-suited, psyche. If you pass now you will surrender an awful lot of points in the YC bear-pit. Of course North *could* hold the rest of the deck but give South 4 points and realistically your partner will have c10-12 on average. Opposite that you need to be in game. > > > > Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer > > but South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to > > get this information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI > > purposes. > > > Excuse me, West is not entitled to know that the N/S agreement is that > 2H is a transfer to spades? Why not? That is not what I intended to say. West *is* entitled to know the agreement. He is *not* entitled to know that South has forgotten it. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 13 03:15:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACGF1T24371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freya.inter.net.il (IDENT:mirapoint@freya.inter.net.il [192.114.186.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eACGEqt24367 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 03:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Mizra-10-158.access.net.il [213.8.10.158]) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEK02986; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:13:59 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A0EC1DA.745CB425@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:14:18 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> <005101c04c4c$5ec702a0$d55608c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bridge is a game of mistakes .....if no player would make a mistake we don't need the scoresh...eet. South made a mistake (forgot the convention or didn't know it or whatever ) but when West went on with the bidding North tried to repair the pair's selfdamage -I don't think anyone thought anytime it is a forbidden action !!!.....If East wouldn't try - IMHO - the double shot and thought about bridge only - you must not be an expert to understand that something is "peculiar" -> any average+ player would pass and let the opponents to sink in their own ...soup. Again - I don't like this kind of lawyering or double shot methods - the only situation I'd deal with is when the players involved are beginners or novices ....... I expect the NLCs and the WBFLC to propagate this spirit of managing peculiar or doubtfully situation. Do you agree ?? Dany Grattan Endicott wrote: > Grattan Endicott <=> > > "There is less in this than meets the eye." > - Tallulah Bankhead > <> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dany Haimovici > To: Grattan Endicott > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 11:36 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > The quoted case is not a case IMHO - 4Sp is the contract and I can > > explain it for 123 reasons . > > > > But I would like to know - from this subject and some other > threads : > > Law 16 deals with UI ,MI and any XI - ok -but where in the laws it > appears > > that people must play non-bridge contracts> > > > > >> > A Q x x > > > > > >> > > > > > >The auction: S W N E > > > > > > 1NT 2C! 2H P > > > > > > P 3D 3S 4D > > > > > > 4H P 4S End > > > +=+ The laws do not say you must play non-bridge > contracts. But they allow you to play them if you bid > them. In the above sequence there is nothing to > stop West passing on the second round, and West > suggests that with correct information he might > have done so. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 13 06:18:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACJHMo24446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:17:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eACJHFt24442 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:17:16 +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 ; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:14:31 -0800 Message-ID: <01e901c04cdd$1a5a9000$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A0D26D1.4E3E7FC4@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:15:39 -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 Herman wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H > > contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were > > playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). This is an MI > > case only, as the UI for North turned out to be inconsequential. > > > > Assuming L12C2, the proper adjusted assinged score N/S score is > > whatever 2H would make (most unfavorable result that was at all > > probable). > > > > Marv and I are on the same line here, but not : > > > If the N/S CC was clearly marked as "systems on" over 2C, then (in > > ACBL-land) an experienced West would have been expected to check on > > the matter before bidding on, so no redress, table result stands for > > E/W. Otherwise E/W also get the result of a 2H contract. > > > > Sorry Marv, but knowing the opponent's system is an absolute > right. Oh, I agree with you, Herman. I was just repeating ACBL policy, certainly not reflecting my own opinion. Here is what the ACBL Alert Procedure says: (page 2 of 16): "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." This is not too unreasonable, if it is referring to common Alertable calls. There is no MI for me if I am aware of what is going on, and I should not be able to claim MI in that case. However, most local TDs apply this (a) to unusual agreements, which I am NOT expected to recognize, and (b) to my inexperienced partner, because s/he is playing with an experienced player. They expect me to ask about a possible missed Alert, maybe helping my unsuspecting partner. I myself am aware of what is going on, probably, but an inexperienced partner may not be. When we are damaged by the MI, partner doing (or not doing) something because of the it, I often hear one of my most disliked TD comments: "You could have asked." No, I couldn't. > You are always entitled to a response once you ask. > I agree with your line that it should be all-right for you > to answer, "please look at our CC", but asking and relying > on an alert is just as good for opponents. > You cannot blame a player for relying on an alert, and > no-one should lose redress simply because he has not looked > at the CC. > You are a gentleman and a scholar. 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 Nov 13 07:20:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACKJKa24476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:19:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eACKJEt24472 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:19:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.114] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13v3al-000Oay-00; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:19:07 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c04ce5$d7dbc560$725608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Richard Willey" , "Bridge Laws" References: <002201c04cab$53e1cf00$f6b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:18:36 -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 "There is less in this than meets the eye." - Tallulah Bankhead <> ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: Richard Willey ; Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. > Richard Willey said: > > > >I'm really not too sure why this conversation > is floating around on Bridge Laws. Whatever. > > > > > For me the reason is that this is supposed to > be a debating group concerning bridge laws. > Not a good enough reason? > > ton > +=+ I am always willing to learn something new about democratic processes. And to share the agonies of friends, reflecting that whilst Palm Beach is in the headlines it could just as easily be Weston-super-Mare or Enschede. ~ 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 Nov 13 09:57:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eACMulP24558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:56:47 +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 eACMuft24554 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:56:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.60] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13v635-0001KX-00; Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:56:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003701c04cfb$d525cb20$3c5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A0D26D1.4E3E7FC4@village.uunet.be> <01e901c04cdd$1a5a9000$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 22:13:10 -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 "There is less in this than meets the eye." - Tallulah Bankhead <> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > > Sorry Marv, but knowing the opponent's system is an absolute > > right. > > Oh, I agree with you, Herman. I was just repeating ACBL policy, > certainly not reflecting my own opinion. Here is what the ACBL Alert > Procedure says: (page 2 of 16): > +=+ Sixteen pages of alert procedure? - no, that should be - SIXTEEN PAGES of alert procedure?? Is it a requirement to recite it from memory when you take the oath of allegiance to the ACBL? ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 13 19:04:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAD83br24902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:03:37 +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 eAD83St24898 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:03:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.152] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13vEaK-0006AV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:03:25 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c04d48$3b924680$745408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:02:59 -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 "A house with lawns enclosing it, A living river by the door." - R.L.Stevenson = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 7:58 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "A house with lawns enclosing it, > A living river by the door." - R.L.Stevenson > = <.>= > ----- Original Message ----- > From: A. L. Edwards > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 11:06 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > > > > > > > > >Grattan Endicott > > <=> > > > > > >"There is less in this than meets the eye." > > > - Tallulah Bankhead > > > <> > > >----- Original Message ----- > > >From: Marvin L. French > > >To: Bridge Laws > > >Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 7:15 PM > > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > > > Here is what the ACBL Alert Procedure says: (page 2 of 16): > > > >+=+ Sixteen pages of alert procedure? - no, that should be - > > >SIXTEEN PAGES of alert procedure?? Is it a requirement > > >to recite it from memory when you take the oath of > > >allegiance to the ACBL? ~ G ~ +=+ > > > > > To be fair to the ACBL, we really only need to memorize > > 13-14 pages of the alert chart to run a local club game. :-) > > Tony (aka ac342) > > > +=+ Even the dear old English Bridge Union with its > policy of plain English prose only manages to extend > to three pages (A5), as compared with 1.66 pages > that it needed before the policy of simplification was > introduced. No wonder the WBF needs about twenty > lines. ~ 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 Nov 13 22:20:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADBIsJ25035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:18:54 +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 eADBIlt25030 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:18:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.106]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24218 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:18:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0E6DC6.1B04BC52@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:15:34 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$0100007f@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Patrick Shields wrote: > > > Surely the spirit of much of the rulebook to do with UI > is that you mustn't use it but you can never prove that > you didn't use it so you must lean in the other direction, > which is why you have to choose from other LAs etc. > > So even if L16 doesn't say it, it feels more like in the > spirit > of the game that once you get UI, you have to have some way > of proving you really used the AI and not the UI, or TD must > assume the worst. > > The concequence may be that you get fixed, but at least > you can never be accused of being a cheat, and thereby > bringing the game into disrepute. > > Or am I barking up the wrong tree? > Not at all. But we must be realistic as well. Lots of UI gets thrown around in an auction. Most of it also exists as AI. So we must be quite lenient towards that type of UI. If the partner has done nothing wrong in providing the UI, then the merest notion of there being AI should suffice. When partner alerts and correctly expains the call, that is UI, but if the explanation fits the hand, we normally assume that there is AI to the same effect. -- 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 Nov 13 22:20:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADBInL25031 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:18:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eADBIgt25025 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:18:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-106.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.106]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA24157 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:18:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A0E6D22.188ECE71@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:12:50 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 12:43:45 +0100, Herman De Wael > wrote: > > > > >The alert, and explanation, contains 3 pieces of information > >: > >1) The call was 2Sp. This is also available to W as AI > >(actual bidding) > >2) 2 Spades shows a void in spades. This is also available > >to W as AI (his own system, which we accept he knows) > >3) There is something strange in the bidding. > > I do not agree with this. A precise description of all the > information conveyed by the alert is "E believes that W has made > an alertable call". Nothing else. The rest is deduced by W from > that information. > Well, isn't that "something strange" ? I don't know how to describe precisely what the third piece of information is, but it is more than the other two. So whatever way you want to describe it, there is some third point. You really cannot disagree with that, Jesper. > W, with his existing knowledge of his system and his ability to > look down and check what he actually bid, can deduce all three > pieces of information above. > Yes, he has the "ability" to look down, but does he have a reason to do so ? If he has a reason that stems from AI, then I agree that he can deduce the other two. He can never "deduce" the third set of information, since he does not know the other two. He does not know that he has bid 2Sp. He knows what 2Sp means, but he does not know that it matters. So he does not know, nor can he deduce, that there is "something strange" (or whatever you choose to call the extra bit of I that is UI). And I believe he does not have AI to the effect that there is "something strange". > And from each of the three, he can deduce the other two. In > fact, that deduction is so easy for W that it is unavoidable that > he will actually perform it. > No, he cannot deduce 3, since he does not know 1. And he cannot deduce 1, unless he knows 3. And he knows 3 from UI, and (I believe) not from AI. > So I don't think it makes sense to distinguish between the three: > they are just different ways to express what (to W in this > situation) is the same information. > > If one of the three is AI, then so must the other two be. Which > is the same as saying that if (3) is UI, then so must (1) and (2) > be. > Well, 3 is certainly UI (it comes from partner). While I believe that 1 and 2 are AI (or are also available as AI - which amounts to the same thing), there is no doubt that there is some piece of information in category 3. That is UI, since it comes from partner. The only deceision left to be made is whether the player also has AI to the effect of 3. "Would this player have any reason to ask for a review of the bidding?" is the question that needs to be answered. If he has any reason to do so (and I am willing to be quite lenient in this, since his partner has done nothing wrong), then 3 becomes AI, and so do 1 and 2. But I believe that in this auction (1He=1Sp=4He) this player has no reason to ask for a review. Almost all players would remember this auction if it were spoken, and would not ask for a review until it is too late. > I still believe that provided it is considered a fact that W > meant to bid 1S, there is no reason to adjust the score, unless > knowledge of the auction is considered UI in this situation. > > Which IMO it should not be, because I believe that knowledge of > the auction is always AI no matter how you got that knowledge. That is one view. But I believe it opens the door to the pro question. -- 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 Nov 14 02:09:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADF8VT25207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:08:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eADF8Pt25203 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:08:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive446.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.134]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA31050; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:08:17 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01c04d84$4cbc3b00$8610f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , , References: <6a.8527e53.273d8378@aol.com> <00a201c04b6e$477c7b40$a95408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:13:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Truly you must be starved for entertainment in a nation where the primary constitutional issue seems to be the legitimacy of governemental sanction for fox hunting. It must be terribly dull to have to listen to the utter civility of question time in commons, where nary a wisp of political hyperbole dares penetrate the clear consensus. One of the perils of democracy is the foolishness to which partisanship can extend. Admittedly, our scenario this year does look like a relic of the Benny Hill show (sadly without the pretty ladies). Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: ; Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 5:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "There never will be complete equality until women > themselves help to make laws and elect lawmakers." > - Susan Brownell Anthony. > <=> See what happens when you let them vote. "=)) No ugly statesman has a chance anymore...forget Lincoln! > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Friday, November 10, 2000 4:59 PM > Subject: [BLML] Election. > > > > Has anybody else had the chilling thought I've > > had? The next President of the USA may be > > decided by those particular individuals who > > claim they had trouble reading and understanding > > a printed ballot clearly marked with arrows, > > names, etc. Scary, no? > > But then, in math we spent years understanding > > the "lowest common denominator." > > > > $$$Kojak$$$ > > > +=+ Scary? Aren't they the same clan who have > been electing your Presidents up to now? If the > race had not gone to the wire, would we have heard > about the events in Palm Beach County? And how > many such events in earlier elections has America > heard nothing about? > Of course it is possible to take the view that > the Presidency was decided by the half of the > nation that did not vote. But I just thank y'all for > the show you've put on. Not even Reagan had a > script with arrows flying and the bad guys full of > holes. The juvenile lead making a hash of his > lines was reminiscent, though. I can't wait four > years for more, or can I hope it has been just a > trailer of the four years coming? ~ G ~ +=+ Still one could pull out Bedtime for Bonzo. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 02:35:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADFZFk25227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eADFZ9t25223 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 02:35:10 +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 KAA00375 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:35:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA10572 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:35:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:35:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011131535.KAA10572@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer but > South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to get this > information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI purposes. The first (2H being a transfer) is an entitlement; the second (that South has forgotten) is not. > Reading the auction absent infractions South has opened 1NT, alerted 2H as > a transfer and *then* chosen to pass it. Unless he is certifiably insane, > or trying a very bizarre psyche, he does not hold a 1NT opener (strong or > otherwise). West must guess which situation applies. When making his guess, he is entitled to know that 2H was by agreement a transfer. On the facts presented, he was denied that knowledge. > From: Dany Haimovici > Again - I don't like this kind of lawyering or double shot methods - What double shot? West was misinformed. Why should he be denied redress? We haven't seen his hand, but there has been no suggestion that his 3D bid was irrational, wild, or gambling. Of course we cannot come to a conclusion without seeing West's hand. It may be that 3D was i, w, or g after all or (more likely) that it would have been bid even given correct information. But as David keeps reminding us, we need to approach the situation with sympathy for the NOS. This doesn't mean an automatic ruling in their favor, of course, but it does mean giving their case careful consideration. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 03:55:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADGsZg25297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:54:35 +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 eADGsTt25293 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 03:54:29 +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 IAA11001; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:54:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200011131654.IAA11001@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 11 Nov 2000 20:16:22 PST." <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:54:24 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chyah wrote: > In order to get rid of the Electoral College and go to popular > vote it would have to be ratified by 2/3 of the states. 3/4, actually. An amendment requires a 2/3 vote in both houses and ratification by 3/4 of the states. Or, 2/3 of the states could call a Constitutional convention, but any amendment still must be ratified by 3/4 of the states. (Article V.) -- 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 Nov 14 04:37:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADHbXD25320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:37:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eADHbRt25316 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:37:28 +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, 13 Nov 2000 09:34:38 -0800 Message-ID: <020101c04d98$4d78bd20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:30:43 -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 Jumping into the thread late, I misunderstood the conditions, which were not repeated in the portion I saw. I am not interested in a situation where a notrumper alerts a transfer bid and then passes it. Forget what I wrote. 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 Tue Nov 14 04:47:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADHlYH25337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:47:34 +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 eADHlRt25333 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:47:28 +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, 13 Nov 2000 09:44:37 -0800 Message-ID: <020401c04d99$b237a4a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A0D26D1.4E3E7FC4@village.uunet.be> <01e901c04cdd$1a5a9000$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003701c04cfb$d525cb20$3c5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:45:37 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ Sixteen pages of alert procedure? - no, that should be - > SIXTEEN PAGES of alert procedure?? Is it a requirement > to recite it from memory when you take the oath of > allegiance to the ACBL? ~ G ~ +=+ It's not as bad as this implies. The AP includes explanatory text, examples, and a three-page Alert Chart summary. I was able to boil it down to one WordPerfect page, admittedly a tight fit, that includes all the details. This effort was assisted by ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss, and the final approved by him, so it is semi-official. The result can be seen on David Stevenson's web site at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#general The WordPerfect page is available from me for the asking. The AP itself is on the ACBL web site at http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm 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 Nov 14 04:49:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADHn0A25349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:49:00 +1100 (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 eADHmrt25345 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 04:48:54 +1100 (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 SAA03392; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:46:48 +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 SAA10379; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:48:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:59:41 +0100 To: "Sergei Litvak" , "Bridge Laws List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams In-Reply-To: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:14 11/11/00 +0300, Sergei Litvak wrote: >Board 17, N,- > x > KJx > Q98xx > Qxxx >Jx KTxxxxx >AQTxx -- >JTxx xx >xx KJxx > AQx > 98xxx > AK > Axx >The bidding and explanation >W N E S > p p 1NT >2D db 2S p >p ...db p 3NT >p p 4C db > all pass >2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. >hesitation) - as showing extra values. >TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with her partner and >said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. >After the end if the board (TD was at tthe table during the play) E asks for >the ruling. >What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). AG : after a 'value' double, south might let it in, or take it out. I'd say one could rule with ease that the UI (I assume no screens) made him bid 3NT. If the auction had stopped there assuming 3NT made, I would take the contract back to 3S, most probably -1, perhaps -2 if N/S do hold both C10 and C9. But what was East hoping for, when bidding 4C in an obviously misfitting hand ? I would feel fairly confident about calling this a wild, gambling bid, thus snapping the connection between the infraction and the damage. Score stands (at least for E/W). 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 Nov 14 08:14:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADLCUA25449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eADLCMt25445 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:12:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-26.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.26]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 943BF36E7D; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:11:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00ba01c04db6$3106f4e0$1ab5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , Cc: , , Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:01:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Didn't we discuss this before? I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't look in to. Try to create more attractive invitations. My answer is: Yes the TD should apply 64C. And no penalty for the one who told you this, I would be grateful. In my opinion the word spectator in L76 is supposed to mean somebody watching bridge, not somebody having watched bridge. But you already knew my opinion, since I gave it in Milan. ton When I attended the EBL course for Tournament Directors in Milan five years ago, we were subjected to the following case: A spectator approaches the director and says: "On board 5 at table 6, there was a revoke, but no one noticed. They have just moved on to board 7." The easy part of this case is that the spectator is in breach of Law 76B, and so chastisement is in order. The hard part is whether the Director should investigate further. While you think about it, take a look at Law 81C6, especially the words "in any manner". The DBF Laws Commission feels provoked by a recent case in Denmark to issue some guidelines for cases like these. I would like to solicit the opinions of BLML as a help towards firming up our own opinions about all this. Therefore, I have made up 127 additional example cases. It would be interesting to all of us, but especially to the Danish LC, if some of you would consider these 128 cases. As a return favor, I will make the resulting guidelines available in English as well as Danish. If there really is reasonable consensus, these guidelines should be useful outside Denmark too. The whole thing is too big to send to the list, so you will need to follow this link: http://www.alesia.dk/jens/l81c6.htm Please follow up to BLML, quoting the above link in the follow-up. -- 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 10:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADN0Fs25512 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:00:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eADN08t25508 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:00:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.23] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13vSZw-0009eq-00; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:59:57 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c04dc5$7ac99060$175608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Jens Brix Christiansen" , Cc: , "Jesper Dybdal" , References: <00ba01c04db6$3106f4e0$1ab5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:59:29 -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 "A house with lawns enclosing it, A living river by the door." - R.L.Stevenson = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: ; Cc: ; ; Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 9:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner > > Didn't we discuss this before? > I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't > look in to. Try to create more attractive invitations. > My answer is: Yes the TD should apply 64C. And no > penalty for the one who told you this, I would be grateful. > In my opinion the word spectator in L76 is supposed to > mean somebody watching bridge, not somebody having > watched bridge. But you already knew my opinion, since > I gave it in Milan. > +=+ "An individual who observes an irregularity when a spectator is subject to the inhibition in Law 76B until a ruling on the board may no longer be sought (see Section 28). 'Representatives' are spectators, as also are other non-participants observing the play." (WBF General Conditions of Contest) [I think the reference is to Section 27 not 28; a request for a ruling may be made until the expiry of 30 minutes after the score for the session is first posted.] Obviously it is possible to have different opinions as to what constitutes a spectator; I would certainly think it could be said to include anyone not involved who watches live play on viewgraph or on the internet. I find no problem in the thought that the intention is that anyone who is a spectator should not interfere in the game, and that it is consistent therefore to prohibit such intervention until it can no longer affect the score. I do not recall having encountered any other attempt than the above to define what is a spectator or the period in which the limitation in 76B shall apply. In its wording Law 76B is open ended. The WBF regulation is written for WBF tournaments and I quote it only as such. ~ 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 Nov 14 10:17:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADNGff25532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:41 +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 eADNGYt25528 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:16:35 +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 SAA22070 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:16:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10915 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:16:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011132316.SAA10915@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "ton kooijman" > First answer the question whether you want 25A in our laws. Then answer the > question whether you want the possibility to correct an inadvertent wrong > vote in Palm Beach. My these is that a possitive correlation exists between > both answers 'yes'. Which includes a similar correlation for no's. Well, Ton, you have caught me out. :-) I believe the _requirements_ are identical in both cases: 1. There should be a reasonable opportunity to correct mechanical mistakes, but 2. There should be some *known* instant after which mistakes cannot be corrected. In the case of ballots, at least around here, the "moment of no return" is when the ballot is dropped into the box. (Actually, in our precinct, we have a electric box that grabs away the ballot as soon as you put it on top of the box, sort of like feeding paper into a copier but with more vigor.) If a voter spoils a ballot or makes a mistake, he can get a new ballot (and have the old one destroyed) up until the moment his ballot disappears into the box. After that, no changes are possible. All this strikes me as quite reasonable. There are several ways the above requirements can be implemented when using bidding cards. One would be to say a call is "made" when the bidding card touches the table. Or when the card is let go of, or at some other knowable instant. Then after a call is "made," it cannot be changed. (If this were the rule, it would be very bad to consider a call "made" at the moment the card is removed from the box.) Another implementation would be to allow changes (L25A) after the call is "made" but only up to some specified moment. This is essentially the present approach, but the current rules also bring in the issue of intent. As most BLML readers will know by now, I deplore rules that require mind reading. And "until partner calls" is far too late; it brings a whole host of complications if a call is changed or change is attempted after LHO calls. Who needs that? Exactly the same principles should apply to spoken bidding: reasonable chance to catch mechanical mistakes, an unambiguous end to that opportunity, and no mind reading. In practice, this probably means a return to some rule like the old "in the same breath" or "without pause" but without the "inadvertent" part. Whatever moment is adopted for "too late to change," it should be a) under the control of the bidder (no race for LHO to get his call in!), and b) before LHO calls. (If West calls before South's call is final, it is West's fault.) The rules for bidding cards and spoken bidding will no doubt differ in detail because of the different human capabilities: one hears errors in spoken bidding immediately or not at all, but it takes a careful look to detect having pulled the wrong bidding card. I have no experience with written bidding but would expect details to be different for that too. However, I don't see any reason the same principles should not be followed no matter what specific method of bidding is used. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 10:31:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eADNV7u25546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:31:07 +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 eADNV1t25542 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:31:02 +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 SAA22494 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:30:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA10951 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:30:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 18:30:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011132330.SAA10951@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ "An individual who observes an irregularity when > a spectator is subject to the inhibition in Law 76B > until a ruling on the board may no longer be sought ... > (WBF General Conditions of Contest) Consider the following two cases: 1. I arrive just after the match is over; my friends have just finished comparing scores. I see (-50, -420) on the scorecard and ask (jokingly) "So who can't play a game contract on board 6?" One of my friends says, "I played it, and I made it! It was scored wrong." And the captain rushes off to get the official result changed. 2. As above, but I watched the board being played. 3. As 2, but my remark is "You know, you took 10 tricks on board 6. Why did you score it as down one?" Please tell me why there should be a difference between these three cases. In practice, the WBF rule seems to me completely unenforceable. Suppose it is case 2 or 3. How would anyone find out that I had watched the board being played on viewgraph? Or know that I was the one who triggered the correction? I'm with Ton: "spectatorhood" ends when the board is over. Why not? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 11:43:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAE0gXP25594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:42:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r17.mail.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAE0gRt25590 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:42:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.32.) id i.20.dccc9d9 (3702); Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:41:45 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <20.dccc9d9.2741e448@aol.com> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 19:41:44 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_20.dccc9d9.2741e448_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_20.dccc9d9.2741e448_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, gentlemen, You've caught me completely outside my interest in BLML. I have never, in the limited time I have functioned as a cognitive individual, foound an analogy between bridge and policitics that is 100% . The same applies here. Stop playing games and get back to bridge. A serious response to the political postings of many of you in this "thread" could be nothing more than embarrassing to you. It is most interesting to me nevertheless, that the world wide exposure of our "sores" and possible shortconmings in the policital process is not weighted against the problems and devious ways in which they are handled, that arise in other countries. We've got it better than the others. Maybe not completely right, but at least holding its own in the respect for individual freedoms and concerns. Would anyone seriously want to debate the foregoing from a non--USA perspective? See me privately. Love and kisses to all $$$Kojak$$$ --part1_20.dccc9d9.2741e448_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, gentlemen, You've caught me completely outside my interest in BLML.  I
have never, in the limited time I have functioned as a cognitive individual,
foound an analogy  between bridge and policitics that is  100% .  The same
applies here. Stop playing games and get back to bridge.  A serious response
to the political postings of many of you in this "thread" could be nothing
more than embarrassing to  you.  It is most interesting to me nevertheless,
that the world wide exposure of our "sores"  and possible shortconmings in
the policital process is not weighted against the problems and devious ways
in which they are handled, that arise in other countries.  We've got it
better than the others.  Maybe not completely right, but at least holding its
own in the respect for individual freedoms and concerns.

Would anyone seriously want to debate the foregoing from a non--USA
perspective?  See me privately.

Love and kisses to all   $$$Kojak$$$ --part1_20.dccc9d9.2741e448_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 19:36:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAE8Zil26152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:35:45 +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 eAE8Zat26148 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:35:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.80] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13vbYt-000G1c-00; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:35:27 +0000 Message-ID: <005001c04e15$e0c41340$045408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Steve Willner" , References: <20.dccc9d9.2741e448@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:34:35 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they nut they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2000 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] EBL TD courses >. It is most interesting to me nevertheless, > that the world wide exposure of our "sores" and possible shortconmings in > the policital process is not weighted against the problems and devious ways > in which they are handled, that arise in other countries. We've got it > better than the others. Maybe not completely right, but at least holding its > own in the respect for individual freedoms and concerns. > > Would anyone seriously want to debate the foregoing from a non--USA > perspective? See me privately. > +=+ I do not think any of us can throw the first stone. Some countries implement the will of the people more effectively than others, some do not try. As for the present brouhaha in the US, we see two powerful men, with much at stake, in an unedifying brawl. I must have faith that a democratic brother nation in the final count will not traduce the will of the voters. That possibly could mean that whoever wins will have a limited mandate. ~ Grattan ~ [ I tend to feel rather similar things about bridge, too, which gets me criticism at times.] +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 19:53:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAE8r8b26170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:53:08 +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 eAE8r1t26166 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:53:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.48] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13vbpp-000GLC-00; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:52:58 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c04e18$532e51a0$305608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Steve Willner" Cc: "William Schoder" References: <200011132330.SAA10951@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:51:19 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they nut they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 11:30 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner > Please tell me why there should be a difference between these three > cases. > > In practice, the WBF rule seems to me completely unenforceable. > Suppose it is case 2 or 3. How would anyone find out that I had > watched the board being played on viewgraph? Or know that I was the > one who triggered the correction? > +=+ You will notice that I have not suggested the Director should do anything other than 'rectify' (sic) an irregularity of which he has knowledge, for which the allegation of a spectator alone is insufficient - corroboration is needed. On the other hand, my view is that a spectator is an invited guest, not a participant, and as such should observe the rules of hospitality. He does not interfere in domestic affairs until invited to do so. This may seem a little idealistic and my general tendency is to let the pragmatism of the TD work it out when there is abuse; but I believe spectators should be aware of their non-participant status. They are observers, not there to take part in the tournament. ~ 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 Nov 14 19:56:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAE8uab26184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:56:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAE8uUt26180 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 19:56:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.30] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13vbtC-000GPT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:56:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c04e18$cf7c8600$1e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] No nut ? Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 08:55:40 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= Minor correction to quote! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 14 21:38:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEAcH926276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:38:17 +1100 (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 eAEAcAt26272 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:38:11 +1100 (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 LAA01509; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:35:58 +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 LAA18692; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:37:59 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001114114849.008f8290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:48:49 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner In-Reply-To: <200011132330.SAA10951@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:30 13/11/00 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >I'm with Ton: "spectatorhood" ends when the board is over. Why not? >-- I am too. The aim of L76B is to avoid remarks about what happens at the table, like exclaiming loudly when someone revokes. When the board is over, this can't happen anymore. See the title of L76A. Also, L11B speaks only of persons present at the table. This seems to imply that vu-graph spectators that are members of one team, or relatives to somebody in one team, have the right to intervene after the match or section is over. And if the may, so may everybody else a fortiori. 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 Nov 14 23:59:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAECwBh26428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:58:11 +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 eAECw6t26424 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:58:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot06.domain1.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id wa192162 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 22:53:51 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-204.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.204]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Venomous-MailRouter V2.9c 1/6401156); 14 Nov 2000 22:53:50 Message-ID: <011d01c04e39$ca6fc980$cce336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:52:47 +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 Grattan Endicott wrote: >Marv French wrote: >> I was just repeating ACBL policy, certainly not reflecting my >> own opinion. Here is what the ACBL Alert Procedure says: >> (page 2 of 16): >> >+=+ Sixteen pages of alert procedure? - no, that should be - >SIXTEEN PAGES of alert procedure?? Is it a requirement >to recite it from memory when you take the oath of >allegiance to the ACBL? ~ G ~ +=+ There was a wonderful thread on rgb recently. A ruling was discussed after a non-alert of some double. After about twenty replies, all apparently confirming that the double wasn't alertable, Marv sent a post pointing out (correctly of course) that the double was alertable. I loved it; nobody except Marv seems to know whether a fairly simple situation (1NT-P-P-2S-P-P-X IIRC) is alertable. What a bizarre situation. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 01:43:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEEh7f26484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:43:08 +1100 (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 eAEEh0t26480 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:43:01 +1100 (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 PAA19250; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:40:51 +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 PAA17137; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:42:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001114155344.008fa7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:53:44 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) In-Reply-To: <011d01c04e39$ca6fc980$cce336cb@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 23:52 14/11/00 +1100, you wrote: >There was a wonderful thread on rgb recently. A ruling was >discussed after a non-alert of some double. After about twenty >replies, all apparently confirming that the double wasn't alertable, >Marv sent a post pointing out (correctly of course) that the double >was alertable. I loved it; nobody except Marv seems to know >whether a fairly simple situation (1NT-P-P-2S-P-P-X IIRC) is >alertable. What a bizarre situation. AG : if the sequence is as you wrote it, nothing could be more straightforward. The default value of a double is 'penalties' whenever partner has done something else than passing. Two possible exceptions, according to the country, are : - simple sputnik (1x-1/2S-X) - forced action (eg 1C-X-p-1H-2C-X) Any other double over active partner is penalties unless decided so, and if not, musty be alerted (note that it doesn't suffice to state that 'takeout doubles' must be alerted, since other conventional doubles may exist, eg 1NT-2D-X = transfer to H) (also note that what constitutes a penalty double is left to the players, but that the custom of making speculative pen doubles, or pen doubles mainly based on a misfit rather than strong trumps, must be disclosed on the CC) You mean that it took a score of replies before somebody pointed that out ? Really, the alertability may be decided by a set of about a dozen basic rules, and a few exceptions, some of which might be local. But 16 pages ??? The above paragraph, plus another of the same size (stating when a double is for takeout, with some exceptions), solves all problems about doubles. That's half a page. 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 Nov 15 02:27:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEFR6J26513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAEFQxt26509 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:27:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4q3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.67]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA11998; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:26:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002101c04e4f$ff119860$4313f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> <000e01c0480b$8612e800$66053dd4@default> <3A06F601.B35135F6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:31:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 1:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler > Ben Schelen wrote: > > > > Herman, > > Jouw benadering vind ik rekenkundig correct. In Nederland hebben wij volgens > > het cursusboek geleerd 10% van het aantal scores te laten vervallen, zowel > > van de hoogste als van de laagste. > > Er bij is vermeld dat dit geen vaste regel is, maar wel dat je de te > > gebruiken regels van te voren bekend moet maken. > > Hoe maak je jouw methode bekend? Dat lijkt mij niet eenvoudig uit te leggen. > > > > Doe ik eigenlijk niet. > > Maar de formule zit in het programma ingebakken. Er is geen > keuze. > > Dus is het "bekend" gemaakt. > > > Hartelijke groeten,Ben > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > To: "Eitan Levy" ; "Bridge Laws" > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2000 12:04 PM > > Subject: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler > > > > > > > > > > > Eitan Levy wrote: > > > > > > > > I am sending this to DWS, Herman and John, and it follows from John's > > > > excellent article on L12c3 varied scores in match point scoring. (Should > > I > > > > also send it to BLML??) > > > > > > I don't see why not - I'm sending my reply to blml, in any > > > case. > > > > > > > > > > > What about L12C3 and Butler-type IMP scoring? > > > > Let's assume we have 13 results. We ignore the two highest, say +800 and > > > > +660, and the two lowest, say -200 and -500, in order to calculate the > > > > mean from the 9 remaining scores. > > > > > > There is no single standard for these discards. > > > Personally, I find 13 scores a bit soon to be discarding 2 > > > each side. > > > In my form of Butler, there are always 10% of discards. > > > > > > That would mean that you discard the +800 and the -500, as > > > well as 30% of the +660 and the -200. > > > Which means adding 70% of those (+462 and -140) to the total > > > and dividing by 10.4 (80% of 13) > > > > > > > Now one of the (previous)middle scores is > > > > changed by L12C3 ruling, say 60% of +690 and 40% of something else. > > > > Two questions: > > > > 1. How does the above case affect the discarded results and therefore > > the > > > > average? Are the extreme results still +800 and +660, or are they now > > +800 > > > > and +690, or something else? > > > > > > In my calculation, this would mean discarding the +800 and > > > 30% of a +690, leaving 10% of a +690. Of course we also add > > > the 40% of something else. Again we have a full set of > > > 1040%. > > > > > > > 2. Assume the two varied scores were within the "average" scores, say > > 60% > > > > of +600 and 40% of -100. Would the 9th score for average calculation > > now > > > > be +320 (.6*600-.4*100) ? > > > > > > It would indeed turn out that way. > > > > > > Then of course, we have a single average, and we calculate > > > the IMP balance for both pieces of the weighted score and > > > average these balances with the correct weights. > > > > > > I handle split scores exactly the same way (both splits > > > count for 50%). > > > > > > -- > > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 06:16:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEJFF026665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:15:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAEJF9t26661 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:15:10 +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 ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:12:21 -0800 Message-ID: <004d01c04e6f$25b79ae0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001114155344.008fa7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:11:59 -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 From: "alain gottcheiner" > The default value of a double is 'penalties' whenever partner has done > something else than passing. > Two possible exceptions, according to the country, are : > - simple sputnik (1x-1/2S-X) Yes, in ACBL-land, but through 4H, if x is a natural suit bid and the overcall is a natural suit bid. If the negative double does not promise length in an unbid major, or has some other unexpected meaning, it is Alertable. > - forced action (eg 1C-X-p-1H-2C-X) Surely a repeat takeout double, with a probable 4=3=5=1 distribution, but it is best to have a simple regulation. I like the ACBL's policy that requires an Alert for this double, especially since (unlike Sputnik) a novice might think it's for penalty. 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 Nov 15 06:25:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEJPMO26677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:25:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAEJPGt26673 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 06:25:17 +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 ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:22:30 -0800 Message-ID: <005001c04e70$905b9a80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> <000e01c0480b$8612e800$66053dd4@default> <3A06F601.B35135F6@village.uunet.be> <002101c04e4f$ff119860$4313f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 11:22:26 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit > posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to > English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks > Would that be American English or English-English? I think Ben was just having a little fun with Herman, and I enjoyed trying to make sense of it. He probably has a hard time understanding some of our humor/humour. 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 Nov 15 07:18:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEKHgk26731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:17:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAEKHZt26727 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 07:17:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA19803 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:17:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:17 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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: <020101c04d98$4d78bd20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Marv Wrote: > Jumping into the thread late, I misunderstood the conditions, which > were not repeated in the portion I saw. This was not the position in the original thread per se. The original provided a situation where the transfer was not alerted and then passed. However we then considered whether there was damage from MI (the failure to alert). I maintain that we should consider West's possible actions if the same auction had proceeded without MI (ie with the proper alert). > I am not interested in a situation where a notrumper alerts a transfer > bid and then passes it. And yet to me this is the key consideration in determining damage in the original case. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 08:29:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAELSAM26781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:28:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f126.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.126]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAELS4t26777 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:28:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:27:56 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 21:27:56 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:27:56 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2000 21:27:56.0937 (UTC) FILETIME=[C16E8F90:01C04E81] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Craig Senior wrote: > > Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > > says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and >limit > > posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to > > English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks > > >Would that be American English or English-English? Scotish-English. >I think Ben was just having a little fun with Herman, and I enjoyed trying >to >make sense of it. He probably has a hard time understanding some of our >humor/humour. Some humor cannot survive translation -- notably puns. I'm against arbitrarily limiting the language(s) used on the list to the one(s) understood by most. I also remember some rather lengthy discussions about the translation of the laws into French which were alternately in English or French. -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 Nov 15 08:52:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAELqWr26806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:52:32 +1100 (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 eAELqPt26802 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:52:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivesm4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.114.196]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20932 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:52:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001114165116.0126de48@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:51:16 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) In-Reply-To: <200011101947.LAA19698@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 11:47 AM 11/10/2000 PST, Adam wrote: >Most of the time, in similar situations, the partner of the player who >gave MI must assume that his partner understood the auction correctly >and had a legitimate reason for doing what he did. E.g.: > > South North > 1NT 2H > 3H > >2H is a transfer but South failed to alert (announce); North must >assume that South is making some sort of super-accept of spades. > >But this doesn't apply to the actual auction, because passing a >transfer is just not done, under any circumstances. (North could >still have quite a good hand at this point.) Thus, I think, North can >conclude from the AI that South forgot the transfer, and can therefore >bid whatever he wants. I agree with your conclusion in this case, but not necessarily with the analysis of the hypothetical 2H-3H sequence. I played Jacoby transfers for 10 years or so before adapting super-acceptances into my structure, and for me, during those 10 years, _any call other than 2S_ in this position was unambiguous proof that partner had forgotten the agreement. Those other calls were quite simply undefined, exactly as the South's first Pass is in the original auction. Doesn't the same principle apply? 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 Nov 15 09:09:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEM9be26844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:09:37 +1100 (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 eAEM9Vt26840 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:09:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivesm4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.114.196]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA00191 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:09:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001114170824.0126f704@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:08:24 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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 02:41 PM 11/12/2000 +0000, Tim wrote: >That is not what I intended to say. West *is* entitled to know the >agreement. He is *not* entitled to know that South has forgotten it. Hmmm.... He is entitled to know the agreement, so we agree on that. He knows, by perfectly legitimate and legal means that South has failed to alert the agreement and that he has passed the transfer. These are after all facts on the table. But he is not entitled to the inference that South has forgotten? 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 Nov 15 09:23:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAEMNK826869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:23:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eAEMNEt26865 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:23:15 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 9638 invoked by uid 0); 14 Nov 2000 22:23:05 -0000 Received: from 123.ppp1-2.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (213.237.0.251) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 14 Nov 2000 22:23:05 -0000 From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:23:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk Message-ID: <3A11C95F.20690.16E7A87@localhost> In-reply-to: <00ba01c04db6$3106f4e0$1ab5f1c3@kooijman> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton kooijman wrote (13 Nov 2000,): > Didn't we discuss this before? > I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't look in to. Try > to create more attractive invitations. I will. I guess I will try to single out a few that I find especially interesting, and serve them up one at a time. Here comes the first. The TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there is an irregularity. No player notices. My general knowledge of TD behavior tells me that the TD should shut up and wait until someone (hopefully a player!) calls attention to the irregularity. But the letter of law 86C6 really seems to indicate that the TD should intervene immediately. My answer is: Yes the TD should > apply 64C. Yes, this is what everyone said in Milan, and I agree. > And no penalty for the one who told you this, I would be > grateful. In my opinion the word spectator in L76 is supposed to mean > somebody watching bridge, not somebody having watched bridge. But you > already knew my opinion, since I gave it in Milan. Ah, but in Milan we were taught to expel this (former) spectator. -- 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 Nov 15 10:24:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAENKtQ27025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:20:55 +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 (f73.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAENKnt27021 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:20:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:20:41 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 23:20:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:20:41 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Nov 2000 23:20:41.0758 (UTC) FILETIME=[819453E0:01C04E91] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" >ton kooijman wrote (13 Nov 2000,): > > > Didn't we discuss this before? > > I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't look in to. Try > > to create more attractive invitations. > >I will. I guess I will try to single out a few that I find especially >interesting, and serve them up one at a time. Here comes the first. > >The TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the >play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that >there is an irregularity. No player notices. > >My general knowledge of TD behavior tells me that the TD should >shut up and wait until someone (hopefully a player!) calls attention >to the irregularity. But the letter of law 86C6 really seems to >indicate that the TD should intervene immediately. > > My answer is: Yes the TD should It is possible that a player noticed and is rather pleased with the lead out of turn, so he doesn't bother to call the director -- not actually a problem with 53A, though. The director may have just given UI to the player that led out of turn about how many tricks his side has actually won or otherwise have woken him up, in which case I'm displeased. 81C6 says "within the correction period" so he can wait until the hand is over to investigate, but then it's too late for this type of problem, I guess. -Todd (Subject line corrected) _________________________________________________________________________ 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 Nov 15 12:26:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF1Poo27250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAF1PWt27237 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:33 +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 13vrKH-0006qu-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:25:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:17:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: >No, David, I don't believe you, personally, would ask for this reason. >But people do. Why should I be considered ignoring a procedure when I >direct you to full and complete information (I am not talking about >ducking full disclosure here. That's another story altogether), and you >are not considered ignoring a procedure when you refuse to read the >answer to your question on the paper I am, by regulation, required >to give you? I find it far easier to find out some information by question and answer. By taking this right away from me first you are contravening the Laws of the game and second you are contravening the Principle of full disclosure. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 12:26:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF1PgO27246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:42 +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-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 eAF1PYt27239 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:35 +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 13vrKF-0006qv-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:25:27 +0000 Message-ID: <29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:15:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.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: >Maybe so. Personally, I think that argument is a red herring. And I'm >not talking about "flouting the law". I'm talking about changes in >the way explanations are given, or questions are asked, that are >intended to minimize damage to the side asked which occurs, >essentially, simply because they are using a method of which their >opponents are (or may be) ignorant. > >I am looking, right now, at the 1993 edition of the EBU Orange Book. >It says in part (section 2.6, on page 9) "you are expected to know >all the above, regardless of alerts, and if you are later embarrassed >because you failed to find them out, it will be your fault." Has this >changed in the latest edition? No. But it certainly does not say that the Law is to be ignored - and the Law gives you a right to ask questions. As the OB points out, there are dangers in doing so and players should be aware of them, but that is *no* reason not to allow players to have their rights under the Laws. >All I'm suggesting is that it would, it seems to me, be more fair to >all concerned if the principle expressed in this quote from the >Orange Book were extended to include explicitly the principle that >alerted opponents should refer first to the convention card, and only >ask questions if that device does not fully satisfy their need for >information. I don't see why that should be considered "flouting the >laws", nor do I see why it should be considered unsatisfactory. Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail themselves of that right. Why should they not? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 12:26:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF1Pcs27243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:38 +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-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 eAF1PUt27236 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:25:31 +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 13vrKF-0006qs-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:25:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:57:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@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: >I would like to begin with making two assertions that are >perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually written >down : > >1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the >same content is also available to him, then there are no L16 >restrictions upon him. > >This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains >my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although >this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have AI >with the same content. It is not clear to me. Suppose your partner opens 2C. You alert and respond 2D. Partner bids 2H, presumably Kokish, so you alert. At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. Now, it is clear to you that you may take the 2C as an overcall, because while your partner has told you which is UI it is also available from AI, the calls on the table? Well, it is not clear to me. In my view you are not allowed to realise it was a 2C overcall. Before people leap in and yell about proof, we don't need proof: we are talking about an ethical player who follow the dictates of L73C so long as he knows whether it is UI or AI. There are situations where you are constrained by UI even though the same information was available as AI. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 12:46:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF1jrZ27308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:45:53 +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 eAF1jit27304 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:45:45 +1100 (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 13vrdr-000Nd5-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:45:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:44:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$0100007f@localhost> In-Reply-To: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$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: >I suffer a bit from not having a copy of the rule book >either in memory or in sight as I read BLML (which >might not be a bad thing as it does keep me quieter >than I might be), but .... There are versions of the Law book on the web, and also some of the books of regulations. If you look at my Lawspage [see below] you will find links to American, English, European, French and Danish law books, and also the English Orange book and the Danish Orange book. I find these references help a lot since I invariably lose paper copies [I *know* I have at least fifteen EBU OB 98s but last time I looked I could only find two copies of the one five years earlier]. Incidentally, if anyone knows where there are Law books in other languages or main regulations elsewhere on the web please give me the URLs so I can add them to my page. >Surely the spirit of much of the rulebook to do with UI >is that you mustn't use it but you can never prove that >you didn't use it so you must lean in the other direction, >which is why you have to choose from other LAs etc. > >So even if L16 doesn't say it, it feels more like in the >spirit >of the game that once you get UI, you have to have some way >of proving you really used the AI and not the UI, or TD must >assume the worst. > >The concequence may be that you get fixed, but at least >you can never be accused of being a cheat, and thereby >bringing the game into disrepute. > >Or am I barking up the wrong tree? I think your approach is right. L73C is the one that really tells players how to behave - and here it is: When a player has available to him unauthorised information from his partner, as from a remark, question, explanation, gesture, mannerism, special emphasis, inflection, haste or hesitation, he must carefully avoid taking any advantage that might accrue to his side. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. 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 Nov 15 12:54:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF1rus27342 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:53:56 +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 eAF1rnt27338 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:53:49 +1100 (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 13vrlf-0006xf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:53:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 01:52:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@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: > Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail >themselves of that right. Why should they not? Having read some of the other comments here and on RGB I think there is some danger of confusing different situations. If I say to a player "What does 2C mean?" I do not expect a surly look, a growl, and a vague wave at a CC that is written in unreadable hand-writing. On the other hand, when I ask, and a player clearly does not know, and suggests in a friendly way that a look at his CC will give me a better answer there is little doubt he has done his best and I have no objections. So, there is no problem with people who are trying to be helpful when they suggest a look at their CC. And it also depends how they suggest ti. But if I want an answer to a question, and they know the answer, then I have a right to an answer and I do not approve of a player trying to avoid giving me that answer - especially if he does so for his own benefit. Full disclosure means what as full as possible. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 13:26:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF2QLn27411 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:26:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAF2QEt27407 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:26:15 +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 SAA16534; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:26:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200011150226.SAA16534@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:57:48 PST." Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:26:09 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I would like to begin with making two assertions that are > >perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually written > >down : > > > >1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the > >same content is also available to him, then there are no L16 > >restrictions upon him. > > > >This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains > >my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although > >this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have AI > >with the same content. > > It is not clear to me. > > Suppose your partner opens 2C. You alert and respond 2D. Partner > bids 2H, presumably Kokish, so you alert. > > At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an > overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in > front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. > > Now, it is clear to you that you may take the 2C as an overcall, > because while your partner has told you which is UI it is also available > from AI, the calls on the table? Well, it is not clear to me. > > In my view you are not allowed to realise it was a 2C overcall. > Before people leap in and yell about proof, we don't need proof: we are > talking about an ethical player who follow the dictates of L73C so long > as he knows whether it is UI or AI. > > There are situations where you are constrained by UI even though the > same information was available as AI. I may have lost track of this long thread, but I have a feeling we're in an area that isn't covered by the Laws. In fact, while it's accepted that UI that wakes a player up to the fact that he's forgotten his system is UI, I can't find anywhere in the Laws, the Code of Practice, or in any WBFLC minutes that says so. Certainly, under normal circumstances, knowledge of one's own system is AI. If an opponent asks about your system, the response from your partner is UI, but it's irrelevant because you already knew what your system meant and can therefore use this knowledge to decide what to bid. But if you had forgotten the system, you're not allowed to use the UI you received from partner's response. Everyone is agreed that this is the case, and I'm not arguing that it should be otherwise; but I can't find any Law or WBF statement that deals with this. (Can anyone else find such a Law?) Also, if partner opens 1NT, you bid 2H (transfer), partner fails to alert and then passes (with no opposing bidding), then the fact that partner forgot it's a transfer is obvious from the AI, so you are allowed to use this info if the auction continues, even though partner's failure to alert is UI. Obviously, if there is AI and UI that gives the same information, the answer to the question of whether you may use the AI differs depending on the situation. And, as far as I can tell, there's no written Law that answers the question. The case David is discussing involves AI that a player fails to notice. Is this is the same as AI that a player is supposed to remember but has forgotten? One could make a case either way. "Not remembering" and "not paying enough attention to what's going on" are similar, though not identical, mental errors, which supports the idea that they should be treated the same way---information that wakes you up is UI. On the other hand, the information that you're supposed to notice but don't is right in front of your face (if bidding boxes are used), while the system information you're supposed to remember is not right there for you to look at, so one could argue that there's enough of a difference that the principle that is applied when you forget your bidding system should *not* automatically be extended to the case where you don't notice information that's there for everyone to see. Plus, it's also legitimate to ask whether the situation should be treated differently when the UI that wakes you up is a blatant violation of L73B1, as it is in David's example, as opposed to the case where a routine Alert or explanation wakes you up to the fact that you missed something. I could accept a rule that you may not "wake up" in the former case but are allowed to in the latter case. But what is the rule? Does anyone know? It seems to me this is something the WBF may need to address at some point. I just don't think the current body of law answers the question at all. (I could have missed something, though...) -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 13:29:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF2TqR27430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:29:52 +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 eAF2Tit27425 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:29:45 +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 13vsKR-0008d8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:29:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:28:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@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: >We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for >that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention >cards because you don't know which will apply. The question it seems to me is not whether you, Marvin, want it, but whether it is legal for oppos to have 2 CCs. In the EBU you may play two systems and thus have 2 CCs at Level 4 or 5, and for seven board or longer stanzas only. Whether this is fair or not, at least it is laid down. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 13:38:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF2cR627450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:38:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAF2cKt27446 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:38:21 +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 SAA16745; Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:38:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200011150238.SAA16745@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:26:09 PST." <200011150226.SAA16534@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:38:16 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wrote: > I may have lost track of this long thread, but I have a feeling we're > in an area that isn't covered by the Laws. > > In fact, while it's accepted that UI that wakes a player up to the > fact that he's forgotten his system is UI, I can't find anywhere in > the Laws, the Code of Practice, or in any WBFLC minutes that says so. > Certainly, under normal circumstances, knowledge of one's own system > is AI. If an opponent asks about your system, the response from your > partner is UI, but it's irrelevant because you already knew what your > system meant and can therefore use this knowledge to decide what to > bid. But if you had forgotten the system, you're not allowed to use > the UI you received from partner's response. Everyone is agreed that > this is the case, and I'm not arguing that it should be otherwise; but > I can't find any Law or WBF statement that deals with this. (Can > anyone else find such a Law?) Also, if partner opens 1NT, you bid 2H > (transfer), partner fails to alert and then passes (with no opposing > bidding), then the fact that partner forgot it's a transfer is obvious > from the AI, so you are allowed to use this info if the auction > continues, even though partner's failure to alert is UI. Obviously, > if there is AI and UI that gives the same information, the answer to > the question of whether you may use the AI differs depending on the > situation. And, as far as I can tell, there's no written Law that > answers the question. > > The case David is discussing involves AI that a player fails to > notice. Is this is the same as AI that a player is supposed to > remember but has forgotten? One could make a case either way. "Not > remembering" and "not paying enough attention to what's going on" are > similar, though not identical, mental errors, which supports the idea > that they should be treated the same way---information that wakes you > up is UI. On the other hand, the information that you're supposed to > notice but don't is right in front of your face (if bidding boxes are > used), while the system information you're supposed to remember is not > right there for you to look at, so one could argue that there's enough > of a difference that the principle that is applied when you forget > your bidding system should *not* automatically be extended to the case > where you don't notice information that's there for everyone to see. > Plus, it's also legitimate to ask whether the situation should be > treated differently when the UI that wakes you up is a blatant > violation of L73B1, as it is in David's example, as opposed to the > case where a routine Alert or explanation wakes you up to the fact > that you missed something. I could accept a rule that you may not > "wake up" in the former case but are allowed to in the latter case. > But what is the rule? Does anyone know? > > It seems to me this is something the WBF may need to address at some > point. I just don't think the current body of law answers the > question at all. (I could have missed something, though...) Something did occur to me after I wrote this. L16 says: Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and or plays, and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. This paragraph explicitly says that information from legal calls, i.e. the preceding auction, is authorized, while it says nothing about one's own methods. Of course, as I've noted above, it's OK to base a call on one's own methods if you haven't forgotten your system, even if you receive UI about your own methods from your partner's explanation. However, the fact that the Law explicitly says you can base your calls on the preceding auction (while saying nothing about partnership methods) may indicate UI about the auction should be treated differently from UI about one's own system; i.e. that information about the auction is always AI whether or not you receive UI that wakes you up to the same information. So based on this, it seems more likely that Herman is right, even in David's example case where your partner illegally tells you that you've misread the auction. Not that I like this result---in this particular case, I might have to rule that offender's partner is allowed to treat the information as AI, but I retain the right to adjust using L12A1 anyway. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 20:18:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAF9E9U28159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:14:09 +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 eAF9E2t28155 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 20:14:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA24317 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:13:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:13 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler 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: <002101c04e4f$ff119860$4313f7a5@oemcomputer> Craig wrote: > Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and > limit posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating > to English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks <> I don't speak Dutch (or Flemmish) but the general meaning of the post wasn't too hard to understand. Had the topic interested me I would have asked for a translation. Many people have to make a genuine effort to write in English but I wouldn't want to discourage their contributions. Why shouldn't the anglophones have to make an effort once in a while? After all even Sanskrit might be easier than some of Grattan's more flowery examples:-) Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 23:01:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFC0PT28472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:00:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAFC0Gt28463 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:00:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-236.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.236]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00136 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:00:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A1163A8.E5225887@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:09:12 +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] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> <000e01c0480b$8612e800$66053dd4@default> <3A06F601.B35135F6@village.uunet.be> <002101c04e4f$ff119860$4313f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit > posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to > English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks > Of course we can all agree on that. And if you don't understand that this was sent to the list in error, then you are sadely overestimating my belief that dutch ought to be the world language. I did not send any apologies for my error, thinking that was self-evident. Apparently not. I apologize to the list for having caused them three superfluous messages. Two of mine and one of Craigs. -- 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 Nov 15 23:01:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFC0Qw28473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:00:26 +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 eAFC0It28465 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:00:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-236.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.236]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA00157 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:00:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A1164F7.51440229@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 17:14:47 +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] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001114155344.008fa7a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 23:52 14/11/00 +1100, you wrote: > >There was a wonderful thread on rgb recently. A ruling was > >discussed after a non-alert of some double. After about twenty > >replies, all apparently confirming that the double wasn't alertable, > >Marv sent a post pointing out (correctly of course) that the double > >was alertable. I loved it; nobody except Marv seems to know > >whether a fairly simple situation (1NT-P-P-2S-P-P-X IIRC) is > >alertable. What a bizarre situation. > > AG : if the sequence is as you wrote it, nothing could be more > straightforward. > The default value of a double is 'penalties' whenever partner has done > something else than passing. > Two possible exceptions, according to the country, are : > - simple sputnik (1x-1/2S-X) > - forced action (eg 1C-X-p-1H-2C-X) > Any other double over active partner is penalties unless decided so, and if > not, musty be alerted > (note that it doesn't suffice to state that 'takeout doubles' must be > alerted, since other conventional doubles may exist, eg 1NT-2D-X = transfer > to H) > (also note that what constitutes a penalty double is left to the players, > but that the custom of making speculative pen doubles, or pen doubles > mainly based on a misfit rather than strong trumps, must be disclosed on > the CC) > > You mean that it took a score of replies before somebody pointed that out ? > > Really, the alertability may be decided by a set of about a dozen basic > rules, and a few exceptions, some of which might be local. But 16 pages ??? > The above paragraph, plus another of the same size (stating when a double > is for takeout, with some exceptions), solves all problems about doubles. > That's half a page. > I am puzzled why Alain does not illustrate this by giving the Belgian alert rule on doubles : "a double when partner hasn't made any call but pass is take-out, except on game contracts. All other doubles are penalties. All redoubles are to play - if your meaning differs, alert". Mind you, that rule is just as unknown in Belgium as the ACBL rule outside San Diego. So you really don't need 16 pages to confuse the public -- 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 Nov 15 23:04:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFC4LG28497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFC4Ct28489 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA26072 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:04:04 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:04 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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: <3.0.1.32.20001114170824.0126f704@pop.mindspring.com> Mike Dennis wrote: > > At 02:41 PM 11/12/2000 +0000, Tim wrote: > >That is not what I intended to say. West *is* entitled to know the > >agreement. He is *not* entitled to know that South has forgotten it. > > Hmmm.... He is entitled to know the agreement, so we agree on that. He > knows, by perfectly legitimate and legal means that South has failed to > alert the agreement and that he has passed the transfer. These are after > all facts on the table. But he is not entitled to the inference that > South has forgotten? Of course at the table he might (eg by checking the CC) work all this out and be entitled to use all of it. However when making an adjustment I believe it is necessary to ask "How might the auction have proceeded absent the infraction?" if I find any likelihood that this would lead West to a better spot then I would wish to adjust. For example if N/W were sharing a screen (thus West would be fully informed as to meaning but unaware of whether South had alerted) I could, perhaps, be convinced that West might take a punt on a system mix-up - although at the "at all probable" level rather than the "likely". West had an opportunity for a great score after his opponents mix-up, even if it was difficult for him to capitalise on it - that's the rub of the green. I am happy to find that West was not damaged because he was unaware of the agreement, but because he failed to capitalise on an opportunity when he did not work out that opponents wheels had come off. Tim West-Meads. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 23:04:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFC4LP28496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFC4Bt28488 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:04:12 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA26043 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:04:03 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:04 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: > Suppose your partner opens 2C. You alert and respond 2D. Partner > bids 2H, presumably Kokish, so you alert. > > At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an > overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in > front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. > > Now, it is clear to you that you may take the 2C as an overcall, > because while your partner has told you which is UI it is also available > from AI, the calls on the table? Well, it is not clear to me. > > In my view you are not allowed to realise it was a 2C overcall. > Before people leap in and yell about proof, we don't need proof: we are > talking about an ethical player who follow the dictates of L73C so long > as he knows whether it is UI or AI. I still prefer Jesper's approach where we treat the auction as AI and consider the UI to not suggest anything additional. We can give a PP/adjustment to the ethical player's side due to his partner's gross and deliberate breach of the laws, we can issue an additional PP for paying insufficient attention, partner is still operating under UI due to your alerts so we will probably have to adjust anyway. Calling the TD should be sufficient to fulfil the ethical player's obligations. Should we choose to rule that the actual auction is not always AI then many UI situations may become horrible. A typical hesitation ruling arises and the TD says: "Judging from your earlier choice of actions I consider it possible that you did not notice partner's opening therefore 4C is a logical alternative." Yuck, yuck, and please NO. Or take your situation above where partner (another ethical player) who has become slightly confused by developments asks for a review of the auction (instead of breaking the law). Is the auction AI or UI to you? Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 23:48:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFCm0j28554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:48:00 +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-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 eAFClrt28549 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:47:54 +1100 (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 13w1yW-000JNY-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:47:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:42:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> <3A0BD320.BFE617A4@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A0BD320.BFE617A4@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: >> >> Mind you, there is no longer any need to >> spend all that money in future. Just pick the >> county in which to name the new President. >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > >The ultimate end is to be found in the story "Franchise" by >Isaac Asimov, which can be found in the collections "Earth >is Room enough" and "Robot Dreams". > >One man, Norman Muller of Bloomington Indiana, is chosen by >the computers to represent the entire populace. His vote >determines the whole thing. > >The story dates from 1952 and is set in 2008. > Damn. I have just written about this! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 15 23:49:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFCnLf28564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:49:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFCltt28550 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 23:47:58 +1100 (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 13w1yW-000H0M-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 12:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 02:41:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@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: > Mind you, there is no longer any need to >spend all that money in future. Just pick the >county in which to name the new President. Was it an Asimov story where they only had one voter? They worked out who was most typical and then asked him questions for several hours and then decided all the US elections for everything based on his answers. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 02:57:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFFtpc28780 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:55:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAFFtjt28776 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 02:55:46 +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 KAA23900 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:55:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA26359 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:55:40 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:55:40 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011151555.KAA26359@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail > themselves of that right. Why should they not? Oh, come on, David. Several good reasons for restricting oral questions have been given. You may think restrictions are illegal (quite possibly true) or unwise (arguable), but your last sentence is disingenuous. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 03:11:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFGAuO28838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:10:56 +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 eAFGAnt28834 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:10:50 +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 LAA24663 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:10:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA26378 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:10:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:10:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011151610.LAA26378@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an > overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in > front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. ... > In my view you are not allowed to realise it was a 2C overcall. > Before people leap in and yell about proof, we don't need proof: we are > talking about an ethical player who follow the dictates of L73C so long > as he knows whether it is UI or AI. > > There are situations where you are constrained by UI even though the > same information was available as AI. I would suggest that the correct rule is L73B1 (and then L12A1), not L73C. This works out to pretty much the same result as David's, but we don't have to argue about information that is plainly AI (the legal auction) suddenly becoming UI. It is _transmitting_ the information, not _using_ it that is the infraction. This is in stark contrast to the normal UI situation. Can anyone produce an example where 73B1 does not apply but some information that would normally be AI "ought" to become UI? (I don't think it will be possible, but I'm ready to be surprised.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 03:19:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFGJ1O28869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:19:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAFGInt28856 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:18:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.83]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05741 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:18:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A128411.E0567508@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:39:45 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011150238.SAA16745@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > This paragraph explicitly says that information from legal calls, i.e. > the preceding auction, is authorized, while it says nothing about > one's own methods. Of course, as I've noted above, it's OK to base a > call on one's own methods if you haven't forgotten your system, even > if you receive UI about your own methods from your partner's > explanation. However, the fact that the Law explicitly says you can > base your calls on the preceding auction (while saying nothing about > partnership methods) may indicate UI about the auction should be > treated differently from UI about one's own system; i.e. that > information about the auction is always AI whether or not you receive > UI that wakes you up to the same information. So based on this, it > seems more likely that Herman is right, even in David's example case > where your partner illegally tells you that you've misread the > auction. ehm, it's not because David says "A" and appears to disagree with me, that I say "B". I have said "A" all along. I do not believe that the preceding auction is "always" AI. I believe that the preceding auction, just like the knowledge of your own system, is AI, provided you can make a clear enough case for having remembered them. They remain UI if the only way you remember them is by means of some action of partner's. They regain their AI status if through some other piece of AI, it is impossible for you not to realize them. > Not that I like this result---in this particular case, I > might have to rule that offender's partner is allowed to treat the > information as AI, but I retain the right to adjust using L12A1 > anyway. > -- 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 Nov 16 03:19:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFGJ3R28870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:19:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAFGIpt28860 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:18:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.83]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05757 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:18:48 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A128532.9FA5813@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:44:34 +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] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.1.32.20001114170824.0126f704@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 02:41 PM 11/12/2000 +0000, Tim wrote: > >That is not what I intended to say. West *is* entitled to know the > >agreement. He is *not* entitled to know that South has forgotten it. > > Hmmm.... He is entitled to know the agreement, so we agree on that. He > knows, by perfectly legitimate and legal means that South has failed to > alert the agreement and that he has passed the transfer. These are after > all facts on the table. But he is not entitled to the inference that South > has forgotten? > You can never be entitled to an inference. You are entitled to the information, and then can draw your own inference. He is not entitled to the knowledge that South had forgotten, in the sense that South need not tell him that. And so, in some cases, he will not be able to draw the conclusion. But is this case, there are only two possible conclusions : - south has psyched a 1NT with long diamonds - south has forgotten that 2Di was a transfer He has the right to choose which one of these he believes. That right has been taken away from him. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 03:19:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFGIw528868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:18:58 +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 eAFGImt28855 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:18:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-83.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.83]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA05722 for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:18:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A1282DF.73F5860E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:34:39 +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] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > >I would like to begin with making two assertions that are > >perhaps well known and accepted, but are not usually written > >down : > > > >1) When a player is in possession of UI, and AI with the > >same content is also available to him, then there are no L16 > >restrictions upon him. > > > >This is clear. Whenever my partner alerts and/or explains > >my calls correctly, I have learnt nothing new and although > >this is UI, I am not restricted by L16, since I also have AI > >with the same content. > > It is not clear to me. > David, please don't quote me out of context. If you read on in my post, then you will see that I expose exactly the same reasoning as what you are doing in this one. > Suppose your partner opens 2C. You alert and respond 2D. Partner > bids 2H, presumably Kokish, so you alert. > > At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an > overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in > front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. > > Now, it is clear to you that you may take the 2C as an overcall, > because while your partner has told you which is UI it is also available > from AI, the calls on the table? Well, it is not clear to me. > My sentence above was to say that if I have UI and AI to the same effect, I am free from L16 obligations. In your example above, I do NOT have AI, until you provide me with it, which is UI. We are not in disagreement here, David, and however strange this may feel to you, please don't question my first sentence when my third one is in agreement. -- 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 Nov 16 04:03:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFH2un28952 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:02:56 +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 eAFH2ot28948 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:02:50 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:00:03 -0800 Message-ID: <007b01c04f25$d7bac620$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00e001c04945$1c090c60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 08:52:52 -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 ----- David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >We sit down to play a board. I want to see your convention card for > >that board before we start. I do not want to look at two convention > >cards because you don't know which will apply. > > The question it seems to me is not whether you, Marvin, want it, but > whether it is legal for oppos to have 2 CCs. In the EBU you may play > two systems and thus have 2 CCs at Level 4 or 5, and for seven board or > longer stanzas only. Whether this is fair or not, at least it is laid > down. > I don't know why I wrote that. Of course if a pair is employing multiple systems I want to see their CCs before starting. Multiple systems, based only on vulnerability and/or seat position, are apparently permitted at any level in ACBL-land. A pair could thus play more than one system during a two-board round. I am making that clear in my rewrite of L40E ELECTION (not final yet, and I have only a couple of days left before my planned submission of it to the BoD, C&C, and LC in Anaheim!) 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 Nov 16 04:39:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFHcoR28999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:38:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFHcit28995 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:38:45 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:35:59 -0800 Message-ID: <007c01c04f2a$dcc395c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011150226.SAA16534@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 09:38:22 -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 Wondering why L16 is entitled Unauthorized Information (UI), but talks about "extraneous information" (EI), I looked backward in time. In the 1963 Laws L16 continued with text that discuussed UI, with no use of the term EI. In 1987, evidently recognizing that EI may not be UI, the lawmakers changed almost all instances of UI to EI in a new L16A. The only mention of UI in L16A is a parenthetical statment that discusses the possibility that EI from partner might have conveyed UI. In other words, not all EI is UI, unless (L16B) the EI comes from sources other than partner. What is on my CC is AI. If an opponent reminds me of what is on my CC, it is still AI. If my partner reminds me of what is on my CC, or I look at my own CC, it is UI. If an opponent unnecessarily forces my partner to recite what is plainly shown on the CC, it is EI but not UI. If I take an action that accords with EI from partner, when there is an LA, that action cannot be said to have been demonstrably suggested *by* the EI unless the EI is also UI. As I see 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 Thu Nov 16 05:45:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFIiZq29047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 05:44:35 +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 eAFIiTt29043 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 05:44:30 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:41:41 -0800 Message-ID: <00bc01c04f34$0aa5b6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Subject: [BLML] Re: ACBL L40E ELECTION Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 10:43:42 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Stevenson" wrote: > > Oh, come on. You have a right to know whether a pair play frequent > five-card majors in a 1NT opening - there is a checkbox for that. You > have just as much right to know they do not as you have to know they do. > The ACBL has no regulation requiring that unchecked items remain on a reasonably customized facsimile of the ACBL CC. It is quite possible to omit a checkable item that one is actually playing, however. On my own first draft of a new CC for wife Alice and me I inadvertently omitted the Stayman check item! Not a big deal, since this is not an Alertable convention. I think it would be extremely unlikely for anyone to omit a checkable Alertable convention (which appears in red) that they are actually playing. Since such a convention must be Alerted, damage to the opponents from a failure to do so is unlikely. But we have a more serious problem here, not mentioned yet. To what degree must the style and judgment (S&J) tendencies of each partner be disclosed? L40E says that these cannot be restricted, but what about disclosure? The ACBL goes so far as to say that if one partner never opens 1NT with a five-card major, thinking it unwise, while the other does so occasionally, this is S&J and does not mean they are illegally playing two different systems. While there is a check box for "5-card Major common," presumably unchecked by such a pair, there is not room enough on the CC to disclose S&J variances for every action that is on the CC. S&J tendencies, whether individual or common to the pair, can be discovered during or after the auction with the ACBL-suggested question, "Would you tell me more about style?" They should be voluntarily disclosed by the declaring side before the opening lead is made (which ought to be required by regulation). Even so, some gray areas remain: -- How do you draw the line between permissible S&J variances of system and variances that constitute an illegal system difference? -- To what extent do S&J tendencies have to be disclosed on the CC and/or via Alerts? -- What about undisclosed S&J tendencies that a declarer would not think to inquire about (e.g., an occasional off-shape double)? (Defenders cannot volunteer information about their auction, unless required by regulation to do so after play is completed). And so forth. -- 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 Nov 16 05:46:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFIk6929060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 05:46:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFIk0t29056 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 05:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFBtYc01828; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:55:34 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:46:36 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.1.32.20001114165116.0126de48@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001114165116.0126de48@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111511553400.01748@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Michael S. Dennis wrote: > At 11:47 AM 11/10/2000 PST, Adam wrote: > >Most of the time, in similar situations, the partner of the player who > >gave MI must assume that his partner understood the auction correctly > >and had a legitimate reason for doing what he did. E.g.: > > > > South North > > 1NT 2H > > 3H > > > >2H is a transfer but South failed to alert (announce); North must > >assume that South is making some sort of super-accept of spades. > I agree with your conclusion in this case, but not necessarily with the > analysis of the hypothetical 2H-3H sequence. I played Jacoby transfers for > 10 years or so before adapting super-acceptances into my structure, and for > me, during those 10 years, _any call other than 2S_ in this position was > unambiguous proof that partner had forgotten the agreement. What should the standard be here? Essentially this sequence happened to me at the club last week, actually 1NT-2D-3D, and a pickup partner whom I knew to be a weak player and whom I could reasonably assume not to have ever heard of a superaccept in a different suit. If both 3H and 4H were LA's, would you allow a 3H bid in my situation? (I chose to bid 4H, not thinking along the above lines and assuming that I did have UI, as I would if a good partner had bid 3D.) -- 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 Nov 16 06:11:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFJBal29092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 06:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAFJBMt29088 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 06:11:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13w7xX-000JZN-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 19:11:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 03:00:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <01c04c31$8f05bbc0$0100007f@localhost> 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 >Patrick Shields wrote: > >>I suffer a bit from not having a copy of the rule book >>either in memory or in sight as I read BLML (which >>might not be a bad thing as it does keep me quieter >>than I might be), but .... > > There are versions of the Law book on the web, and also some of the >books of regulations. If you look at my Lawspage [see below] you will >find links to American, English, European, French and Danish law books, >and also the English Orange book and the Danish Orange book. I find >these references help a lot since I invariably lose paper copies [I >*know* I have at least fifteen EBU OB 98s but last time I looked I could >only find two copies of the one five years earlier]. > > Incidentally, if anyone knows where there are Law books in other >languages or main regulations elsewhere on the web please give me the >URLs so I can add them to my page. > I have a copy of them in Japanese. Japanese ladies game. Minor penalty card. This was hysterical. I leave you to imagine me giving them the Law number and showing them the book. Total disbelief. Summon Translator. Still disbelief. "Pick it up" I said, finally. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 07:29:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFKSBV29149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:28:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from barry.mail.mindspring.net (barry.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.25]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAFKS4t29145 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 07:28:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive431.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.97]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA18798; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:22:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005901c04f42$94165020$6110f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 15:28:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Actually there is no game Wed night anymore...or Tuesday or Thursday or Saturday. Too many of those little old ladies and their spouses have died off, and we haven't attracted enough replacements. Now there's a 50% dues increase in the works for 2001 that will probably scare off a few more folk. Makes Sabrina the Teenage Witch look better all the time over the 4 1/2 table stratified Friday night Howell. Club bridge is unfortunately starting to die out. Is it time for chartreuse points or something to force would-be LM's to play at the clubs? Angering ANY of the remaining customers is surely not the way to go...and I doubt anyone was injured by Susie Kumquat not having a CC on the table. At least she paid her dues, filled out the movement, and helped out in the kitchen on charity night. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 10:04 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Question from an ABDA Contributor > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > I can see it myself. The TD does the obvious, and does not enforce > > > it. Some players play fairly complex things, but they never bother with > > > CCs. Eventually you notice that some of your weaker and older players > > > are no longer coming. It's their age, you think. > > > > > > Perhaps it isn't. Perhaps they just got sick of playing against fancy > > > systems that no-one explained and did not have CCs. Finally they > > > realised it was more fun to watch TV at home. > > > > Please remember that this is an international newsgroup, and that > > while what you say may be true in Britain, given that you guys have > > all those British comedies you can watch, we over here in the U.S. > > have the New Fall Season to contend with, the consequence of which is > > that it would take a whole lot worse than a plethora of fancy systems > > and inadequate explanations and poorly-filled-out CCs to make an > > evening of bridge at the club less fun than watching TV at home. > > > > :) :) > > -- Adam > > You mean you're watching Titans on wednesday nights???? > > :-p :-p > > Linda > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 09:35:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFMXxs29221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:33:59 +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 eAFMXqt29216 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:33:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14268; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:54:51 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:53:53 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:15 AM +0000 11/15/00, David Stevenson wrote: >Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail >themselves of that right. Why should they not? You're a stubborn man, David. :-) Maybe it's this cold I'm fighting, but I give up. I've made my argument, and you've made yours, and it seems neither of us is convinced by the other. So be it. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOhMHS72UW3au93vOEQLOoQCg5cOO+qOBnxE03H+p+dqofXfX6ooAoMeD Qu3CMUJJznOOHLD7RiBiR3d+ =Fa+G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 09:35:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAFMY3L29225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:34:03 +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 eAFMXut29220 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:33:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14314; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:54:58 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:57:40 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I find it far easier to find out some information by question and >answer. By taking this right away from me first you are contravening >the Laws of the game and second you are contravening the Principle of >full disclosure. All right, one last try. No one is suggesting taking away anyone's right to ask questions. We're (or at least I'm) only suggesting that if the answer is on the CC, there can be no harm in saying so. Then, if a player finds what's on the CC insufficient, he of course has every right to ask for clarification. I don't see why you are so opposed to this. 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/AwUBOhMHUL2UW3au93vOEQLDEACeOUw+e2b4pgB/lUSVTZxpoW/jAtgAoOnF dBYCAbSxVAA8jeIVspVtbx9N =xwbT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3gWp29548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:32 +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 eAG3gMt29537 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:23 +1100 (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 13wFwG-000G3J-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:08:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler References: <3.0.5.32.20001104235044.0083ad70@netvision.net.il> <3A053EC9.3F21C3EC@village.uunet.be> <000e01c0480b$8612e800$66053dd4@default> <3A06F601.B35135F6@village.uunet.be> <002101c04e4f$ff119860$4313f7a5@oemcomputer> <005001c04e70$905b9a80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005001c04e70$905b9a80$fb981e18@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 In article <005001c04e70$905b9a80$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >Craig Senior wrote: > >> Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post >> says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit >> posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to >> English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks >> >Would that be American English or English-English? I thought we had agreed that Broken English is the international language of bridge. Quango says "Brroowwwwwwww!" whatever that means. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3h2l29575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:43:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAG3ggt29565 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:43 +1100 (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 13wFwZ-000G3r-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:37 +0000 Message-ID: <+PSFhBBbUsE6Ew3H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:17:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling writes >Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >>>Recently in my club I had to rule on this case: >>> >>> North >>> K Q J 10 x >>> J x >>> x x >>> J x x x >>> >>> South (dealer) >>> A x x >>> A K x x >>> x x >>> A Q x x >>> >>The auction: S W N E >> 1NT 2C! 2H P >> P 3D 3S 4D >> 4H P 4S End > Partner's passing of a forcing bid always counts as a sign something's >up, in my book. Unless N has some reason to suspect that S has psyched a >first-seat 1NT bid with a heart pre-empt [and as TD I would virtually >never require a player to bid under the assumption that partner has >psyched], he knows that S has forgotten by virtue of the bid alone. No >adjustment. > I would be more concerned if W claims damage from MI for the >failure to alert, since with a correct explanation he might have >passed 2H. I would be concerned whether he claims damage or not. My first instinct when I saw the hand was 2H-2, WTP? It is reasonable to allow players leeway in not noticing damage based on MI when they are claiming UI, or on UI when they are claiming MI. They do not know the rules particularly. When an explanation and a hand differ the TD should always investigate both - a player might reasonably forget this. As for UI, I do not believe North has LAs to his actions once his partner does not transfer, and South has no UI. The score would stand on UI grounds, but if West knew 2H was forcing he might easily pass it out. To see that think of a screen with the wrong diagonal. N/W are on the same side. North bids 2H and writes transfer on a piece of paper: pass, pass, what would West do? He would look enquiringly at North, who would roll his eyes, and West would smile and pass. ------------------------- Grattan Endicott writes >+=+ Interesting. Even at WBF level, where players >are clearly told to protect their own backs, I doubt >that it would be sufficiently culpable - in the absence >of an alert - for redress to be withheld if West did >not pick up this 'unexpected' convention (unless >perhaps it were listed in the box for special >agreements opponents need to know about). > I would like to hear some of our top world TDs >on whether, if West does not volunteer a statement >that he would have done something different (pass) if >he had been alerted, they would explore this >question (a) overtly, (b) by indirect questions, or >(c) not at all? I consider it right to do so overtly. I consider one should investigate MI and UI when damage is claimed from one or the other. ------------------------- Grattan Endicott writes >From: Marvin L. French >> This uninvited non-TD, merely a player, > +=+ I have no wish to exclude. However, you >can only tell me what they ought to do, whilst >my enquiry is to know what TDs have actually >learnt to do, from experience. ~ G ~ +=+ Of course, there is training as well. We train our TDs to look at both as above. I am loth to quote Max Bavin's opinion when he has not explicitly stated it - I have had my ear chewed off before. But I will say that I have stated that we consider both UI and MI when called for one as a principle when training top EBU TDs. Max is present when I am training them and he has never disagreed with this principle when I have espoused it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3gX429550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:33 +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-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 eAG3gNt29538 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:23 +1100 (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 13wFwG-000G3p-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:19 +0000 Message-ID: <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:11:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >At 00:14 11/11/00 +0300, Sergei Litvak wrote: >>Board 17, N,- >> x >> KJx >> Q98xx >> Qxxx >>Jx KTxxxxx >>AQTxx -- >>JTxx xx >>xx KJxx >> AQx >> 98xxx >> AK >> Axx >>The bidding and explanation >>W N E S >> p p 1NT >>2D db 2S p >>p ...db p 3NT >>p p 4C db >> all pass >>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. >>hesitation) - as showing extra values. >>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with her partner and >>said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. >>After the end if the board (TD was at tthe table during the play) E asks for >>the ruling. >>What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). > >AG : after a 'value' double, south might let it in, or take it out. I'd say >one could rule with ease that the UI (I assume no screens) made him bid >3NT. If the auction had stopped there assuming 3NT made, I would take the >contract back to 3S, most probably -1, perhaps -2 if N/S do hold both C10 >and C9. > >But what was East hoping for, when bidding 4C in an obviously misfitting >hand ? I would feel fairly confident about calling this a wild, gambling >bid, thus snapping the connection between the infraction and the damage. >Score stands (at least for E/W). If East's 4C isn't IWoG then West's pass of it certainly is. Let E/W keep their score. For N/S I might give 3S*-1 but it is a bit generous - I would be tempted by 3S*-2. For the AC: 75% of 3S*-2 NS+300 + 25% of 3S*-1 NS+100 -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3gtY29573 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAG3gbt29560 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:38 +1100 (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 13wFwQ-000G3p-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:17:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il>, Dany Haimovici writes >The quoted case is not a case IMHO - 4Sp is the contract and I can >explain it for 123 reasons . > >But I would like to know - from this subject and some other threads : >Law 16 deals with UI ,MI and any XI - ok -but where in the laws it appears >that people must play non-bridge contracts , according to the laws. >I feel that that some people forgot that the Laws are to improve the game >and redress damage and ...chr chr chr , bla bla bla - and not to enforce the >players to be in <.cucuricu...> contracts or to play <...> cards..... What is a non-bridge contract? In my forty years of playing bridge I have played a *considerable* number of bridge contracts where the opponents have more - often considerably more - trumps than I had. It is part of bridge. It is one of the sad facts about internet bridge that a number of alleged players like to leave the table and go home for a cup of coffee when they discover the number of trumps in dummy, however real players attempt to get more tricks than they should before the opponents find out. -------------------- In article <020401c04d99$b237a4a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: > >> +=+ Sixteen pages of alert procedure? - no, that should be - >> SIXTEEN PAGES of alert procedure?? Is it a requirement >> to recite it from memory when you take the oath of >> allegiance to the ACBL? ~ G ~ +=+ > >It's not as bad as this implies. The AP includes explanatory text, examples, >and a three-page Alert Chart summary. I was able to boil it down to one >WordPerfect page, admittedly a tight fit, that includes all the details. This >effort was assisted by ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss, and the >final approved by him, so it is semi-official. > >The result can be seen on David Stevenson's web site at >http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#general > >The WordPerfect page is available from me for the asking. OH, is it? well if you like to bung it over here, I shall add it to my page as a downloadable option. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3gdq29561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:39 +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 eAG3gTt29547 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:30 +1100 (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 13wFwH-000G3r-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:17:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner References: <200011132330.SAA10951@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011132330.SAA10951@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 <200011132330.SAA10951@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >I'm with Ton: "spectatorhood" ends when the board is over. Why not? I liked the rule in the Griffins: if the kibitzer points something out then he pays the difference in the stakes. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3glI29568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:47 +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 eAG3gQt29544 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:27 +1100 (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 13wFwG-000G3K-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:18 +0000 Message-ID: <2PYHBvAzHsE6EwW8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:03:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Election. References: <004401c04c4e$90763580$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> <200011112332510620.0211CA2E@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200011112332510620.0211CA2E@mail.earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch writes [s] >From there on it gets complicated. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 14:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG3gn329570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAG3gYt29554 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:42:35 +1100 (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 13wFwQ-000G3J-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 03:42:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:17:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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 writes >In-Reply-To: <------------> > >Does anyone in the world play 2H as a forcing bid if it is natural?? > >Marv wrote: >> West has the right to think s/he is competing against a normal 2H >> contract, and would not have bid, surely, had s/he known that N/S were >> playing transfers in this situation (not everyone does). > >Assuming there is no MI the auction has gone: > > S W N E > 1NT 2C! 2Ha P > P ? > >West, presumably holding something like x,xx,AKJxxx,KJTx, is really going >to pass when he expects pard to hold reasonable values and South to have >xx,Axxxxx,xx,xxx or suchlike - doesn't seem at all probable to me. > >Of course West will pass if informed that not only is 2H a transfer but >South has forgotten and passed - while he may be lucky enough to get this >information at the table it is not an entitlement for MI purposes. Correct. This is the interesting point of the hand - as explained elsewhere if we were only concerned with UI I would let the final result stand. What is West entitled to know? He is entitled to know that 2H is a transfer. He is not entitled to know that 2H is a transfer and that South has forgotten. Any ruling must include both those elements. So there is MI and we have to rule. What would West do if he knew there was a transfer and a pass - we have to decide that for the purposes of adjusting? I think the answer is an easy one in the absence of L12C3. He might pass it out in 3D, and he would do so enough of the time for it to be called a likely possibility. So the ruling is 2H making whatever. In a place where L12C3 is enabled it gets more interesting. Consider as I have suggested in another post that there is a diagonal screen the wrong way, so N/W are on the same side. 1NT 2C 2H P; P: what does West do. He checks the meaning with North and North repeats that it is a transfer. Now what? There seem to be two possibilities: either South has psyched 1NT, or he has forgotten the transfer. To rule you have to decide what is the probability that West would bid again, taking the risk of oppos reaching game if the transfer is forgotten - and taking the risk tha this side will miss game if there is a psyche and he passes it out. So the TD will consult and consider. If West does pass it out we know what will happen - 2H making some number. if he does not we know what will happen - 4S making. I think a ruling such as 30% of NS+620 [4S= by N] + 70% of NS-200 [2H-2 by N] has something to recommend it. [By the way: I have not really analysed what happens in 2H so change this to allow for that - of course you could weight it further to different numbers of tricks in 2H.] ------------------------- Michael S. Dennis writes >At 02:41 PM 11/12/2000 +0000, Tim wrote: >>That is not what I intended to say. West *is* entitled to know the >>agreement. He is *not* entitled to know that South has forgotten it. >Hmmm.... He is entitled to know the agreement, so we agree on that. He >knows, by perfectly legitimate and legal means that South has failed to >alert the agreement and that he has passed the transfer. These are after >all facts on the table. But he is not entitled to the inference that South >has forgotten? No, why should he be? If he was at the table and was given the information about a transfer he would have to decide whether the transfer was forgotten or whether South had psyched or whether South had pulled out the wrong bidding card and not realised or whether .... He may know something is wrong. He may be able to deduce what. But he has no right given by the Laws to know. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 16:55:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG5scX29779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAG5sWt29775 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:54:33 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:51:44 -0800 Message-ID: <013e01c04f91$a58ff0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 21:45:49 -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 David Stevenson wrote: Marvin L. French wrote: > >It's not as bad as this implies. The AP includes explanatory text, examples, > >and a three-page Alert Chart summary. I was able to boil it down to one > >WordPerfect page, admittedly a tight fit, that includes all the details. This > >effort was assisted by ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss, and the > >final approved by him, so it is semi-official. > > > >The result can be seen on David Stevenson's web site at > >http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#general > > > >The WordPerfect page is available from me for the asking. > > OH, is it? well if you like to bung it over here, I shall add it to > my page as a downloadable option. > Great, thanks for the invitation, coming by separate e-mail. 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 Nov 16 17:25:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG6OxJ29807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:24:59 +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 eAG6Ort29802 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:24:54 +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 ; Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:22:07 -0800 Message-ID: <017801c04f95$e3f0bba0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Re: ACBL L40E ELECTION X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 22:23:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" signed off with > > -- > Marv (Marvin L. French) > San Diego, CA, USA > At Anaheim NABC until Nov 25 > No, wait, I've been to Anaheim. It's Birmingham, Alabama, this time. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 20:56:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAG9tCi29916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:55:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAG9t5t29912 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:55:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA06319 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:54:57 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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: <+PSFhBBbUsE6Ew3H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > > To see that think of a screen with the wrong diagonal. N/W are on the > same side. North bids 2H and writes transfer on a piece of paper: pass, > pass, what would West do? He would look enquiringly at North, who would > roll his eyes, and West would smile and pass. Not at the YC. The eye-rolling would mean "another one of those psyches". In a game with real screens (implying high standards of play) I would rate pass a clearly losing option. I expect psyches to be much more common than system forgets in relatively simple situations. I could go for a L12c3 ruling of about: 85% 4S 15% 2H However, in normal games are we not meant to consider the situation "without the infraction"? To me this means considering it as if South had indeed alerted at the proper moment. Doing otherwise makes it too obvious that a bidding mix-up may have occurred and I feel this to be too generous to the NOS (it allows a completely risk free action over 2H). The principle I espouse in the first 2 sentences of the above paragraph seems to be putting me in a minority of one - should it? Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 16 21:55:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGAsiV29960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:54:44 +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 eAGAsYt29952 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14040 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:54:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A12BB3E.B7BDBB4E@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:35:10 +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] Is this a UI situation? 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 still prefer Jesper's approach where we treat the auction as AI and > consider the UI to not suggest anything additional. I do not believe there is such an approach. I think Jesper and I agree that there is UI, as well as AI, and that whatever UI is also covered by AI does not produce L16 restrictions. Where our views differ is to whether there is enough AI to cover all the UI, in this particular case. > We can give a > PP/adjustment to the ethical player's side due to his partner's gross and > deliberate breach of the laws, we can issue an additional PP for paying > insufficient attention, partner is still operating under UI due to your > alerts so we will probably have to adjust anyway. Calling the TD should > be sufficient to fulfil the ethical player's obligations. > Partner has done nothing wrong - he has alerted an alertable call - so why should there be PPs ? > Should we choose to rule that the actual auction is not always AI then > many UI situations may become horrible. A typical hesitation ruling arises > and the TD says: "Judging from your earlier choice of actions I consider > it possible that you did not notice partner's opening therefore 4C is a > logical alternative." Yuck, yuck, and please NO. > Don't think we go overboard. We still believe that players will be telling the truth when we ask them why they bid as they did. "Why did you make a call that meant heart fit and spade void ?" "Because I did not notice I pulled 2Sp instead of 1Sp". > Or take your situation above where partner (another ethical player) who > has become slightly confused by developments asks for a review of the > auction (instead of breaking the law). Is the auction AI or UI to you? > The auction is AI, the fact that there is something strange in it is UI. When the auction is so strange that partner asks for a review, I will often rule it strange enough for you to be asking a review as well. Therefor the "discovering" of the auction becomes AI to you as well. There is now no more UI left. -- 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 Nov 16 21:55:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGAsiD29961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:54:44 +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 eAGAsZt29953 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 21:54:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-24.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.24]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA14054 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:54:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A12BBA8.2B6CD3F5@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:36:56 +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] ACBL L40E ELECTION References: <200011091537.KAA01657@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011091001000940.032C55B4@mail.earthlink.net> <001601c04aa2$95ffcaa0$0f5608c3@dodona> <003501c04ad6$a1babb00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001601c04af0$88fc0c80$785408c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > Mind you, there is no longer any need to > >spend all that money in future. Just pick the > >county in which to name the new President. > > Was it an Asimov story where they only had one voter? They worked out > who was most typical and then asked him questions for several hours and > then decided all the US elections for everything based on his answers. > Very good David ! And everyone can see by the dates and times that we have thought of this independently. Great minds think alike ! -- 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 Nov 16 23:26:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGCPEo00146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:25:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGCP7t00142 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:25:08 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA01405 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:25:00 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:24 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: <3A12BB3E.B7BDBB4E@village.uunet.be> Herman wrote: > > We can give a PP/adjustment to the ethical player's side due to his > > partner's gross and deliberate breach of the laws, > > Partner has done nothing wrong - he has alerted an alertable > call - so why should there be PPs ? In the post to which I was replying (by DWS), DWS had presented a more extreme example of the case in which your partner had just said "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an overcall not an opening bid!" I felt PPs to be entirely justified. > > I still prefer Jesper's approach where we treat the auction as AI and > > consider the UI to not suggest anything additional. > > I do not believe there is such an approach. I think Jesper > and I agree that there is UI, as well as AI, and that > whatever UI is also covered by AI does not produce L16 > restrictions. Where our views differ is to whether there is > enough AI to cover all the UI, in this particular case. I, and I'm pretty sure Jesper (unless I misunderstood), are of the opinion that "The actual auction is *always* UI" - regardless of whether you knew all along, might have been woken by partner's alert/announcement, or are reminded by partner making an wholly inappropriate remark. In the last situation we feel no need to adjust on UI grounds because we already have the power to punish the pair. If partner's alert wakes you up to the fact that you have missed an earlier bid/alert that's just the rub of the green and part of the price we pay for facilitating disclosure. Obviously no PPs, but no grounds for UI restrictions either. 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 Nov 17 00:13:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGDCf200217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:12:41 +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-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 eAGDCZt00213 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:12:36 +1100 (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 eAGDCV361452 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:12:31 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001116075903.00b53180@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, 16 Nov 2000 08:12:30 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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 04:54 AM 11/16/00, twm wrote: >However, in normal games are we not meant to consider the situation >"without the infraction"? To me this means considering it as if South >had indeed alerted at the proper moment. Doing otherwise makes it too >obvious that a bidding mix-up may have occurred and I feel this to be too >generous to the NOS (it allows a completely risk free action over 2H). > >The principle I espouse in the first 2 sentences of the above paragraph >seems to be putting me in a minority of one - should it? I'd been thinking, along similar lines, about the other side of the "risk free action" coin. I learned a long time ago that when our side is having a potential disaster, as by having forgotten a transfer, the best thing to do is keep a straight face, pretend nothing has gone wrong, and try to salvage as much as possible before the opponents catch on to what's going on. It feels wrong to adjudicate such situations so as to make that tactic futile (another step towards "dumbing down" the game, with no particular "up side"). In the case of MI resulting from an alert, or a missed alert, perhaps the right thing to consider is what would have happened if the opponents had full and complete knowledge of your methods, but there were no such thing as an alert. Here this produces the same effect as adjudicating as though the alert had been given, and 2H had then been passed. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 01:22:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGELw000265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:21:58 +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 eAGELpt00260 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:21:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-237.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.237]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27842 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:21:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A13CCE0.1053034@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 13:02:40 +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] Law 75 (ruling) 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: > > > Not at the YC. The eye-rolling would mean "another one of those psyches". > In a game with real screens (implying high standards of play) I would rate > pass a clearly losing option. I expect psyches to be much more common > than system forgets in relatively simple situations. > > I could go for a L12c3 ruling of about: > 85% 4S > 15% 2H > The situation and the people round the table would indeed matter when deciding what North should believe. > However, in normal games are we not meant to consider the situation > "without the infraction"? To me this means considering it as if South > had indeed alerted at the proper moment. Doing otherwise makes it too > obvious that a bidding mix-up may have occurred and I feel this to be too > generous to the NOS (it allows a completely risk free action over 2H). > > The principle I espouse in the first 2 sentences of the above paragraph > seems to be putting me in a minority of one - should it? > Yes. North is entitled to the true agreement. He is not entitled to an alert. The alert is the way towards the agreement, but not an action in itself. So you should consider "what would happen if North knows the agreement", not "what would happen if West alerts". If you see what I mean ? And added to that, you should not add "what would happen if North sees West not alerting". So the true way of dealing with it is David's. Wrong screen, no knowledge of West, not even eye-rolling by East. -- 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 Nov 17 01:22:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGELZc00258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:21:35 +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 eAGELSt00254 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:21:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-237.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.237]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA27713 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:21:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A13CB1C.AF005A6D@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:55:08 +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] Law 75 (ruling) References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <+PSFhBBbUsE6Ew3H@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: > > > As for UI, I do not believe North has LAs to his actions once his > partner does not transfer, and South has no UI. The score would stand > on UI grounds, but if West knew 2H was forcing he might easily pass it > out. > > To see that think of a screen with the wrong diagonal. N/W are on the > same side. North bids 2H and writes transfer on a piece of paper: pass, > pass, what would West do? He would look enquiringly at North, who would > roll his eyes, and West would smile and pass. > Exactly. Although West is not entitled to know there is a mix-up, in a simple case like this, he cannot fail to come to the conclusion that it is quite likely. -- 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 Nov 17 01:32:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGEWUH00287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:32:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGEWNt00282 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:32:24 +1100 (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 13wQ5I-000LPF-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:32:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:13:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011151555.KAA26359@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011151555.KAA26359@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 <200011151555.KAA26359@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail >> themselves of that right. Why should they not? > >Oh, come on, David. Several good reasons for restricting oral >questions have been given. You may think restrictions are illegal >(quite possibly true) or unwise (arguable), but your last sentence is >disingenuous. Good reasons? Oh, yeah! Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full disclosure. I do not like that, and I am surprised if you do. My guess is that you have been seduced into the tempting by-ways. Of course if a player does not know the answer and is trying to be helpful by pointing to his CC I have no problem with that. If he has a disability of some kind, no problem. But I object to people refusing to answer for other reasons. They are deliberately defying the rules of the game for personal gain - I just hope it is not knowledgeably as well. This is a full disclosure game, and I think we should play it that way and not try to hide info from oppos. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 01:33:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGEWwg00302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:32:58 +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 eAGEWSt00286 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:32:34 +1100 (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 13wQ5I-0008vO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:32:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 04:07:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu> <001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona> <018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011081537.KAA29861@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>I find it far easier to find out some information by question and >>answer. By taking this right away from me first you are contravening >>the Laws of the game and second you are contravening the Principle of >>full disclosure. > >All right, one last try. > >No one is suggesting taking away anyone's right to ask questions. >We're (or at least I'm) only suggesting that if the answer is on the >CC, there can be no harm in saying so. Then, if a player finds what's >on the CC insufficient, he of course has every right to ask for >clarification. I don't see why you are so opposed to this. I am not opposed to that. But they better answer when I say that I do not want to look at the CC. Answers from the CC are never as full as spoken answers. So either they are trying to be helpful because they do not know the answer - which is ok - or they have some agenda of their own to force me into a disadvantage, and I am not sitting for that, I do not like people who try to avoid their responsibilities. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 01:41:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGEfNd00318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:41:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGEfHt00314 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 01:41:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive40s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.28]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA32117; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:41:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001401c04fdc$01cebfa0$1c10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 09:46:28 -0500 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" > I, and I'm pretty sure Jesper (unless I misunderstood), are of the opinion > that "The actual auction is *always* UI" Is this a typo? L16 "Players are authorized to base their calls and play on information from legal calls..." So how can the actual auction always (or ever) be UI? The laws specifically state such information is authorized. Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 02:06:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGF6At00344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:06:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAGF64t00340 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:06:04 +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 KAA05652 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:05:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00749 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:05:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:05:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full > disclosure. I have not seen any suggestion of avoiding full disclosure. The disagreement is about the method by which full disclosure is to be accomplished. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 02:23:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGFMv500393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:22:57 +1100 (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 eAGFMmt00386 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:22:49 +1100 (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 QAA12885; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:20:41 +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 QAA20757; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:22:42 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001116163338.007d0100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:33:38 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) In-Reply-To: <3A13CCE0.1053034@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 13:02 16/11/00 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Tim West-meads wrote: >> >> >> Not at the YC. The eye-rolling would mean "another one of those psyches". >> In a game with real screens (implying high standards of play) I would rate >> pass a clearly losing option. I expect psyches to be much more common >> than system forgets in relatively simple situations. >> >> I could go for a L12c3 ruling of about: >> 85% 4S >> 15% 2H >> > >The situation and the people round the table would indeed >matter when deciding what North should believe. AG : the first thing I would look at, if the standard was sound enough, is the mention on their CC : if psyches were specified as 'very uncommon' (the wording on mine), I would rule there was no psyche ; if they vere specified as 'occasional', it could be enough to make me think otherwise. And at the YC ... 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 Nov 17 02:23:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGFMxm00394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:22:59 +1100 (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 eAGFMmt00385 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 02:22:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive40s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.28]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA12459; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:21:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001a01c04fe1$a1997ac0$1c10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c04b8f$8cfd7040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005d01c04bbd$fce8ef00$525408c3@dodona> <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 10:26:44 -0500 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 That indeed is part of the game. I recently played out a 4-1 major fit in game at green and managed to finagle 7 tricks for a nice swing (yes they could make a vul game). Of course, I had psyched, so I was hoist by my own petard...but wouldn't it have been silly to pick up my toys and go home! I once managed 7 tricks at the table on a 2-1 diamond fit (2N/3d/P...sorry I forgot we were playing transfers!) It was a hollow victory as the scoring was MP, but some day I might need to limit the IMP loss on such a disaster, so it was good experience. We are all used to making the most of what cards we are dealt...we must also make the most of what opportunity the contract presents. That is far from "non=bridge". It is, of course, another reason to eliminate 25B at the earliest possible moment. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > In article <3A0DD7F2.DC1CF3ED@inter.net.il>, Dany Haimovici > writes > >The quoted case is not a case IMHO - 4Sp is the contract and I can > >explain it for 123 reasons . > > > >But I would like to know - from this subject and some other threads : > >Law 16 deals with UI ,MI and any XI - ok -but where in the laws it appears > >that people must play non-bridge contracts , according to the laws. > >I feel that that some people forgot that the Laws are to improve the game > >and redress damage and ...chr chr chr , bla bla bla - and not to enforce the > >players to be in <.cucuricu...> contracts or to play <...> cards..... > > What is a non-bridge contract? In my forty years of playing bridge I > have played a *considerable* number of bridge contracts where the > opponents have more - often considerably more - trumps than I had. It > is part of bridge. It is one of the sad facts about internet bridge > that a number of alleged players like to leave the table and go home for > a cup of coffee when they discover the number of trumps in dummy, > however real players attempt to get more tricks than they should before > the opponents find out. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 03:39:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGGcgq00478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:38:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGGcZt00474 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:38:37 +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 IAA27725; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:38:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200011161638.IAA27725@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 Nov 2000 16:08:32 PST." Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 08:38:28 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > In article <005001c04e70$905b9a80$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French > writes > > > >Craig Senior wrote: > > > >> Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > >> says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit > >> posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to > >> English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks > >> > >Would that be American English or English-English? > > I thought we had agreed that Broken English is the international > language of bridge. I was under the impression that "Broken English" was just a synonym for American English. After all, we've broken all the grammatical rules, we've broken all the pronunication rules, we've broken the spelling rules . . . -- 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 Nov 17 03:41:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGGfhD00494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:41:43 +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 eAGGfbt00490 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 03:41:38 +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 LAA10052 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:41:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00888 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:41:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 11:41:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011161641.LAA00888@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > In the case of > MI resulting from an alert, or a missed alert, perhaps the right thing > to consider is what would have happened if the opponents had full and > complete knowledge of your methods, but there were no such thing as an > alert. This is what David S., Herman, and I have been advocating. > Here this produces the same effect as adjudicating as though > the alert had been given, and 2H had then been passed. Not exactly. It's as David S. said: imagine _North_ had alerted his own 2H bid and explained it, and South passed, but South is on the other side of the screen so West has no idea whether South understood 2H as a transfer or not. Of course North's explanation must include partnership experience. If NS have only just started using transfers in this situation, or if South has frequently forgotten transfers before, that must be considered part of the notional explanation. The same is true if South frequently psyches his 1NT openings. In practice, if NS are an experienced partnership, that experience will almost always enable North to guess correctly what has happened. (The subsequent spade bids from North certainly suggest that _this_ player has guessed correctly.) West is entitled to be in the same happy position. It is still impossible to give a final ruling without knowing West's hand. Was his actual bid irrational, wild, or gambling? Or would his hand cause him to bid anyway, even given correct information? Still, all things considered, 100% of the outcome in 2H seems pretty likely, even if L12C3 might apply (which it doesn't in North America, where the case originated). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 05:21:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGIKV300587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGIKOt00580 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:25 +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 13wQt0-000Cec-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:23:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:52:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >I, and I'm pretty sure Jesper (unless I misunderstood), are of the opinion >that "The actual auction is *always* UI" - regardless of whether you knew ^^ AI >all along, might have been woken by partner's alert/announcement, or are >reminded by partner making an wholly inappropriate remark. In the last >situation we feel no need to adjust on UI grounds because we already have >the power to punish the pair. > >If partner's alert wakes you up to the fact that you have missed an >earlier bid/alert that's just the rub of the green and part of the price >we pay for facilitating disclosure. Obviously no PPs, but no grounds for >UI restrictions either. So you are gaining an advantage at the game because of information gleaned from pd, and you believe that to be legal? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 05:21:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGIKSh00586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGIKIt00578 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:21 +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 13wQt0-000Ced-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:23:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:03:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <+PSFhBBbUsE6Ew3H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: > >> >> To see that think of a screen with the wrong diagonal. N/W are on the >> same side. North bids 2H and writes transfer on a piece of paper: pass, >> pass, what would West do? He would look enquiringly at North, who would >> roll his eyes, and West would smile and pass. > >Not at the YC. The eye-rolling would mean "another one of those psyches". >In a game with real screens (implying high standards of play) I would rate >pass a clearly losing option. I expect psyches to be much more common >than system forgets in relatively simple situations. I did not go into deep analysis of the hand, but made a couple of assumptions you do not seem to have considered. If this is a psyched Strong No-trump, LHO has a weak hand, we have minimum opening bid strength, then what the heck is partner doing? Is he in the loo? Is he in the bar upstairs? Of course the 1NT may be a psyche, but when working out whether to reopen partner's pass over 2H is very interesting. >I could go for a L12c3 ruling of about: >85% 4S >15% 2H I do not think so. Count the points. >However, in normal games are we not meant to consider the situation >"without the infraction"? To me this means considering it as if South >had indeed alerted at the proper moment. Doing otherwise makes it too >obvious that a bidding mix-up may have occurred and I feel this to be too >generous to the NOS (it allows a completely risk free action over 2H). > >The principle I espouse in the first 2 sentences of the above paragraph >seems to be putting me in a minority of one - should it? It is not entirely clear to me what you are saying, but if you mean the exact situation without the infraction so that South cannot both forget and alert then no, I do not think so. You separate the auction from the disclosure methods when adjusting. A good method for adjusting for MI is to consider what would or might have happened if everyone can see their opponents methods on a screen in front of them so the opponents are not involved in the disclosure process. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 07:42:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGKfXB00734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:41:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAGKfQt00730 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:41:27 +1100 (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 PAA28769; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:41:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA020347275; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:41:16 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:41:13 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, willner@cfa.harvard.edu Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wilner wrote: >It is still impossible to give a final ruling without knowing West's >hand. Was his actual bid irrational, wild, or gambling? Or would his >hand cause him to bid anyway, even given correct information? Still, >all things considered, 100% of the outcome in 2H seems pretty likely, >even if L12C3 might apply (which it doesn't in North America, where the >case originated). _______________________________________________________________________ Unfortunatly, I was not the TD when this arrived in my club and I can no more know the exact layout ou E-W hands. The only thing I know is that W had 6 good Ds and did not consider a P on "natural" 2H. Afterwards, E said he could have bid 5D (favorable vul) but IMHO he had all valuable information to do that after N bid 3S or 4S. Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 08:56:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGLuJH00937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:56:19 +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 eAGLuCt00932 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:56:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (ras1-p108.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.108]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA29791 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:56:06 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20001116235310.00839cc0@netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:53:10 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk L64B2 had always seemed straightforward to me - a player is penalized once for revoking in a suit, and not penalized every time he revokes in that suit. Now this from the Red Sea Festival last week: Declarer plays a winning diamond from dummy, discards a spade. Then she plays a small diamond from dummy and trumps in hand. Later, it is found that she has a (losing) diamond in her hand. The first revoke is a _one trick_ revoke. The second revoke is a _two trick_ revoke. According to TFLB there is no penalty for the second subsequent revoke, so only a one trick penalty applies (and of course 64C equity may apply - it didn't in this case). I wonder if this was intentional or if this case was overlooked. It would seem more logical when there are two (or more) revokes in the same suit to apply the larger penalty. 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 Fri Nov 17 09:50:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGMnP501145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:49:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f11.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAGMnJt01140 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:49:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:49:11 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:49:11 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:49:11 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Nov 2000 22:49:11.0682 (UTC) FILETIME=[6FD51E20:01C0501F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >In article , Tim West-meads > writes > >If partner's alert wakes you up to the fact that you have missed an > >earlier bid/alert that's just the rub of the green and part of the price > >we pay for facilitating disclosure. Obviously no PPs, but no grounds for > >UI restrictions either. > > So you are gaining an advantage at the game because of information >gleaned from pd, and you believe that to be legal? I haven't been convinced that having the same information as AI and UI relieves you of UI constraints. The wording of L16 does not support it, though several people have suggested that's the case and have not been called on it. A problem with the situation above is that the player with the UI is the only person who knows for certain that he has any. In a more obvious situation, say my partner signals for a club return by throwing me in with the 2H. While I'm taking my good old time thinking about which club to play, my partner asks, "No clubs partner?" I don't think that playing on clubs is an option if playing any of the other three suits is not patently stupid. And TD should still apply a PP. -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 Nov 17 10:26:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGNQ7501240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:26:07 +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 (oe32.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAGNQ1t01236 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:26:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:25:53 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [38.31.108.212] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.5.32.20001116235310.00839cc0@netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:28:31 -0600 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: 16 Nov 2000 23:25:53.0925 (UTC) FILETIME=[9078BB50:01C05024] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Now let's see here. If the second revoke had not occurred then declarer would have lost that diamond trick. And, any others? One trick transfer for that diamond trick of the second revoke. L64C. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: Eitan Levy To: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke > L64B2 had always seemed straightforward to me - a player is penalized once > for revoking in a suit, and not penalized every time he revokes in that suit. > Now this from the Red Sea Festival last week: > Declarer plays a winning diamond from dummy, discards a spade. > Then she plays a small diamond from dummy and trumps in hand. > Later, it is found that she has a (losing) diamond in her hand. > The first revoke is a _one trick_ revoke. > The second revoke is a _two trick_ revoke. > According to TFLB there is no penalty for the second subsequent revoke, so > only a one trick penalty applies (and of course 64C equity may apply - it > didn't in this case). > I wonder if this was intentional or if this case was overlooked. It would > seem more logical when there are two (or more) revokes in the same suit to > apply the larger penalty. > > 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 Fri Nov 17 11:30:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH0TJO01338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:29:19 +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 eAH0TCt01334 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:29:13 +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 QAA06438; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:29:04 -0800 Message-Id: <200011170029.QAA06438@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "blml" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Nov 2000 17:28:31 PST." Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:29:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > Now let's see here. If the second revoke had not occurred then declarer > would have lost that diamond trick. And, any others? One trick transfer > for that diamond trick of the second revoke. L64C. Well, that's not necessarily correct. There's no way to tell without seeing the hands and knowing how the play actually went. If the second revoke had not occurred, declarer would have lost the diamond trick, true---but what happened to the losing diamond she had in her hand? Did she end up losing that trick? If so, it's a wash, perhaps, and L64C may not be applicable. I think the basic idea is correct, though. L64C applies if the opponents were damaged by the infraction, and the Code of Practice defines "damage" like this: Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. Here, the second revoke is a separate infraction, and we have to determine what would have been the opponents' expectation just before the second revoke. Since the first revoke is already in the books, the opponents already have a one-trick penalty coming to them---and this one trick is part of the "expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." Therefore, *if* the second revoke results in an extra trick going declarer's way (independent of anything that resulted from the first revoke), then the opponents get that trick back. But we have to determine if that *if* is true, and we can't do that without complete information. -- 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 Nov 17 11:36:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH0acK01363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:36:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f103.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.103]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH0aXt01359 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:36:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:36:25 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.28 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:36:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.28] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:36:25 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2000 00:36:25.0460 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AA9BB40:01C0502E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If the first revoke had not occurred, declarer may or may not have lost a spade trick, but could still follow up the next trick with a non-revoking diamond ruff. The diamond ruff caused no damage that wasn't already inflicted by the first revoke. -Todd >From: "Roger Pewick" > >Now let's see here. If the second revoke had not occurred then declarer >would have lost that diamond trick. And, any others? One trick transfer >for that diamond trick of the second revoke. L64C. > >Roger Pewick >Houston, Texas > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eitan Levy >To: >Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 3:53 PM >Subject: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke > > > > L64B2 had always seemed straightforward to me - a player is penalized >once > > for revoking in a suit, and not penalized every time he revokes in that >suit. > > Now this from the Red Sea Festival last week: > > Declarer plays a winning diamond from dummy, discards a spade. > > Then she plays a small diamond from dummy and trumps in hand. > > Later, it is found that she has a (losing) diamond in her hand. > > The first revoke is a _one trick_ revoke. > > The second revoke is a _two trick_ revoke. > > According to TFLB there is no penalty for the second subsequent revoke, >so > > only a one trick penalty applies (and of course 64C equity may apply - >it > > didn't in this case). > > I wonder if this was intentional or if this case was overlooked. It >would > > seem more logical when there are two (or more) revokes in the same suit >to > > apply the larger penalty. > > > > Eitan Levy _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.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 Nov 17 11:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH0sPq01421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:54:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAH0sIt01416 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:54:20 +1100 (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 13wZn9-0003Mr-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:54:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:40:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011161505.KAA00749@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 <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full >> disclosure. > >I have not seen any suggestion of avoiding full disclosure. The >disagreement is about the method by which full disclosure is to be >accomplished. Oh no, it's not. When I ask a question about what oppos are playing, the chance of the answer being there in full on a CC is in the region of 5%. People who direct you to their CC when they do not wish to answer are trying to avoid full disclosure *and* reduce UI. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Quango got 16 emails for his birthday - and he is a bit stroppy about it! However, he would like to thank those that sent one. Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 13:10:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH29Zf01642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:09:35 +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 eAH29Rt01637 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:09:28 +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 SAA08691; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:09:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200011170209.SAA08691@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 16 Nov 2000 16:36:25 PST." Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:09:22 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > If the first revoke had not occurred, declarer may or may not have > lost a spade trick, but could still follow up the next trick with a > non-revoking diamond ruff. The diamond ruff caused no damage that > wasn't already inflicted by the first revoke. I don't think this is right. To determine "damage", according to the WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, "damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction." This definition is not affected by any "damage" caused by previous infractions. This is hard to discuss without an example hand, so I'll invent one. 73 Q642 AK6 A543 8652 AKJ53 52 K6 South plays 4H. The defense starts with three rounds of spades, dummy ruffing the third round. Declarer cashes the A-Q of hearts, trumps splitting 2-2. Declarer now cashes the ace of diamonds, playing low from hand; next, he cashes the king of diamonds, pitching a spade (the first revoke). The hands are now: -- 6 6 A543 -- KJ5 5 K6 Declarer leads the last diamond from dummy, and East follows with the jack. At that point, the defense's expectation is that they will get 4 tricks: the two spade tricks, the diamond they're about to win, and the 1-trick penalty from the earlier revoke. However, declarer ruffs the diamond in hand (the second revoke). Eventually, he takes the rest of the tricks on a crossruff, with the 5 of diamonds being ruffed in dummy. Since there is no penalty for the second revoke, the defense winds up with 3 tricks: the two spade tricks and the 1-trick penalty from the first revoke. Since, due to the second revoke, the opponents received fewer tricks than their expectation "in the instant prior to the" second revoke, there was damage. L64C kicks in, and 1 trick goes back to the opponents. It's scored as 4H down 1. This is a straightforward reading of the Laws and CoP, and I don't see how one can interpret it to arrive at any other result without twisting the wording badly out of shape. (On the other hand, had North's hand been 73 Q642 AK63 A43 originally, the defense would inevitably get their diamond anyway, and there wouldn't be any damage.) -- 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 Nov 17 15:09:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH48aw02124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:08:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe32.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH48Ut02120 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:08:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 20:08:22 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [38.27.213.36] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200011170029.QAA06438@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:10:51 -0600 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 Nov 2000 04:08:22.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[06C7FC40:01C0504C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: blml Cc: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke > > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > Now let's see here. If the second revoke had not occurred then declarer > > would have lost that diamond trick. And, any others? One trick transfer > > for that diamond trick of the second revoke. L64C. > > Well, that's not necessarily correct. There's no way to tell without > seeing the hands and knowing how the play actually went. If the > second revoke had not occurred, declarer would have lost the diamond > trick, true---but what happened to the losing diamond she had in her > hand? Did she end up losing that trick? If so, it's a wash, perhaps, > and L64C may not be applicable. > > I think the basic idea is correct, though. L64C applies if the > opponents were damaged by the infraction, and the Code of Practice > defines "damage" like this: > > Damage exists when, in consequence of the infraction, an innocent > side obtains a table result less favourable than would have been > the expectation in the instant prior to the infraction. > > Here, the second revoke is a separate infraction, and we have to > determine what would have been the opponents' expectation just before > the second revoke. Since the first revoke is already in the books, > the opponents already have a one-trick penalty coming to them---and > this one trick is part of the "expectation in the instant prior to the > infraction." Therefore, *if* the second revoke results in an extra > trick going declarer's way (independent of anything that resulted from > the first revoke), then the opponents get that trick back. > > But we have to determine if that *if* is true, and we can't do that > without complete information. > > -- Adam At the time of the second revoke it was dummy who led a diamond and declarer who had a losing diamond to play so the equity of the hand is at least that diamond trick. but hold it--- "(and of course 64C equity may apply - it didn't in this case)." If this assertion is correct then that diamond trick would have displaced some other trick. Mea culpa in ignoring this important item. Roger Pewick Houston, Texas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 15:50:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH4o7E02251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:50:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH4nvt02247 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:49:58 +1100 (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 XAA01392 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:53:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 23:53:44 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 16 November 2000 at 18:40, David Stevenson wrote: >In article <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: David Stevenson >>> Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full >>> disclosure. >> >>I have not seen any suggestion of avoiding full disclosure. The >>disagreement is about the method by which full disclosure is to be >>accomplished. > > Oh no, it's not. When I ask a question about what oppos are playing, >the chance of the answer being there in full on a CC is in the region of >5%. > Well, maybe you. But the number of times I get "weak?" to a 2 bid, or "carding?" when it's clearly on the card, or "is that a transfer?" when we alert 2D GF-Stayman... You have stated repeatedly here that your right to an answer in the style you prefer takes precedence over my right to answer in the style I prefer (assuming a full and complete answer in both cases). Cite, please? And doesn't that lead to a severe disadvantage for you in top-level competition, behind screens, where you can't get your oral answer? > People who direct you to their CC when they do not wish to answer are >trying to avoid full disclosure *and* reduce UI. > I've been trying to reply politely to your previous messages. I couldn't get a message written, for many reasons. However, this, from you, just caused me to lose it. You have just made a personal attack on my ethics. You may not have meant it, but I am one of the strong proponents of "check the CC" if I believe it's complete, and ask if there's more information required - and if you've followed this thread, you know that. And you have said this in that knowledge. If you don't understand this, how would you react if, knowing your beliefs you have stated here on this topic, I said: "People who ask for information clearly available on the CC are trying to ensure that partner is aware of the meaning of their next call, trying to ensure that we cannot recover from a misunderstanding by producing UI *and* trying to get the information they require." I believe that, in many cases, the first reason is exactly why I am asked "weak?" after my 2H opener, and the second is why I am asked "what is 2H?" after 1NT(12-14) p 2H (unalerted) p p. But notice I say "many". Not "all", not "most", even. You are well known for not liking personal attacks on yourself, therefore, I am more annoyed at this than if it had come from someone else. *If* the complete information is avaiable on the card, I will direct you to it, politlely. Especially if it's my carding, full disclosure on which will take the better part of a minute - and will likely throw you (because we have different agreements vs. NT and vs. suits, and if I tell you about both, it will take longer, and if I tell you about our agreements against this contract, you may assume it applies to the other). *If* the information is not completely available on the card - I will tell you. If I feel that you are forcing a verbal answer to a question that is completely written on my CC, I will report the matter to the Recorder or equivalent, to help gether evidence in case the reason you insist on verbal answers is in order to cause UI. I will insist on it if you require a verbal answer to a question completely answered on my CC, then call the director in a L16 situation caused solely by the UI from the verbal answer. The Laws require a full and complete answer. They do not require a verbal answer. Until they do, I'm completely within my rights to not provide one to anyone who can read the written full and complete answer. What if I wrote my answer, as if we were behind screens? If you don't believe me, that's fine by me. Assume I, and those that believe the same as I, are liars attempting to avoid the primary spirit of the game. But my opinion of you will reflect this. Oh, and apologize to Quango for me. I completely forgot, what with 11/11 being a special day and all. Wish him a belated happy birthday, please. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 16:48:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH5li602428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:47:44 +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 eAH5lbt02424 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:47:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19956 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:41:58 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:44:27 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:53 PM -0500 11/16/00, Michael Farebrother wrote: [snip many good words I wish I'd written. :-)] >You have just made a personal attack on my ethics. You may not have >meant it, but I am one of the strong proponents of "check the CC" Thank you, sir. I'm glad to see I'm not alone. >Oh, and apologize to Quango for me. I completely forgot, what with >11/11 being a special day and all. Wish him a belated happy birthday, >please. Megadittos. :-) 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/AwUBOhTGWL2UW3au93vOEQJbdQCfe+2RNULujg2xrbgO0Eva2xenYPAAoPvy 7Dx6ro8z8tDqmzvz9I5iM2pH =BJhg -----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 Nov 17 19:06:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH85M102719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:05:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH85At02710 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:05:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wgWB-0005kP-00; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:05:07 +0000 Message-ID: <003c01c0506d$2507cf20$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 07:51:33 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 8:41 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) > Wilner wrote: > > >It is still impossible to give a final ruling without knowing West's > >hand. Was his actual bid irrational, wild, or gambling? Or would his > >hand cause him to bid anyway, even given correct information? Still, > >all things considered, 100% of the outcome in 2H seems pretty likely, > >even if L12C3 might apply (which it doesn't in North America, where the > >case originated). > ____________________________________________________________________ ___ > > Unfortunatly, I was not the TD when this arrived in my club and I can > no more know the exact layout ou E-W hands. The only thing I know is > that W had 6 good Ds and did not consider a P on "natural" 2H. > Afterwards, E said he could have bid 5D (favorable vul) but IMHO > he had all valuable information to do that after N bid 3S or 4S. > > Laval Du Breuil > > -- +=+ I take it no-one knows now whether North told opponents before the opening lead that South had failed to alert his 2H? ~ 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 Nov 17 19:06:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH85M302718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:05:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH85Ct02711 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:05:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.106] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wgWC-0005kP-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:05:08 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c0506d$25e20280$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:04:34 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:40 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? ------------------------\x/-------------------. > > Oh no, it's not. When I ask a question about > what oppos are playing, the chance of the answer > being there in full on a CC is in the region of 5%. > > People who direct you to their CC when they do > not wish to answer are trying to avoid full > disclosure *and* reduce UI. > +=+ A sweeping statement. If the information is on the card it is not necessarily true. Take for example OB 3.3.5: "When you know your partner's call is alertable but cannot remember its meaning, you should alert. If asked for its meaning and it is likely to be on the convention card then you may refer your opponents to your convention card." I wonder too whether it Is not also correct procedure to do so if you are uncertain about a call not alerted and you are asked? ~ 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 Nov 17 19:27:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH8REx02789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:27:14 +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 eAH8R8t02785 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:27:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.161] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wgrQ-00063b-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:27:04 +0000 Message-ID: <004601c05070$36200040$6a5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:25:38 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Farebrother To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 4:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > > > "People who ask for information clearly available on the CC are trying > to ensure that partner is aware of the meaning of their next call, > +=+ I doubt if this would be avoided by referring the opponent to the CC. Other possible consequences you say you are seeking to avoid may be present again if a supplementary question is asked. I agree the law is not specific about the manner of responding to a question, other than to require that an explanation is 'full'. CCs rarely give more than the simple meaning of a call without extension. I wonder how many regulators specify the manner in which an explanation shall be given? Do your regulations specify how an explanation shall be given? ~ 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 Nov 17 19:50:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH8msJ02850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:48:54 +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 eAH8mkt02846 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:48:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA03144 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:48:42 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 17 09:50:58 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 <01JWN4Z5MY24000FWB@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:48:10 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:44:29 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:48:08 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner To: "'jens@alesia.dk'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@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 (13 Nov 2000,): > > > Didn't we discuss this before? > > I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't look > in to. Try > > to create more attractive invitations. > > I will. I guess I will try to single out a few that I find > especially > interesting, and serve them up one at a time. Here comes the first. > > The TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the > play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that > there is an irregularity. No player notices. > > My general knowledge of TD behavior tells me that the TD should > shut up and wait until someone (hopefully a player!) calls attention > to the irregularity. But the letter of law 86C6 really seems to > indicate that the TD should intervene immediately. > Let me tell you my general approach. Which in my opinion could be the approach the laws ask for. If there is a general agreement we could try to take your cases and see whether it works. Here it is: bridge should be played according to the laws. And nobody should benefit from deviations, when the TD is not called. It might be necessary to express this basic element more explicitly in the laws. Law 11A does touch the subject, but is very specific and never happens. So the result in a contract should not be improved by an extra trick due to a revoke. When in your new example, the lead out of turn, things go normal without a TD being called there is no reason to interfer. But if declarer now demands a lead in that suit and RHO is not told to take his premature lead back, there is reason to interfer when the TD is at the table. In which case I am not going to give declarer all his options. He wants that lead so he gets it, but RHO is told to take his card back. One of your examples for sure is the insufficient bid ( how else to get to 125?). If the players are able to handle it, why not? But I know that most of the time they are not and then I interfer. 'You must make your call sufficient' or 'you both have to pass now' are normal deviations in my country. What if this is told after the game, the non-offenders having gained by solving the problem themselves. In the past I was taught not to do anything anymore. 'If you want to solve this yourself, the consequences are yours'. Or 'you should have called me in time, I can't do anything now'. That is not the right approach in my opinion. It is acceptable for the offenders, but if the non-offenders gained by their 'ruling', that advantage should be taken away. Splitscore so. This subject is important and we should discuss it when doing the job for a new version of the laws. So I would like to get your reactions. 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 Nov 17 19:55:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAH8tDp02886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:55:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAH8t5t02879 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:55:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA02475 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:55:02 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 17 09:57:21 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 <01JWN56RZQ9I000FWV@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:54:19 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:50:37 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 09:54:16 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner To: "'Todd Zimnoch'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@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 TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the > >play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that > >there is an irregularity. No player notices. > > > >My general knowledge of TD behavior tells me that the TD should > >shut up and wait until someone (hopefully a player!) calls attention > >to the irregularity. But the letter of law 86C6 really seems to > >indicate that the TD should intervene immediately. > > > > My answer is: Yes the TD should > My answer is: it depends. The laws allow supposed declarer to accept this lead and to continue play, for example by putting his cards on the table. Why interfer then? BUT .... For a more general answer see my other message (which is a personal opinion, since there has not been a discussion with members of the LC about 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 Fri Nov 17 21:59:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHAw7T03277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:58:07 +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 eAHAvtt03264 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA18829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: > From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Nov 16 18:23:59 2000 > Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) > by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA26230 > for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 18:23:56 GMT > X-Envelope-From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Received: (from majordomo@localhost) > by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAGIKV300587 > for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:31 +1100 (EST) > X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to > owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f > Received: from 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 eAGIKOt00580 > for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 05:20:25 +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 13wQt0-000Cec-0V > for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:23:38 +0000 > Message-ID: > Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:52:29 +0000 > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > From: David Stevenson > Reply-To: David Stevenson > Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > 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 > Apparently-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk > > In article , Tim West-meads > writes > > >I, and I'm pretty sure Jesper (unless I misunderstood), are of the > opinion >that "The actual auction is *always* UI" - regardless of ^^ AI Ahem. Yes, indeed. I wish to change that to AI under L25b:-) > >If partner's alert wakes you up to the fact that you have missed an > >earlier bid/alert that's just the rub of the green and part of the > price >we pay for facilitating disclosure. Obviously no PPs, but no > grounds for >UI restrictions either. > > So you are gaining an advantage at the game because of information > gleaned from pd, and you believe that to be legal? Yes, and yes. Actually it's probably minimising a disadvantage rather then gaining an advantage. I think it's undesirable, but I can't see a way to structure the game to avoid it. IMO it would be worse to allow the real auction (and meanings of opponents bids) to be deemed UI - it would also be in direct conflict with the right granted in L16 to base one's actions on the auction. If it cannot legally be UI then it must be AI - I suppose we could rule the hand unplayable (but that would probably work to the "OS" advantage) or issue a PP for inattention (seems extreme). Thankfully it should be a fairly rare occurrence. 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 Nov 17 21:59:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHAwFT03279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:58:15 +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 eAHAvtt03265 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA18864 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57:47 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) 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 > > I did not go into deep analysis of the hand, but made a couple of > assumptions you do not seem to have considered. If this is a psyched > Strong No-trump, LHO has a weak hand, we have minimum opening bid > strength, then what the heck is partner doing? Is he in the loo? Is he > in the bar upstairs? Partner is passing the "forcing" transfer bid of 2H because your system does not cover his holding and he feels no immediate need to act. > Of course the 1NT may be a psyche, but when working out whether to > reopen partner's pass over 2H is very interesting. > It is not entirely clear to me what you are saying, but if you mean > the exact situation without the infraction so that South cannot both > forget and alert then no, I do not think so. Not quite, but close enough that your next paragraph covers it. > You separate the auction > from the disclosure methods when adjusting. A good method for adjusting > for MI is to consider what would or might have happened if everyone can > see their opponents methods on a screen in front of them so the > opponents are not involved in the disclosure process. Fair enough, I had not previously seen this guidance but it seems a reasonable approach. Based on the above my ruling would vary considerably depending on the players involved - I would often want to use L12c3. If I was West and J.Probst was South I guarantee you I would play for the psyche in the above scenario (and be right 9 times out of 10). 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 Nov 17 21:59:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHAw8u03278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:58:08 +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 eAHAvut03266 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 21:57:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA18881 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57:48 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 10:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: > Good reasons? Oh, yeah! > > Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full > disclosure. I do not like that, and I am surprised if you do. No-one on this list would condone such behaviour and I find it rather sickening that you would suggest such motives. > My guess is that you have been seduced into the tempting by-ways. Of > course if a player does not know the answer and is trying to be helpful > by pointing to his CC I have no problem with that. If he has a > disability of some kind, no problem. But I object to people refusing to > answer for other reasons. They are deliberately defying the rules of > the game for personal gain - I just hope it is not knowledgeably as > well. Referring a questioner, in the first instance, to a CC is in no way a refusal to answer the question. Players have every right(some would say duty) to try to minimise the making available of UI. Your refusal to consult a CC (and ask any follow-ups you feel necessary) after a polite request beggars belief. BTW as a point of general principle should your CC reflect your "first verbal answer" and vice versa. 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 Nov 17 23:05:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHC4iu03556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:04:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.201]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHC4Xt03552 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:04:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from np93je ([194.65.233.84]) by fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001117120929.EFFT27787.fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt@np93je>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:09:29 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:03:27 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ton. I agree with your approach, which is basically the same that I follow and try to make others follow. If there is a side that mistakenly or deliberately puts him(her)self in a position that enables him(her) to take some advantage from the situation, rectify the situation and/or remove that advantage Rui Marques ---- This subject is important and we should discuss it when doing the job for a new version of the laws. So I would like to get your reactions. 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 Nov 17 23:05:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHC4Qk03551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:04:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.201]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHC4Ht03545 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:04:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from np93je ([194.65.233.84]) by fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001117120911.EFDE27787.fep02-svc.mail.telepac.pt@np93je>; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:09:11 +0000 From: "Rui Marques" To: "Kooijman, A." , Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:03:12 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ton. I agree with your appr -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Kooijman, A. Sent: sexta-feira, 17 de Novembro de 2000 8:48 To: 'jens@alesia.dk'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner > > ton kooijman wrote (13 Nov 2000,): > > > Didn't we discuss this before? > > I am not talking about your 125 cases, which I didn't look > in to. Try > > to create more attractive invitations. > > I will. I guess I will try to single out a few that I find > especially > interesting, and serve them up one at a time. Here comes the first. > > The TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the > play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that > there is an irregularity. No player notices. > > My general knowledge of TD behavior tells me that the TD should > shut up and wait until someone (hopefully a player!) calls attention > to the irregularity. But the letter of law 86C6 really seems to > indicate that the TD should intervene immediately. > Let me tell you my general approach. Which in my opinion could be the approach the laws ask for. If there is a general agreement we could try to take your cases and see whether it works. Here it is: bridge should be played according to the laws. And nobody should benefit from deviations, when the TD is not called. It might be necessary to express this basic element more explicitly in the laws. Law 11A does touch the subject, but is very specific and never happens. So the result in a contract should not be improved by an extra trick due to a revoke. When in your new example, the lead out of turn, things go normal without a TD being called there is no reason to interfer. But if declarer now demands a lead in that suit and RHO is not told to take his premature lead back, there is reason to interfer when the TD is at the table. In which case I am not going to give declarer all his options. He wants that lead so he gets it, but RHO is told to take his card back. One of your examples for sure is the insufficient bid ( how else to get to 125?). If the players are able to handle it, why not? But I know that most of the time they are not and then I interfer. 'You must make your call sufficient' or 'you both have to pass now' are normal deviations in my country. What if this is told after the game, the non-offenders having gained by solving the problem themselves. In the past I was taught not to do anything anymore. 'If you want to solve this yourself, the consequences are yours'. Or 'you should have called me in time, I can't do anything now'. That is not the right approach in my opinion. It is acceptable for the offenders, but if the non-offenders gained by their 'ruling', that advantage should be taken away. Splitscore so. This subject is important and we should discuss it when doing the job for a new version of the laws. So I would like to get your reactions. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 17 23:34:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHCYIK03652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:34:18 +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 eAHCYBt03647 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:34:12 +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 NAA00575; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:32:02 +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 NAA15263; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:34:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:45:00 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> 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 eAHCYFt03649 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:54 17/11/00 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > > > >My answer is: it depends. >The laws allow supposed declarer to accept this lead and to continue play, >for example by putting his cards on the table. Why interfer then? BUT .... AG : I'm with you. If we want to break down the situation, we should remember that putting one's cards on the table without a flicker after a LOOT is not at all incorrect (it is even clearly allowed by L54A) and that if the former-would-be-declarer does so, the LOOT is accepted (which is of course one of the legal options). So, the scene goes : a) LOOT b) inferentially, but legally, accepted by the person who had to decide, according to L10C2. c) the penalty has now been paid, L72A5 is now on d) L72A3 does not apply, because the NOS did apply one of their legal options after the irregularity. Nor does L10B. e) one should suppose that the former-would-be-declarer has chosen what was advantageous to him (L72B4), which means the OS have already paid for the penalty for their error. f) Thus, if the TD steps in now, he is going beyond his rôle. That's what L12C says. *but* this is a special case. In most of the cases, the NOS is not given the choice of not reacting. In all those cases, if they neglect to react, the TD could, and often should, step in, according to L10B. Another case where he should not is the insufficient bid, inferentially accepted by the next player. Playing against well-aware opponents, after the bidding goes 1C-1S-1D, I consider it WOBAT to summon the TD, let him explain the whole thing, and then bid 1H and unsummon him, as I could as well bid 1H directly. Alain. >For a more general answer see my other message (which is a personal opinion, >since there has not been a discussion with members of the LC about 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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 02:16:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHFFiP04130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:15:44 +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 eAHFFZt04122 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:15:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-145.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.145]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14415 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:15:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A152117.323633CF@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:14:15 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: > > > I haven't been convinced that having the same information as AI and > UI relieves you of UI constraints. The wording of L16 does not support > it, though several people have suggested that's the case and have not > been called on it. A problem with the situation above is that the > player with the UI is the only person who knows for certain that he has > any. > Well Todd, you are mistaken. Indeed the wording of L16 does not say this, and perhaps it should, but everyone applies it as such. In every hand you play and do not solely pass (and even in some of those), you receive UI from partner (except behind screens). Every one of your calls is either alerted or not. That is UI. Yet no-one ever calls the TD on that, and when they do, the TD would shrug and say "play on please and don't be stupid". So this principle is clearly understood and accepted. Which does not mean that in your example below : > In a more obvious situation, say my partner signals for a club > return by throwing me in with the 2H. While I'm taking my good old time > thinking about which club to play, my partner asks, "No clubs partner?" > I don't think that playing on clubs is an option if playing any of the > other three suits is not patently stupid. And TD should still apply a > PP. > There is no UI. Of course there is UI. There is also AI, and it covers almost the same area. But not quite. The AI available was "I prefer a club return to diamonds - or I may have none but the singleton 2" The UI is "I really would like a club return". Subtract the first from the second and you are left with a huge piece of UI, which does restrict your options by L16. So please Todd, accept the premise as stated. -- 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 Nov 18 02:16:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHFFjU04131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:15:45 +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 eAHFFat04123 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:15:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-145.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.145]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14450 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:15:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A152408.3E38FE23@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 13:26:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke References: <200011170209.SAA08691@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was lucky to first read Adam's analysis because it is brilliant : Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > This is hard to discuss without an example hand, so I'll invent one. > > 73 > Q642 > AK6 > A543 > > 8652 > AKJ53 > 52 > K6 > > South plays 4H. The defense starts with three rounds of spades, dummy > ruffing the third round. Declarer cashes the A-Q of hearts, trumps > splitting 2-2. > > Declarer now cashes the ace of diamonds, playing low from hand; next, > he cashes the king of diamonds, pitching a spade (the first revoke). > The hands are now: > > -- > 6 > 6 > A543 > > -- > KJ5 > 5 > K6 > > Declarer leads the last diamond from dummy, and East follows with the > jack. At that point, the defense's expectation is that they will get > 4 tricks: the two spade tricks, the diamond they're about to win, and > the 1-trick penalty from the earlier revoke. > > However, declarer ruffs the diamond in hand (the second revoke). > Eventually, he takes the rest of the tricks on a crossruff, with the 5 > of diamonds being ruffed in dummy. > > Since there is no penalty for the second revoke, the defense winds up > with 3 tricks: the two spade tricks and the 1-trick penalty from the > first revoke. > > Since, due to the second revoke, the opponents received fewer tricks > than their expectation "in the instant prior to the" second revoke, > there was damage. L64C kicks in, and 1 trick goes back to the > opponents. It's scored as 4H down 1. > > This is a straightforward reading of the Laws and CoP, and I don't see > how one can interpret it to arrive at any other result without > twisting the wording badly out of shape. > The principle that "equity" be viewed as after the first infraction is not universally shared, but it should be. I for one would hope that the powers that be would confirm that Adam's analysis is correct and that this is the way it should be. No penalty for the second revoke, but L64C and equity at the moment just prior to that second revoke. -- 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 Nov 18 03:47:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHGk5V04404 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:46:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-he.global.net.uk (cobalt5-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHGjrt04399 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 03:45:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5es01a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.81.95] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13wQma-0000UB-00; Thu, 16 Nov 2000 15:17:00 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c050b5$c2cb9b40$5f5193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Todd Zimnoch'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:44:14 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: Kooijman, A. To: 'Todd Zimnoch' ; Sent: 17 November 2000 08:54 Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > > > > My answer is: it depends. > The laws allow supposed declarer to accept > this lead and to continue play, for example by > putting his cards on the table. Why interfere > then? BUT .... > > For a more general answer see my other > message (which is a personal opinion, > since there has not been a discussion with > members of the LC about this). > +=+ As far as I have understood your two posts within minutes of each other this morning, I think we are largely in agreement. I believe the Law requires the Director to *rectify* an irregularity of which he has knowledge. Something reported to him extraneously is an allegation that requires corroboration before it becomes knowledge, and I do not think it is the business of someone to report what he has observed as a spectator. (The law does not specify that it restricts only intervention at the table - the words are "may not call attention to any irregularity or mistake" and this extends without limitation, in my opinion. It is not a spectators role to rush off to the TD and tell him what he has seen, unless he is asked. It is, I think, somewhere in this area that we may have differing views. However difficult it may be in operation I think the WBF regulation is aimed in the right direction and difficulty of implementation is not a reason for failing to set out and make their responsibilities known to spectators.) However, spectators do busybody themselves and the Director is required to rectify an irregularity if it comes to his attention. Rectification is a limited requirement it does not suggest a duty to impose penalties. I think the TD is wise if he gives things time to happen before he rushes to the table and jumps in with both feet. In the case of a revoke it is desirable he investigates after the expiry of the limits set in 64B4&5. I believe a TD should be responsive to irregularities, not pro-active in discovering them. In the broad my view is that a spectator is a guest, privileged to observe but not to intervene. This includes spectators in the viewgraph room and on the internet. The hospitality should not be abused, but if a guest - through ignorance or otherwise - does interfere in what is not his business, the Director is obliged to look into any possible irregularity. As regards the WBF regulation I feel there is a grey area: it makes a distinction between participants and non-participants; the former would seem to cover officials and team members, representatives, journalists and the like are clearly spectators. Where do we place viewgraph commentators? ~ 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 Nov 18 04:12:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHHC9x04505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:12:09 +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 eAHHBlt04485 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:11:48 +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 13wp34-0008Oo-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:51:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003d01c0506d$25e20280$6a5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003d01c0506d$25e20280$6a5408c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <003d01c0506d$25e20280$6a5408c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"They have mouths but they speak not; eyes >have they but they see not. They have ears >but they hear not; noses have they but they >smell not." - Psalm 115. > = <.>= >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 6:40 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? >------------------------\x/-------------------. >> >> Oh no, it's not. When I ask a question about >> what oppos are playing, the chance of the answer >> being there in full on a CC is in the region of 5%. >> >> People who direct you to their CC when they do >> not wish to answer are trying to avoid full >> disclosure *and* reduce UI. >> >+=+ A sweeping statement. If the information >is on the card it is not necessarily true. Take >for example OB 3.3.5: "When you know your >partner's call is alertable but cannot remember >its meaning, you should alert. If asked for its >meaning and it is likely to be on the convention >card then you may refer your opponents to >your convention card." I wonder too whether it >Is not also correct procedure to do so if you >are uncertain about a call not alerted and >you are asked? I am quite happy with a person who obviously does not know the answer and directs his oppos to the CC - I have said this but failed to repeat it here. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 04:12:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHHC3H04502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:12:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHHBlt04482 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:11:48 +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 13wp34-0008On-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:51:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >At 11:53 PM -0500 11/16/00, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >[snip many good words I wish I'd written. :-)] > >>You have just made a personal attack on my ethics. You may not have >>meant it, but I am one of the strong proponents of "check the CC" > >Thank you, sir. I'm glad to see I'm not alone. I have attacked no-one's ethics because I am not suggesting anyone is doing anything wrong knowledgeably. However, I do think this approach is wrong. >>Oh, and apologize to Quango for me. I completely forgot, what with >>11/11 being a special day and all. Wish him a belated happy birthday, >>please. > >Megadittos. :-) He is very grumpy! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 04:12:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHHC5P04503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHHBlt04484 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:11:48 +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 13wp34-0008Ok-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:43:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@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 <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes >One of your examples for sure is the insufficient bid ( how else to get to >125?). If the players are able to handle it, why not? But I know that most >of the time they are not and then I interfer. 'You must make your call >sufficient' or 'you both have to pass now' are normal deviations in my >country. > >What if this is told after the game, the non-offenders having gained by >solving the problem themselves. In the past I was taught not to do anything >anymore. 'If you want to solve this yourself, the consequences are yours'. >Or 'you should have called me in time, I can't do anything now'. >That is not the right approach in my opinion. It is acceptable for the >offenders, but if the non-offenders gained by their 'ruling', that advantage >should be taken away. Splitscore so. That seems a good approach, but ... >This subject is important and we should discuss it when doing the job for a >new version of the laws. So I would like to get your reactions. ... whether it is in accord with our current Laws I doubt. But I would be happy to see it explicitly in a new Law book. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 04:12:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHHCBM04506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:12:11 +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 eAHHBlt04486 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:11:48 +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 13wp34-0008Om-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:51:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael Farebrother writes >On 16 November 2000 at 18:40, David Stevenson wrote: >>In article <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner >> writes >>>> From: David Stevenson >>>> Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full >>>> disclosure. >>> >>>I have not seen any suggestion of avoiding full disclosure. The >>>disagreement is about the method by which full disclosure is to be >>>accomplished. >> >> Oh no, it's not. When I ask a question about what oppos are playing, >>the chance of the answer being there in full on a CC is in the region of >>5%. >> >Well, maybe you. But the number of times I get "weak?" to a 2 bid, or >"carding?" when it's clearly on the card, or "is that a transfer?" when >we alert 2D GF-Stayman... If people ask the wrong questions then it is more reasonable to be a little chary in your responses. And if you think the question is asked for other reasons then call the TD. But if I want to know what 2D means in response to 1NT I shall ask, either at the end of the auction, or if I absolutely have to, during the auction. Why should I not receive a reply? >You have stated repeatedly here that your right to an answer in the >style you prefer takes precedence over my right to answer in the style I >prefer (assuming a full and complete answer in both cases). Cite, >please? And doesn't that lead to a severe disadvantage for you in >top-level competition, behind screens, where you can't get your oral >answer? Not at all. A written answer is usually far better than a CC answer. >> People who direct you to their CC when they do not wish to answer are >>trying to avoid full disclosure *and* reduce UI. >> >I've been trying to reply politely to your previous messages. I >couldn't get a message written, for many reasons. However, this, from >you, just caused me to lose it. > >You have just made a personal attack on my ethics. You may not have >meant it, but I am one of the strong proponents of "check the CC" if >I believe it's complete, and ask if there's more information required - >and if you've followed this thread, you know that. And you have said >this in that knowledge. I am not attacking your ethics because [a] I express opinions about methods generally not specifically and [b] you are only unethical if you are doing something you know to be wrong and I am not suggesting that. After all, we are arguing about whether it is wrong. >If you don't understand this, how would you react if, knowing your >beliefs you have stated here on this topic, I said: > >"People who ask for information clearly available on the CC are trying >to ensure that partner is aware of the meaning of their next call, >trying to ensure that we cannot recover from a misunderstanding by >producing UI *and* trying to get the information they require." I would call the TD, naturally. What would you expect me to do? Since when have the answers to my questions been clearly on the CC? >I believe that, in many cases, the first reason is exactly why I am >asked "weak?" after my 2H opener, and the second is why I am asked "what >is 2H?" after 1NT(12-14) p 2H (unalerted) p p. But notice I say "many". >Not "all", not "most", even. Fine. What about your opponents who need to know for themselves? They are the ones I am worrying about. >You are well known for not liking personal attacks on yourself, >therefore, I am more annoyed at this than if it had come from >someone else. > >*If* the complete information is avaiable on the card, I will direct you >to it, politlely. Especially if it's my carding, full disclosure on >which will take the better part of a minute - and will likely throw >you (because we have different agreements vs. NT and vs. suits, and if >I tell you about both, it will take longer, and if I tell you about >our agreements against this contract, you may assume it applies to the >other). If you direct me to it politely, I shall probably [depending on the situation] ask you, politely, to tell me. >*If* the information is not completely available on the card - I >will tell you. > >If I feel that you are forcing a verbal answer to a question that is >completely written on my CC, I will report the matter to the Recorder >or equivalent, to help gether evidence in case the reason you insist >on verbal answers is in order to cause UI. I will insist on it if you >require a verbal answer to a question completely answered on my CC, then >call the director in a L16 situation caused solely by the UI from the >verbal answer. I have no worries about you reporting me to a Recorder. But your basis is unlikely. Are you not in the ACBL? There is very little room on an ACBL CC for full disclosure. If I want to know what a 1NT response to 1H means then a box checked that tells me it is forcing tells me very little. >The Laws require a full and complete answer. They do not require a >verbal answer. Until they do, I'm completely within my rights to >not provide one to anyone who can read the written full and complete >answer. What if I wrote my answer, as if we were behind screens? Good. I like people who follow the rules. >If you don't believe me, that's fine by me. Assume I, and those that >believe the same as I, are liars attempting to avoid the primary spirit >of the game. But my opinion of you will reflect this. I think you are mistaken. I think your views are bad for the game. Nowhere did I say or suggest you are a liar. >Oh, and apologize to Quango for me. I completely forgot, what with >11/11 being a special day and all. Wish him a belated happy birthday, >please. Will do. He is very grumpy, still. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 04:12:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHHC5u04504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHHBlt04483 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 04:11:50 +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 13wp34-0008Ol-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 17:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:46:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS >> >> I did not go into deep analysis of the hand, but made a couple of >> assumptions you do not seem to have considered. If this is a psyched >> Strong No-trump, LHO has a weak hand, we have minimum opening bid >> strength, then what the heck is partner doing? Is he in the loo? Is he >> in the bar upstairs? > >Partner is passing the "forcing" transfer bid of 2H because your system >does not cover his holding and he feels no immediate need to act. Well, we look at hands here on the Internet, and go with all the info we have. At the table he would be telling me this [loudly] and I would factor it into my ruling. If he has a good explanation why he is damaged more than my original ruling suggests I would listen and probably my ruling would be different from that stated. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 05:22:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHILwk04747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:58 +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 eAHILkt04735 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:47 +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 13wq8q-000LhP-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:15:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes snip > >Another case where he should not is the insufficient bid, inferentially >accepted by the next player. >Playing against well-aware opponents, after the bidding goes 1C-1S-1D, I >consider it WOBAT to summon the TD, let him explain the whole thing, and >then bid 1H and unsummon him, as I could as well bid 1H directly. > TD: "Are you aware there was an insufficient bid?" ME: "Yes, did I call you? I decided to play a game closely related to duplicate contract Bridge" TD: "PP for the failure to call" Me: "!"Ģ$%^&*()" Nah, the TD should stay out unless he really *has* to step in. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 05:22:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHILuQ04746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:56 +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 eAHILjt04734 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:46 +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 13wq8q-000DGH-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:21:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:11:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@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 <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.n l>, Kooijman, A. writes > >> > >> >The TD, having nothing better to do at the time, is watching the >> >play at a table. There is a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that >> >there is an irregularity. No player notices. >> > This is covered by Law. the player playing next has treated the LOOT as legal. No adjustment is required. The situations where I might intervene are L64C rulings where I restore equity - and I might get involved where there's been MI or UI. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 05:22:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHILwZ04748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:58 +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-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 eAHILlt04736 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 05:21:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 13wq8r-0004qm-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:21:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:00:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011151555.KAA26359@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 >In article <200011151555.KAA26359@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: David Stevenson >>> Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail >>> themselves of that right. Why should they not? >> >>Oh, come on, David. Several good reasons for restricting oral >>questions have been given. You may think restrictions are illegal >>(quite possibly true) or unwise (arguable), but your last sentence is >>disingenuous. > > Good reasons? Oh, yeah! > > Where did this start? With people trying to avoid UI by avoiding full >disclosure. I do not like that, and I am surprised if you do. > > My guess is that you have been seduced into the tempting by-ways. Of >course if a player does not know the answer and is trying to be helpful >by pointing to his CC I have no problem with that. If he has a >disability of some kind, no problem. But I object to people refusing to >answer for other reasons. They are deliberately defying the rules of >the game for personal gain - I just hope it is not knowledgeably as >well. > The only time I tell oppo to look at the cc is when I know a bid has a conventional meaning and I've forgotten. It happens to me a lot because I often sit down with a p-u partner two minutes after the game has started, so becoming a playing TD. I will glance at pard's cc and then get on with it. The usual problem at the Japanese Club is I don't know if we play Ogust or feature over weak 2's. At the Acol I won't know whether 2C over 1NT is Landy or Asptro. At the YC I'll have no idea about anything apart from whether we play weak/strong and 4 or 5. The YC has no "standard" style, although certain groups tend to play a certain way. For regular partnerships I can think of *no* reason why you can't answer the question verbally, although occasionally I'm not 100% certain in complex auctions. It's up to partner to deal with UI if I create it. I go further than this, because if partner explains something badly, but correctly I will clear up the doubt (Because it is clear to me he *does* know the system, but might be misleading the opponents unintentionally - and I have an obligation to correct MI) > This is a full disclosure game, and I think we should play it that way >and not try to hide info from oppos. > -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 06:21:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHJL7a04869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 06:21:07 +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 (f188.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.188]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHJL1t04865 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 06:21:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:20:53 -0800 Received: from 172.128.154.247 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:20:53 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.128.154.247] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:20:53 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2000 19:20:53.0493 (UTC) FILETIME=[80BE9250:01C050CB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Todd wrote: >I don't think this is right. To determine "damage", according to the >WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, "damage exists when, in >consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result >less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant >prior to the infraction." This definition is not affected by any >"damage" caused by previous infractions. I was under the impression that L64B2 was there to prohibit this sort of reasoning that's easy to extend. >This is hard to discuss without an example hand, so I'll invent one. > > 73 > Q642 > AK6 > A543 > > 8652 > AKJ53 > 52 > K6 > >South plays 4H. The defense starts with three rounds of spades, dummy >ruffing the third round. Declarer cashes the A-Q of hearts, trumps >splitting 2-2. Declarer can make 4H+1, ruffing all the side suit losers. >Declarer now cashes the ace of diamonds, playing low from hand; next, >he cashes the king of diamonds, pitching a spade (the first revoke). >The hands are now: > > -- > 6 > 6 > A543 > > -- > KJ5 > 5 > K6 > >Declarer leads the last diamond from dummy, and East follows with the >jack. At that point, the defense's expectation is that they will get >4 tricks: the two spade tricks, the diamond they're about to win, and >the 1-trick penalty from the earlier revoke. The defense should not expect that unless they can read through the cards. Their expectation (each of them) is that their partner has one more diamond than he actually has. >However, declarer ruffs the diamond in hand (the second revoke). >Eventually, he takes the rest of the tricks on a crossruff, with the 5 >of diamonds being ruffed in dummy. > >Since there is no penalty for the second revoke, the defense winds up >with 3 tricks: the two spade tricks and the 1-trick penalty from the >first revoke. > >Since, due to the second revoke, the opponents received fewer tricks >than their expectation "in the instant prior to the" second revoke, >there was damage. L64C kicks in, and 1 trick goes back to the >opponents. It's scored as 4H down 1. Should be 4H=. Again, I was under the impression that L64B2 was there to prevent this reasoning, especially since it can be applied repeatedly in one hand. The two revokes should be considered one and treated as such. Applying the slippery-slope to your argument, here's a horror story! Axxxxx AKQJTx x - Q xxxxxx Axxxxx - Makes 7H, but in declarer's hand (without the heart honors) the spade queen was stuck to another card. Trick 1: spade lead to the A, declarer pitching a diamond. (revoke) Trick 2: AH pulling the only outstanding trump Trick 3: spade ruffed by south (revoke, apply your argument, E-W entitled to a spade trick, another trick penalty) rest of the hand: cross ruff in spades and diamonds for 3 more spade revokes. South discovers he has too few cards, looks and finds the spade, which is now good. Plays it and then a diamond for the last trick. Declarer won 13 tricks, 5 revokes in spades, each of them a two-trick penalty since the card that could have been played to the revoke trick eventually won. 10 tricks to defense. I disagree. L64B2 is there to prevent this and should not be circumvented with L64C. -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 Nov 18 07:10:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKAE605023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:14 +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 eAHKA5t05013 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wrph-0001fa-00; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:10:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:08:34 -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 " Too much time in studies is sloth" - Francis Bacon. =<>= ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Todd Zimnoch, I think, gave this example: > The TD, having nothing better to do at the > time, is watching the play at a table. There is > a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there > is an irregularity. No player notices. > +=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* in whose answers lies my interest without wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 07:10:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKAJe05028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:19 +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 eAHKAAt05020 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wrpd-0001fa-00; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:09:58 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c050d2$681c1900$045608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <3.0.6.32.20001110133231.007b4310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <+PSFhBBbUsE6Ew3H@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:09:19 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 5:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75 (ruling) -------------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > Grattan Endicott writes > ------------------- \x/ ------------------------------- > > I would like to hear some of our top world TDs > >on whether, if West does not volunteer a statement > >that he would have done something different (pass) if > >he had been alerted, they would explore this > >question (a) overtly, (b) by indirect questions, or > >(c) not at all? > > I consider it right to do so overtly. I consider one should > investigate MI and UI when damage is claimed from one or the other. > +=+ Thank you for the information +=+ > > Grattan Endicott writes > >From: Marvin L. French > > >> This uninvited non-TD, merely a player, > > > +=+ I have no wish to exclude. However, you > >can only tell me what they ought to do, whilst > >my enquiry is to know what TDs have actually > >learnt to do, from experience. ~ G ~ +=+ > > Of course, there is training as well. We train > our TDs to look at both as above. > +=+ Well, yes. But ultimately training is the product of experience. You train TDs (a) in the best interpretation of law; (b) in the method of application that experience recommends. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 07:10:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKAHX05027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:17 +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 eAHKA6t05014 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:10:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.4] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13wrpf-0001fa-00; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:09:59 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c050d2$6937e940$045608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <200011062319.SAA15270@cfa183.harvard.edu><001201c0488d$f4261920$245408c3@dodona><018401c048dd$4cb6e200$fb981e18@san.rr.com><29RndJAXOeE6EwVI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 19:33:19 -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 "They have mouths but they speak not; eyes have they but they see not. They have ears but they hear not; noses have they but they smell not." - Psalm 115. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: David Stevenson Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > At 1:15 AM +0000 11/15/00, David Stevenson wrote: > >Players have a right to ask questions. Some players wish to avail > >themselves of that right. Why should they not? > > You're a stubborn man, David. :-) > > Maybe it's this cold I'm fighting, but I give up. > > I've made my argument, and you've made yours, > and it seems neither of us is convinced by the > other. So be it. > > Regards, > > Ed > +=+ I only half agree with you Ed! If the card sets out plainly all the enquirer should be told then you have given him a full answer. If he should know more than is on the card it is your duty to offer the information, not wait for your opponent to ask. If what is on the card can be misconstrued then you are in difficulty. It is rather like the first appeal I was involved in at WBF level. Asked, behind screens what a 3C bid meant ( P - 2NT - P - 3C) the player wrote down '4 c '. Enquirer took this to mean a four card club suit and thought of no alternative possibility - actually it was 'asking for four card suits'. The enquirer received a favourable ruling which was upheld on appeal. I did not agree the adjustment (+/- 3 imps) because I thought an assigned score was appropriate, a table result having been obtained. ~ 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 Nov 18 07:42:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKg9a05109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:42:09 +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 eAHKg2t05105 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:42:03 +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 MAA27736; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:41:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200011172041.MAA27736@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:20:53 PST." Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:41:57 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tood wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan > >Todd wrote: > >I don't think this is right. To determine "damage", according to the > >WBF Code of Practice for Appeals Committees, "damage exists when, in > >consequence of the infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result > >less favourable than would have been the expectation in the instant > >prior to the infraction." This definition is not affected by any > >"damage" caused by previous infractions. > > I was under the impression that L64B2 was there to prohibit this > sort of reasoning that's easy to extend. L64B2 only deals with the penalty for an established revoke. It does not deal at all with adjusted scores; an adjusted score is not a "penalty". This is a key point. > >This is hard to discuss without an example hand, so I'll invent one. > > > > 73 > > Q642 > > AK6 > > A543 > > > > 8652 > > AKJ53 > > 52 > > K6 > > > >South plays 4H. The defense starts with three rounds of spades, dummy > >ruffing the third round. Declarer cashes the A-Q of hearts, trumps > >splitting 2-2. > > Declarer can make 4H+1, ruffing all the side suit losers. Mind you, I would have claimed after trick 5. Probably without even bothering to make a claim statement. This was supposed to be an example of how to apply the Laws, not an example of how someone with more intelligence than my dumb dog would actually behave. > >Declarer now cashes the ace of diamonds, playing low from hand; next, > >he cashes the king of diamonds, pitching a spade (the first revoke). > >The hands are now: > > > > -- > > 6 > > 6 > > A543 > > > > -- > > KJ5 > > 5 > > K6 > > > >Declarer leads the last diamond from dummy, and East follows with the > >jack. At that point, the defense's expectation is that they will get > >4 tricks: the two spade tricks, the diamond they're about to win, and > >the 1-trick penalty from the earlier revoke. > > The defense should not expect that unless they can read through the > cards. Their expectation (each of them) is that their partner has one > more diamond than he actually has. Ummm, the word "expectation" in the CoP has nothing to do with what the non-offenders *think* they're going to get at that point. It has to do with what the expected result would be at that point if no Laws were broken. And the expected result is that they will win this diamond trick, on which East has already played the jack, in addition to the two spade tricks they've already won and the penalty from the first revoke that they will be getting. > >However, declarer ruffs the diamond in hand (the second revoke). > >Eventually, he takes the rest of the tricks on a crossruff, with the 5 > >of diamonds being ruffed in dummy. > > > >Since there is no penalty for the second revoke, the defense winds up > >with 3 tricks: the two spade tricks and the 1-trick penalty from the > >first revoke. > > > >Since, due to the second revoke, the opponents received fewer tricks > >than their expectation "in the instant prior to the" second revoke, > >there was damage. L64C kicks in, and 1 trick goes back to the > >opponents. It's scored as 4H down 1. > > Should be 4H=. > > Again, I was under the impression that L64B2 was there to prevent > this reasoning, especially since it can be applied repeatedly in one > hand. The two revokes should be considered one and treated as such. As I see it, L64B2 simply says there is no revoke penalty for a second revoke in the same suit; it does not say that the first and second revokes constitute a single infraction rather than two infractions. > Applying the slippery-slope to your argument, here's a horror story! > > Axxxxx > AKQJTx > x > - > > Q > xxxxxx > Axxxxx > - > > Makes 7H, but in declarer's hand (without the heart honors) the spade > queen was stuck to another card. > > Trick 1: spade lead to the A, declarer pitching a diamond. (revoke) > Trick 2: AH pulling the only outstanding trump > Trick 3: spade ruffed by south (revoke, apply your argument, E-W entitled > to a spade trick, another trick penalty) No, no, no! You've missed the point of my argument. I have **NOT** suggested that we give another revoke penalty trick to the opponents. I have NOT suggested that we use L64C in order to re-apply L64A when it shouldn't be reapplied. Instead, I've suggested instead that we look at the expected result at the point before each revoke, and if the actual result is less than the expected result for the non-offenders, we ADJUST using L64C---we do NOT assess a penalty. Those are two different things, and you must not confuse the two. (Please note that my previous post gave *two* example hands; and on the first hand I gave an extra trick to the opponents, while on the second, I did not. This should be enough to prove that I'm not trying to assess a second revoke penalty.) > rest of the hand: cross ruff in spades and diamonds for 3 more spade > revokes. South discovers he has too few cards, looks and finds the > spade, which is now good. Plays it and then a diamond for the last > trick. > > Declarer won 13 tricks, 5 revokes in spades, each of them a two-trick > penalty since the card that could have been played to the revoke trick > eventually won. 10 tricks to defense. Nope. At every point where a revoke (other than the first) occurred, we determine the non-offenders' "expectation" at that point. It's always the same, regardless of which revoke trick we compute it at. The offenders can expect a spade trick, plus the 1-trick penalty for the first revoke, and no more *PENALTY* tricks for any other prior revokes. Two tricks to the defense, not 10. (Which is the same as the result would have been if the declarer had committed only the first revoke and then not revoked at all the rest of the hand, so you can't argue that my reasoning produces an unfair result.) Hope this clears things up, -- 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 Nov 18 07:44:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKiDs05129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:44:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHKi7t05125 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:44:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP321.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.99]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20964 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:44:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011171443550010.01038D58@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:43:55 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >+=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list >consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table >idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? I only direct at the club level, and it's not uncommon for me (or other club D's when I'm not directing) to watch play in progress, whether to avail myself of the opportunity to kibitz a local expert for a hand or two or simply out of idleness. Of course I don't follow interesting boards around the room. Since I observed such behavior by other club D's before I began directing I assumed it was routine. I don't remember seeing it done at a tournament, though before this moment I hadn't thought about it one way or the other. I'll be interested to hear others' thoughts. 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 Sat Nov 18 07:59:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHKxeV05173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHKxXt05169 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:59:34 +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 MAA28123; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:59:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200011172059.MAA28123@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L64B2 Second revoke In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:20:53 PST." Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 12:59:30 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd wrote: > >This is hard to discuss without an example hand, so I'll invent one. > > > > 73 > > Q642 > > AK6 > > A543 > > > > 8652 > > AKJ53 > > 52 > > K6 > > > >South plays 4H. The defense starts with three rounds of spades, dummy > >ruffing the third round. Declarer cashes the A-Q of hearts, trumps > >splitting 2-2. > > Declarer can make 4H+1, ruffing all the side suit losers. > > >Declarer now cashes the ace of diamonds, playing low from hand; next, > >he cashes the king of diamonds, pitching a spade (the first revoke). > >The hands are now: > > > > -- > > 6 > > 6 > > A543 > > > > -- > > KJ5 > > 5 > > K6 [snip] > >Since, due to the second revoke, the opponents received fewer tricks > >than their expectation "in the instant prior to the" second revoke, > >there was damage. L64C kicks in, and 1 trick goes back to the > >opponents. It's scored as 4H down 1. > > Should be 4H=. It didn't occur to me until after I finished my response that your score would be quite unjust. Delcarer should take 11 tricks, if he is awake. But after the first revoke, he should get only 9. One trick is transferred because of the revoke. The other trick is lost because declarer's revoke has stuck him with a new diamond loser that he can't shake. You're saying that declarer should be allowed to commit a second revoke and thereby get one of those tricks back. Doesn't seem right at all. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 08:12:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHLAsN05219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:10:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHLAmt05215 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:10:49 +1100 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:17:52 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'Hermes@dodona.clara.co.uk'" , "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:17:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: John Probst; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sent: 11/17/00 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Grattan Endicott " Too much time in studies is sloth" - Francis Bacon. =<>= ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Todd Zimnoch, I think, gave this example: > The TD, having nothing better to do at the > time, is watching the play at a table. There is > a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there > is an irregularity. No player notices. > +=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ [* in whose answers lies my interest without wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] First let me put my response in context: Mostly I direct Novice/Intermediate level Club games (ACBL). My experience is that having a TD watch at the table results in the players EXPECTING the TD to notice infractions and rule on them without any prompting from the players. Altogether a BAD situation. I have had this happen when I was just looking for a moment to check for tables playing slowly. Likewise, if the TD stops to watch for a moment the players assume that the TD knows that the board is "interesting" and has stopped to watch for that reason. I suppose that at higher levels this is less of a factor, but I still believe that the presence of the TD at a table disrupts the flow of the game. I always make sure I have a good book to read. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 08:37:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHLa3T05297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:36:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAHLZrt05293 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 08:35:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4ep.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.217]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA17645; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:35:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003c01c050df$1650d860$d911f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Nichols" , , References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:41:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Like John Nichols I always have taken a book...usually light fiction for I expect to be interrupted often. There are times when you must stay at a table...as in penalty card situations or in attempting to remedy slow play short of giving a pp...but otherwise you are a distraction to the players, and seem to other tables to be unavailable, perhaps prompting them into do-it-yourself rulings and the attendant disasters stemming therefrom. Other club directors in our area do tend to sit at a "good" pair's table or worse yet at a close friend's. This can only lead to a feeling that rulings may be less than objective, not something to be desired. The lesser lights are just the players who need to know that the director is there to help them. Craig Senior (GE)> +=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list > consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table > idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* in whose answers lies my interest without > wishing to exclude other opinions! : (JN-snip) I always make sure I have a good book to read. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 09:04:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHM30Z05372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:03:00 +1100 (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 eAHM2st05368 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 09:02:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHFCRB03136 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:12:27 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Asking about information on the CC (was: Is this a UI situation?) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 14:23:13 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111715122703.02928@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Michael Farebrother wrote: > "People who ask for information clearly available on the CC are trying > to ensure that partner is aware of the meaning of their next call, > trying to ensure that we cannot recover from a misunderstanding by > producing UI *and* trying to get the information they require." There is a fourth, legitimate reason, at least in the ACBL: the information on the CC may be suspect. Consider the following situation. East opened 2H and this is the heart suit in 3D. JT7 5 AK8642 Q93 West led the 5, East won the king, and as South, I didn't want the suit to be continued. I looked at the E-W convention card, which had middle from three small clearly marked, and played the queen. East, placing West with 953, switched and lost the ruff. If E-W led low or high from three small, I would have to play the 3 and hope that East placed West with Q95, when the switch would be less urgent because I would not have a discard coming. The problem is that the newer ACBL convention cards have a default lead marked from three small, the low card. Many players don't bother to mark their lead agreements. On the old card (which this pair used), it is clear when lead agreements are not marked because they are blank; I could look at the card and then ask, "What do you lead from three small?" if necessary. On the new card, many players agree to what they know as standard leads but don't mark them anyway; an unfilled card is no indication that they actually lead low from three small. I believe it is legitimate for me to ask in this situation even though the opponents may have committed no infraction if they actually agreed to play the default leads. This is indirectly related to the ACBL tolerating incomplete CC's; if I could always trust the CC, then I wouldn't have to ask. But when I do ask in such situations (more often blank leads than new CC's), I get "high" or "middle" half the time. Another common problem occurs when many players do not know that an agreement is not standard. Many weak players who don't know about responsive doubles actually play (1C)-X-(2C)-X as "takeout." If responsive doubles are not on the card, I have to ask here to protect myself. Still another problem occurs when a bid which is alerted is clearly marked as non-alertable on the CC, or vice versa. In this case, there is already MI/UI, so there should be no problem in asking to try to clear it up. An unalerted transfer is an example here; the failure to alert has already provided UI and the explanation doesn't provide any more. -- 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 Nov 18 10:34:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHNVqG05600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:31:52 +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 (f213.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHNVkt05596 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:31:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:31:38 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:31:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 15:31:38 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Nov 2000 23:31:38.0749 (UTC) FILETIME=[886A72D0:01C050EE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Herman De Wael >Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > I haven't been convinced that having the same information as AI and > > UI relieves you of UI constraints. The wording of L16 does not support > > it, though several people have suggested that's the case and have not > > been called on it. A problem with the situation above is that the > > player with the UI is the only person who knows for certain that he has > > any. > > > >Well Todd, you are mistaken. > >Indeed the wording of L16 does not say this, and perhaps it >should, but everyone applies it as such. The mother in me has a peer group of yours jumping off bridges. >In every hand you play and do not solely pass (and even in >some of those), you receive UI from partner (except behind >screens). Every one of your calls is either alerted or >not. That is UI. Yet no-one ever calls the TD on that, and >when they do, the TD would shrug and say "play on please and >don't be stupid". The AI is "I do have X" while the UI is "partner believes I have Y" When they agree, the UI does not demonstrably suggest any particular logical action. When they disagree, you will get nailed for following the UI. >So please Todd, accept the premise as stated. I've accepted neither the premise nor its inverse yet. There still appears to be conflicting evidence, e.g., forgetting whether you play 1430 or 3014 RKC. A hesitation from partner after you misbid suggests that you misbid, but you could have figured that out from the auction and plugging the holes in your colander memory, both AI. Are you allowed to recover after the hesitation? -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 Nov 18 10:57:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAHNte605653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:55:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAHNtXt05649 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:55:34 +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 SAA15775 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:55:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA08780 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:55:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 18:55:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011172355.SAA08780@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 86C6: in any manner X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > bridge should be played according to the laws. And nobody should > benefit from deviations, when the TD is not called. Add yet another "me too." The above seems a good principle. > What if this is told after the game, the non-offenders having gained by > solving the problem themselves. In the past I was taught not to do anything > anymore. ... > That is not the right approach in my opinion. It is acceptable for the > offenders, but if the non-offenders gained by their 'ruling', that advantage > should be taken away. Splitscore so. I'm with you up until the last sentence. It seems to me, though, that it would be fairer and clearer to everyone to adjust to the proper result for _both_ sides, and then give PP's as appropriate. This might be especially important if one side is much more experienced than the other -- you can give them a larger PP, and for beginners a PPw instead of PPf might be appropriate. You might also consider why they didn't call you. It's one thing if they willfully refused, another if you were busy at another table and the round was already late. (Not that I'm condoning not calling even then, but it's understandable.) Also, why should the size of the penalty depend on the vagaries of the scoring of a particular hand? Sometimes the difference between the right and wrong rulings will be a whole board; other times it will be nothing at all even though the table score changes (e.g. +140 goes to +170, but all the other scores are game). Instead put in the proper score, and then give PP's that reflect the seriousness of each side's offense. But if everyone else prefers split scores, who am I to argue? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 18 11:26:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAI0Oau05730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:24:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAI0OTt05726 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:24:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001118002536.OMTK389.amsmta04-svc@witz> for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:25:36 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001118012443.01031c70@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 01:24:43 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 eAI0OWt05727 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:15 PM 11/17/2000 +0000, you wrote: >In article <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain >gottcheiner writes > >snip >> >>Another case where he should not is the insufficient bid, inferentially >>accepted by the next player. >>Playing against well-aware opponents, after the bidding goes 1C-1S-1D, I >>consider it WOBAT to summon the TD, let him explain the whole thing, and >>then bid 1H and unsummon him, as I could as well bid 1H directly. >> >TD: "Are you aware there was an insufficient bid?" >ME: "Yes, did I call you? I decided to play a game closely related to >duplicate contract Bridge" >TD: "PP for the failure to call" either you arent serious or this TD should be abolished NOW or sent to the san fransico giggles (or elected as CTD of the ACBL perhaps :):) :) this is really a shame if this ever should happen in real life. regards, anton >Me: "!"Ģ$%^&*()" > >Nah, the TD should stay out unless he really *has* to step in. > >-- >John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 >451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb >London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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/ > Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.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 Nov 19 02:31:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIFTtR07791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:29:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIFTmt07787 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:29:49 +1100 (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 KAA13033 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA06575; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:29:39 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 10:29:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011181529.KAA06575@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >> The TD, having nothing better to do at the >> time, is watching the play at a table. There is >> a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there >> is an irregularity. No player notices. >> >+=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list >consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table >idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* in whose answers lies my interest without >wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] > I deliberately don't kibbitz. I like to kibbitz, when I'm not directing, but when I am directing, I don't think it a good idea to watch. I read, or study, or play on the computer, instead. Tony (aka ac342) ps. this does not mean I am innatentive, merely unbored. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 02:50:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIFoUc07821 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:50:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eAIFoNt07817 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:50:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis43.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.43]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G48001NH9BQ2N@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:50:16 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:50:13 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner In-reply-to: <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001118164343.00a1dc20@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 References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIFoQt07818 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:08 17.11.2000 +0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott <=> >" Too much time in studies is sloth" > - Francis Bacon. > =<>= >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:11 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > >Todd Zimnoch, I think, gave this example: > > > The TD, having nothing better to do at the > > time, is watching the play at a table. There is > > a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there > > is an irregularity. No player notices. > > >+=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list >consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table >idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* in whose answers lies my interest without >wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] I cannot see anything wrong in watching a hand. WOULD any times sth happen, I would be knowing the facts already ;-) and the players dont have to tell me ALL the facts. Anyway the fact is, that I have seldom the opportunity to watch (usually exactly one hand a tourney...). In my opinion it is neither desirable or undesirable to watch the players play. Itīs just a matter of opportunity. If I have time enough I watch out espec. for dummies running to the toilets and do their job (pick the cards which are called) (of course after asking). The players always welcome this in my experience. Cheers Richard >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 19 02:55:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIFt5P07834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:55:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eAIFsvt07830 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 66587 invoked for bounce); 18 Nov 2000 15:54:52 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-57-9.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.9) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 18 Nov 2000 15:54:52 -0000 Message-ID: <01bd01c05178$30185400$09391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:56:34 +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 "David Stevenson" wrote: > In article <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain > gottcheiner writes > >At 00:14 11/11/00 +0300, Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>Board 17, N,- > >> x > >> KJx > >> Q98xx > >> Qxxx > >>Jx KTxxxxx > >>AQTxx -- > >>JTxx xx > >>xx KJxx > >> AQx > >> 98xxx > >> AK > >> Axx > >>The bidding and explanation > >>W N E S > >> p p 1NT > >>2D db 2S p > >>p ...db p 3NT > >>p p 4C db > >> all pass > >>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. > >>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. > >>hesitation) - as showing extra values. > >>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. > >> W was not agreed with her partner and > >>said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. > >>After the end if the board (TD was at > >> tthe table during the play) E asks for > >>the ruling. > >>What should you do as TD and as > >> AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). > > > >AG : after a 'value' double, south might > > let it in, or take it out. I'd say > >one could rule with ease that the UI (I assume no screens) made him bid > >3NT. If the auction had stopped > > there assuming 3NT made, I would take the > >contract back to 3S, most probably -1, > > perhaps -2 if N/S do hold both C10 > >and C9. "Back" to *three* spades?? > >But what was East hoping for, when bidding 4C in an obviously misfitting > >hand ? I would feel fairly confident about calling this a wild, gambling > >bid, thus snapping the connection between the infraction and the damage. > >Score stands (at least for E/W). > > If East's 4C isn't IWoG then West's pass of it certainly is. Let E/W > keep their score. Oh yes. A keep the deposit if they appeal. > For N/S I might give 3S*-1 but it is a bit generous - I would be > tempted by 3S*-2. For the AC: > > 75% of 3S*-2 NS+300 + > 25% of 3S*-1 NS+100 I disagree. As W had already passed 2S, it is likely that he would have passed 2SX, too. Hence for N/S the score should be adjusted to *two*SX making whatever. If S does not use the UI and passes 2SX, the bidding is over. 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 Nov 19 03:11:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIGB3h07897 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 03:11:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIGAut07889 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 03:10:57 +1100 (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 LAA17349 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:10:49 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA14288; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:10:49 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:10:49 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk venue: ACBL club game. A table is late, so I pull the last board. Both pairs are at fault. I usually give a late play, but this evening the club is under some time constraints and has to close promptly. I assign an A/A on the board; yes, I could also give an A-/A-, but it is a growing club filled with less experienced players, so why antagonize them needlessly? :-) As I am entering the scores the club owner, also a director, comes over. He notices the A/A, and directs me to use the N command of ACBLScore instead. The N command, I inquire, what's that? It turns out N stands for "not played". He tells me he learned about this command at the sectional he helped at last weekend.I tell him that I don't think this is legal, but I do what I'm told. I can see the point of N in the case of a withdrawal (medical, disciplinary,natural disaster) but late play is covered under L12C1, no? Does anyone have any guidelines re N? Does any other jurisdiction even use something like N? Thanks! Tony (aka ac342) ps the club owner wants N rather than A/A because he thinks the player deserves to have the result factored (% of game on 23/24 boards added) rather than A (3.5 mps on a 7 top added to 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 Sun Nov 19 04:03:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0nv07974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ot07947 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 1431CD81BC for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0Ut07952 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 00:57:48 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Suppose your partner opens 2C. You alert and respond 2D. Partner >bids 2H, presumably Kokish, so you alert. > > At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an >overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in >front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. > > Now, it is clear to you that you may take the 2C as an overcall, >because while your partner has told you which is UI it is also available >from AI, the calls on the table? Well, it is not clear to me. My opinion is that the fact that 2C is an overcall is AI, and you can use it as much as you like. However, I would be happy to penalize partner's violation of law using L72B1, so the end result will often be the same as if the information was UI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:03:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0ns07973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ut07960 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id CCBEED81C0 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:20 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <89dd1tg4t21i2lhh79ovnhri2rf512e1vg@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <003d01c0506d$25e20280$6a5408c3@dodona> 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0Yt07967 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 16:51:53 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > I am quite happy with a person who obviously does not know the answer >and directs his oppos to the CC - I have said this but failed to repeat >it here. On the question of answering questions, I agree with David. My opponent has my CC in front of him: when he nevertheless chooses to ask, it is undoubtedly because he has already decided that he prefers a verbal answer. His reason for preferring that could be: * he does not understand the wording on the CC, * he wants a fuller explanation than the CC gives, * he wants a fuller explanation than the expects the CC to give, * he finds it easier to ask verbally than to check the CC. Which of these is the case is none of my business: he has a right to ask and to a full explanation. When I occasionally do refer him to the CC it is with words like "Sorry, I've forgotten, but it's on the CC". -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:03:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0jo07971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ot07946 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 77DC6D81BD for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <62dd1toves7ov3iqk9851a0h3gcc6ie418@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <3A12BB3E.B7BDBB4E@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A12BB3E.B7BDBB4E@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0Tt07954 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 17:35:10 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Tim West-meads wrote: >> >> >> I still prefer Jesper's approach where we treat the auction as AI and >> consider the UI to not suggest anything additional. > >I do not believe there is such an approach. I think Jesper >and I agree that there is UI, as well as AI, and that >whatever UI is also covered by AI does not produce L16 >restrictions. Where our views differ is to whether there is >enough AI to cover all the UI, in this particular case. I don't see much disagreement with me in either this or Tim's statement. My point of view is that the auction is AI, always. Therefore so is all information that can easily be deduced from the auction and other AI. I say "easily" here because if it is a non-obvious deduction that is made obvious by information from partner, then the deduction may be considered other information than the AI. In the "easily" case, such as the one I started this thread with, where W cannot fail to deduce that he has misbid if he is informed about the auction, the information is equivalent. I.e., "W has misbid" is in reality the same information as "W has bid 2S" - he cannot fail to deduce one from the other. And since the property of being authorized or not is a property of the information, not of the way it is worded, either both of those statements are AI or both of them are UI. >> Should we choose to rule that the actual auction is not always AI then >> many UI situations may become horrible. A typical hesitation ruling arises >> and the TD says: "Judging from your earlier choice of actions I consider >> it possible that you did not notice partner's opening therefore 4C is a >> logical alternative." Yuck, yuck, and please NO. > >Don't think we go overboard. We still believe that players >will be telling the truth when we ask them why they bid as >they did. "Why did you make a call that meant heart fit and >spade void ?" "Because I did not notice I pulled 2Sp >instead of 1Sp". Yes, it is usually easy enough when there is a call that shows the misunderstanding. But what if I have misunderstood the auction, and then suddenly realizes what the auction is, before I have made any call based on my misunderstanding? Am I now obliged to try to figure out whether it was some action from partner that woke me up, and in that case act as a person with UI? I think not: the legal auction is AI. Somebody (Herman, I think) worded it in a way close to the following: All information that is freely available (by asking, looking at the table, looking at opponents' CC, etc.) is always AI. This is exactly what I think should be the case. But if such authorized information is received through partner's violation of law, then you can hit the partner with L72B1 or a PP. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:03:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0oJ07975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ot07948 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DF289D81BE for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:19 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200011151610.LAA26378@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011151610.LAA26378@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0St07950 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 11:10:46 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> At this point your partner says "Herman, wake up! My 2C was an >> overcall not an opening bid!" You look at the calls on the table in >> front of you, and, sure enough, LHO has opened 1S but you missed it. >... >> In my view you are not allowed to realise it was a 2C overcall. >> Before people leap in and yell about proof, we don't need proof: we are >> talking about an ethical player who follow the dictates of L73C so long >> as he knows whether it is UI or AI. >> >> There are situations where you are constrained by UI even though the >> same information was available as AI. > >I would suggest that the correct rule is L73B1 (and then L12A1), not >L73C. This works out to pretty much the same result as David's, but we >don't have to argue about information that is plainly AI (the legal >auction) suddenly becoming UI. It is _transmitting_ the information, >not _using_ it that is the infraction. This is in stark contrast to >the normal UI situation. This is exactly my opinion. I think, however, that you will always be able to adjust using L72B1, so you do not need to use L12A1. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:03:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0lJ07972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ot07949 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 59A48D81BF for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:20 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: 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: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0Tt07951 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 16 Nov 2000 14:52:29 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >In article , Tim West-meads > writes > >>I, and I'm pretty sure Jesper (unless I misunderstood), are of the opinion >>that "The actual auction is *always* UI" - regardless of whether you knew > ^^ AI Yes, I am of that opinion (with the correction to "AI", of course). >>all along, might have been woken by partner's alert/announcement, or are >>reminded by partner making an wholly inappropriate remark. In the last >>situation we feel no need to adjust on UI grounds because we already have >>the power to punish the pair. >> >>If partner's alert wakes you up to the fact that you have missed an >>earlier bid/alert that's just the rub of the green and part of the price >>we pay for facilitating disclosure. Obviously no PPs, but no grounds for >>UI restrictions either. > > So you are gaining an advantage at the game because of information >gleaned from pd, and you believe that to be legal? Yes, I believe it to be legal to base my actions on knowledge of the legal auction, regardless of how I got that knowledge. The first words of L16 seem to me to say so fairly clearly. [Well, in Denmark I have a problem with the recent precedent set by the DBF LC, but we're talking principles here...] I fail to see how it can be a disadvantage for the game to allow players to use their knowledge of the auction. And as I've also said elsewhere, I believe this principle should also cover all other information that is always freely available (the vulnerability, who is dealer, opponents' system, etc.) - even though L16 does not mention that explicitly. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:03:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIH0i007970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAIH0Ot07945 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:00:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 86767D81B7 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:18 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 18:00:18 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <8mbd1t0qckos8pd0aufluk7br3o75u9ce1@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <3A093C71.9DE62CDE@village.uunet.be> <3A0E6D22.188ECE71@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A0E6D22.188ECE71@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAIH0Tt07953 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 12 Nov 2000 11:12:50 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >"Would this player have any reason to ask for a review of >the bidding?" is the question that needs to be answered. >If he has any reason to do so (and I am willing to be quite >lenient in this, since his partner has done nothing wrong), >then 3 becomes AI, and so do 1 and 2. >But I believe that in this auction (1He=1Sp=4He) this player >has no reason to ask for a review. Almost all players would >remember this auction if it were spoken, and would not ask >for a review until it is too late. It seems that we agree that W would obviously realize that he had misbid if somebody asked for a review. We therefore almost certainly also agree that if somebody had whispered "your bid was 2S" to W (instead of an alert), then he would also realize his misbid. If the actual auction is _always_ AI, as I believe it ought to be and as I believe the beginning of L16 tells us it is, then the information "your bid was 2S" is AI from which he cannot fail to deduce that he has misbid - regardless of how he learnt that his call was 2S. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 04:31:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIHUuH08049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:30:56 +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 eAIHUmt08040 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:30:49 +1100 (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 13xBp1-0009xL-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:30:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:49:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.com> In-Reply-To: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.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 <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.com>, John Nichols writes snip > >Likewise, if the TD stops to watch for a moment the players assume that the >TD knows that the board is "interesting" and has stopped to watch for that >reason. > >I suppose that at higher levels this is less of a factor, but I still >believe that the presence of the TD at a table disrupts the flow of the >game. I always make sure I have a good book to read. > I usually have a bag of knitting (Yes, really, I do). I knit an Aran in about 2 years while I'm directing. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 19 04:31:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIHUrW08046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:30:53 +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 eAIHUjt08038 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:30:45 +1100 (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 13xBp1-0009xK-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:30:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:47:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >" Too much time in studies is sloth" > - Francis Bacon. > =<>= >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:11 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > >Todd Zimnoch, I think, gave this example: > >> The TD, having nothing better to do at the >> time, is watching the play at a table. There is >> a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there >> is an irregularity. No player notices. >> >+=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list >consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table >idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* in whose answers lies my interest without >wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] I think it undesirable. I seldom do more than glance at any table, but I may well spot something as I do. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 19 04:31:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAIHV8Y08053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:31:08 +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 eAIHUut08048 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:30:57 +1100 (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 13xBp9-0009xS-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:30:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 02:45:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.2.32.20001118012443.01031c70@mail.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20001118012443.01031c70@mail.chello.nl> 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 <3.0.2.32.20001118012443.01031c70@mail.chello.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >At 06:15 PM 11/17/2000 +0000, you wrote: >>In article <3.0.6.32.20001117134500.0092c650@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain >>gottcheiner writes >> >>snip >>> >>>Another case where he should not is the insufficient bid, inferentially >>>accepted by the next player. >>>Playing against well-aware opponents, after the bidding goes 1C-1S-1D, I >>>consider it WOBAT to summon the TD, let him explain the whole thing, and >>>then bid 1H and unsummon him, as I could as well bid 1H directly. >>> >>TD: "Are you aware there was an insufficient bid?" >>ME: "Yes, did I call you? I decided to play a game closely related to >>duplicate contract Bridge" >>TD: "PP for the failure to call" > >either you arent serious or this TD should be abolished NOW or sent to the >san fransico giggles (or elected as CTD of the ACBL perhaps :):) >:) >this is really a shame if this ever should happen in real life. >regards, >anton > It was written with tongue in cheek. But it makes a point that the issuing of PPs is something one should do as last resort. If a player chooses not to summon the TD, there are a number of possibilities, and I do not believe it is up to the TD to guess why he hasn't been called. Certainly at the YC I'm seldom called by strong players. eg 4 internationals resolving a bum claim. I can see they're doing that. I wander over and say "Do you need me?" they say, "No thanks John, we'll sort it out". Equally at a weaker table I see an opening lead out of turn, and the player who has LOOT says "Do you want to accept this?". At this point I wandered over and said "Would you like me to rule for you?" "Yes" they said, so I did. They would have got this one (the five options) wrong, but I don't think I should interfere unless they want my expertise. They all *know* they should call me, they all know I'll be helpful and sympathetic, they all know I'm likely to know the Law better than they do - but if they're happy, why should I interfere? And I think this is true for all rulings which are specifically "mechanical". UI MI, revokes - another matter. >>Me: "!"Ģ$%^&*()" >> >>Nah, the TD should stay out unless he really *has* to step in. >> >>-- >>John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 >>451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb >>London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk >>+44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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/ >> >Anton Witzen.!!! warning: new email:a.witzen@chello.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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 19 08:25:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAILOSo08314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:24:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAILOIt08310 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 08:24:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp04.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.104]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA21288 for ; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:24:42 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <003801c051a5$99766220$68047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt><3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:20:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams > In article <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain > gottcheiner writes > >At 00:14 11/11/00 +0300, Sergei Litvak wrote: > >>Board 17, N,- > >> x > >> KJx > >> Q98xx > >> Qxxx > >>Jx KTxxxxx > >>AQTxx -- > >>JTxx xx > >>xx KJxx > >> AQx > >> 98xxx > >> AK > >> Axx > >>The bidding and explanation > >>W N E S > >> p p 1NT > >>2D db 2S p > >>p ...db p 3NT > >>p p 4C db > >> all pass > >>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. > >>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. > >>hesitation) - as showing extra values. > >>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with her partner and > >>said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. > >>After the end if the board (TD was at tthe table during the play) E asks for > >>the ruling. > >>What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). > > > >AG : after a 'value' double, south might let it in, or take it out. I'd say > >one could rule with ease that the UI (I assume no screens) made him bid > >3NT. If the auction had stopped there assuming 3NT made, I would take the > >contract back to 3S, most probably -1, perhaps -2 if N/S do hold both C10 > >and C9. > > > >But what was East hoping for, when bidding 4C in an obviously misfitting > >hand ? I would feel fairly confident about calling this a wild, gambling > >bid, thus snapping the connection between the infraction and the damage. > >Score stands (at least for E/W). > > If East's 4C isn't IWoG then West's pass of it certainly is. Let E/W > keep their score. In the Code of Practice I read SCORE ADJUSTMENT ...IF THE DAMAGED SIDE HAS WHOLLY OR PARTLY CAUSED ITS OWN DAMAGE BY IRRATIONAL, WILD OR GAMBLING ACTION, IT DOES NOT RECEIVE RELIEF IN THE ADJUSTMENT FOR SUCH PART OF THE DAMAGE AS IS SELF-INFLICTED... The EW's damage consequence of the infraction is losing +470 (2S* making) The EW's damage subsequent to the infraction is -1400 (4C*, -6) So the part of the self-inflicted's damage is -1400+470 = -930 I suppose that I'm not right but I don't know why. More common question - what does "part of the damage" mean? > For N/S I might give 3S*-1 but it is a bit generous - I would be > tempted by 3S*-2. For the AC: > > 75% of 3S*-2 NS+300 + > 25% of 3S*-1 NS+100 Why 3S ? May be "3" is inadvertent call or it is Quango's joke :)? > > -- > David Stevenson Sheers 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 Sun Nov 19 14:48:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJ3fgk09465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:41:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAJ3fUt09461 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:41:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-07.pinehurst.net [12.4.97.71]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA34660; Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:41:20 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <002101c051db$0a28af20$4761040c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: , References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 22:42:05 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At our club last Sunday, the boards got mixed up and the director was unable to sort out the mess so she gave A/A for boards not played. Later, I played around with ACBL score and scored the game in a practice mode, placed the boards in the correct order and rescored the game using NP (not played) and the results were exactly the same! However, discussing it with some of the players involved, I found that they felt more comfortable with the NP entry (which is what it would be if we scored by hand.) Hope this gives you some insight into the problem. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 11:10 AM Subject: [BLML] To the Nth Degree > venue: ACBL club game. > A table is late, so I pull the last board. Both pairs are at fault. > I usually give a late play, but this evening the club is under some > time constraints and has to close promptly. I assign an A/A on the > board; yes, I could also give an A-/A-, but it is a growing club filled > with less experienced players, so why antagonize them needlessly? :-) > As I am entering the scores the club owner, also a director, comes over. > He notices the A/A, and directs me to use the N command of ACBLScore > instead. The N command, I inquire, what's that? It turns out N stands for > "not played". He tells me he learned about this command at the sectional he > helped at last weekend.I tell him that I don't think this is legal, but I > do what I'm told. > I can see the point of N in the case of a withdrawal (medical, > disciplinary,natural disaster) but late play is covered under L12C1, no? > Does anyone have any guidelines re N? Does any other jurisdiction > even use something like N? Thanks! > Tony (aka ac342) > > ps the club owner wants N rather than A/A because he thinks the player > deserves to have the result factored (% of game on 23/24 boards added) > rather than A (3.5 mps on a 7 top added to 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Nov 19 20:01:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJ904b10541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 20:00:04 +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 eAJ8xvt10533 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:59:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-191.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.191]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05230 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 09:59:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A165565.EEE47D9F@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 11:09:41 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@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: > > > > +=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list > consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table > idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > [* in whose answers lies my interest without > wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] > I never do this, probably because I don't find it desirable. It singles out a single table for particular attention. However, when there is some reason for me to be there, I do not turn away so as not to look. Particularly in the case of time problems, I will often sit down and then of course also watch the play. I am of the opinion that if I see something, I will rule on it. Or rather, I'll ask by looks if they want to call me. Many players do not know that even if I'm there, they still have to call me. The revoke is a special case. If no one notices and no one calls, then I do nothing except L64C after the first call by NOs in the next deal. Is that a good practice ? -- 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 Nov 19 22:18:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJBI2210969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:18:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAJBHtt10965 for ; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:17:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.25] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13xSTn-000A0s-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:17:52 +0000 Message-ID: <001401c0521a$692a96c0$195408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF0A27@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:16:51 -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 "Sir Roger told them, with the air of a man who would not give his judgement rashly, that much might be said on both sides. " - Joseph Addison = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 2:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > I usually have a bag of knitting (Yes, really, I do). > I knit an Aran in about 2 years while I'm directing. > -- > +=+ Better to drop a stitch than a clanger? Or are your priorities different? On the subject of Directors watching, in seminars and training courses I have always advised TDs not to watch tables unless they have a positive reason for doing so - just having given a ruling and remaining to ensure it is followed correctly, or it is apparent something is 'going on' at the table and the presence is to avoid an incident, just occasionally some question has arisen in the TD's mind of an ethical nature. I think he should have a good purpose in being there. I think the 'level playing field' argument is valid, also that the presence of a TD can prompt a player to raise a question that he would otherwise not have raised, or again that it can put in the mind of a player that maybe he knows something about a board (even when he does not). As an appeal committee member I do not want to be present if a ruling is called for, and if I should be within distance when something begins to happen I go away. For one reason I do not want to be in a position to give evidence which may, sometime or other, conflict with that of a Director. I want to leave the TD to do his job. ~ 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 Nov 20 08:41:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJLdiX12912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:39:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe010.worldonline.dk (fe010.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eAJLdbt12908 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:39:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6712 invoked by uid 0); 19 Nov 2000 21:39:28 -0000 Received: from 31.ppp1-9.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (212.54.74.31) by fe010.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 19 Nov 2000 21:39:28 -0000 From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:39:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk CC: ak@bridge.dk Message-ID: <3A1856AA.27295.2816451@localhost> In-reply-to: References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote (2 Nov 2000,): > On Thu, 2 Nov 2000 08:46:49 -0000, Grattan wrote: > > >And it is for the AC to determine > >what is 'established', not Jesper, not me, not the > >distinguished citizens of blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Absolutely, if the purpose is to find the correct ruling in the > real-life case. But as I tried - clearly not very successfully - to > explain, my question was not really "what should the ruling be in the > real-life case", but rather "what should the ruling be in the > theoretical case where we make certain assumptions". > > But since we have now started a discussion of the real-life case, let > me explain that the LC considered that it had determined that what > happened was one of the following two: (A) W tried to bid 1S, but got > the 2S card (physical fumble). (B) W intended to bid spades at the > lowest possible level, but somehow got into his head that that would > be the two level (i.e., he thought that 1H-2S was not a jump). > > In (A), it seems to me that the question is whether knowledge of > the actual legal auction can ever be UI. > > In (B), it seems to me that the question is whether the knowledge that > the auction 1H-2S is a jump can ever be UI. > > Initially I thought that only (A) was interesting, but now I find (B) > just as interesting. > > In addition, it is true that in order to make a ruling we should > of course also examine E's 5C bid. E has UI from the missing > stop card, which may well make him suspect that something is > wrong when partner bids 4S. > > The TD adjusted the score, based on W having UI. > > The AC on the spot did not want to adjust the score, but was in > doubt about the law question: can the auction be UI? The TD then > called me to discuss that; at that time, I got the clear impression > that the TD and AC considered it established that it was situation > (A). I told the TD that it was my firm conviction that the legal > auction can never be UI and that W therefore did not have UI. > > The AC thus let the original score stand (I assume that they had > considered the 5C bid first). > > This decision was appealed to the DBF LC. > > The LC interviewed the TD, obviously more carefully than I had > done, since the conclusion was that it could be either situation > (A) or situation (B). > > The following are extracts from the LC ruling (in my translation, text > in [] is my abbreviations): > > "The LC finds: > * that it must be considered an established fact that W did not > intend to jump in spades when he bid 2S. > * that on the available evidence it is not possible to decide > whether [it was case A or B]. > * that a distinction between the two possibilities mentioned > above would be significant if W had expressed a wish to or tried > to change 2S, since the TD would then have had to decide whether > to rule under L25A or L25B. Since W did not [do so], 2S became > in any case the call made. > * that W by E's alert became aware that he had unintentionally > bid in conflict with his system. > * that E's alert is [UI] to W (L16), which W has a duty to > carefully avoid taking advantage of (L73C). > * that [this duty] is in effect even if W might have discovered > his mistake on his own before he received the [UI]. > * that W as a consequence of L73C is required to judge E's calls > as if they were made based on the meaning of 2S he originally > intended. This duty holds in the case of an inadvertent call at > least until the bidding becomes self-contradictory under this > assumption. > ... > " > - and they adjusted the score to 4H 6 tricks for both sides. The > decision was unanimous. > > They do not say in so many words that the question of whether W > has UI does not depend on whether it is case (A) or (B), but the > above sounds to me as if that is probably their opinion. > > The key statement is of course "that W by E's alert became aware > that he had unintentionally bid in conflict with his system". > > This neglects the distinction that I believe there is between > becoming aware of his misbid (1) by getting information about his > system and (2) by getting information about the auction (in (A)) or > the laws (in (B)). > > I disagree with this ruling because: > * In case (A), I find it obvious that W has no UI: the legal > auction cannot, as I read L16, be UI. > * In case (B), it seems to me that the fact that 1H-2S is a jump > (which follows from the laws of bridge) cannot and should not > ever be UI. > > In my opinion, there are certain pieces of information that > cannot be UI, no matter how you get them or is made aware of > them; things like: > * your own and dummy's hands, > * the vulnerability, > * who is dealer, > * the legal auction, > * the rules of the game, > * the opponent's system. > > As I read the ruling, it seems that the DBF LC has decided that > the legal auction and the rules of the game can be UI in Denmark. > > So what I would like to hear opinions about is primarily whether > W has UI, separately for case (A) and for case (B). > > (The DBF LC has a policy of not discussing its own rulings, so we > should not expect the two DBF LC members who subscribe to BLML to take > part in this discussion.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark > . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- > ====================================================================== > == (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the > message. A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- 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 Nov 20 08:41:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJLf2a12925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:41:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAJLett12917 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:40:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJEoPp03747; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:50:25 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards), bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:45:13 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00111914502502.03733@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, A. L. Edwards wrote: > venue: ACBL club game. > A table is late, so I pull the last board. Both pairs are at fault. > I usually give a late play, but this evening the club is under some > time constraints and has to close promptly. I assign an A/A on the > board; yes, I could also give an A-/A-, but it is a growing club filled > with less experienced players, so why antagonize them needlessly? :-) > As I am entering the scores the club owner, also a director, comes over. > He notices the A/A, and directs me to use the N command of ACBLScore > instead. The N command, I inquire, what's that? It turns out N stands for > "not played". He tells me he learned about this command at the sectional he > helped at last weekend.I tell him that I don't think this is legal, but I > do what I'm told. I can see a case for the N under the following logic: The players were late in playing the board, and should pay the standard penalty, which is having to stay late and play the board then. Separately, building security wants to lock up the room, making the board unplayable, so you factor it as not played. In contrast, if the board were unplayable as a fault of the players involved (say, it was the second late play for one pair), then you would have to give A or A- to the offenders. The N versus A/A doesn't make a significant difference under the current rules. Scoring the old way, if you score the board A/A, then you cost the pair that had a top half a matchpoint; under the ew rules, it's a cost of .04 or similar. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 20 09:50:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJMoCq13164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:50:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fe040.worldonline.dk (fe040.worldonline.dk [212.54.64.205]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eAJMo7t13160 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:50:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10736 invoked by uid 0); 19 Nov 2000 22:49:58 -0000 Received: from 75.ppp1-22.worldonline.dk (HELO idefix) (213.237.2.203) by fe040.worldonline.dk with SMTP; 19 Nov 2000 22:49:58 -0000 From: "Jens Brix Christiansen" Organization: Alesia Software To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:50:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-to: jens@alesia.dk CC: ak@bridge.dk Message-ID: <3A186732.6712.2C1FA42@localhost> In-reply-to: References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry, a while ago I sent off a message by mistake. Here is the real one. As chairman of the Laws Commission that made the decision that caused this thread, (see http://www.bridge.dk/lov/ak/sager/00/lk-1.htm ) I have been following the debate. I have learned a lot about the points in which some BLML correspondents disagree with our decision. I am going to try to summarize these, taking Jesper's translation of our decision as the outset. Jesper Dybdal wrote (2 Nov 2000,): > "The LC finds: > * that it must be considered an established fact that W did not > intend to jump in spades when he bid 2S. > * that on the available evidence it is not possible to decide > whether [it was case A or B]. > * that a distinction between the two possibilities mentioned > above would be significant if W had expressed a wish to or tried > to change 2S, since the TD would then have had to decide whether > to rule under L25A or L25B. Since W did not [do so], 2S became > in any case the call made. > * that W by E's alert became aware that he had unintentionally > bid in conflict with his system. So far, the statement lists the facts as established (or not established). > * that E's alert is [UI] to W (L16), which W has a duty to > carefully avoid taking advantage of (L73C). Some correspondents (including Jesper, of course) disagree with this statement. To them it is important what caused West to make a bid that was in conflict with his system. Among the possible causes are the following: a. West intended to bid 1S but pulled the wrong card. b. West intended to bid spades without jumping, but was temporarily confused and thought that to do so would require a bid of 2S. c. West had forgotten his agreements because he had changed them recently, so that 2S would show his hand according to his old agreements, but not according to his new agreements. d. West's agreements are risky in the sense that expensive mistakes can happen easily (Ghestem is well known for this), and West had decided on the wrong bid as a genuine error caused by the complexity of his system. Jesper is arguing, and many of you agree, that in case (a), UI restrictions according to L73C do not apply to E's alert. Jesper is also arguing, again with many followers, that in case (b) too, L73C does not apply. Everyone seems to agree that in cases (c) and (d), L73C does indeed apply. > * that [this duty] is in effect even if W might have discovered > his mistake on his own before he received the [UI]. A better translation from Danish would probably be " ... even if West happened to have discovered ... " This point has not been subject to much discussion, so I find nothing to conclude. > * that W as a consequence of L73C is required to judge E's calls > as if they were made based on the meaning of 2S he originally > intended. This duty holds in the case of an inadvertent call [The Danish text includes "outside his system" here] > at > least until the bidding becomes self-contradictory under this > assumption. This was subject to some discussion, especially at the beginning of the thread. Many correspondents felt that this line is too strict. The opinion expressed was along these lines: If (in the TD's opinion) W was likely to discover the problem on his own, E's alert should not cause L73C to be applicable. > (The DBF LC has a policy of not discussing its own rulings, so we > should not expect the two DBF LC members who subscribe to BLML to take > part in this discussion.) Exactly. That is why you only see me acknowledging your points of view in this message, instead of trying to present supporting arguments for our original ruling. Some correspondents did, however, express a degree of disapproval of this policy of non-discussion. Therefore, I would like to defend it. Once or twice a year, one of the parties in an appeals case will contact us and present arguments to us why they disagree with our ruling. We have learned from experience that the only reasonable way to draw the line in such cases is to refuse to discuss them at all. We do our best to present our rationale in the original ruling in order to make them easier to understand, but especially in order to make it as legitimate as possible to refuse to discuss them further. With the advent of widespread Internet access, rulings also tend to be discussed in public venues, such as r.g.b, BLML, or local Danish discussion boards, often triggered by a disappointed party. This gives us a welcome opportunity to learn what others think about our rulings, but we still just listen and don't join in the fray. This present ruling has this same flavor. Jesper is in a way a party, since he was consulted in connection with the ruling made by the Appeals Committee at the event. We have overruled this Appeals Committe, and thereby indirectly Jesper. We have presented our reasons for our ruling as best we could, and we have listened to the opinions expressed afterwards. We will continue to listen. -- 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 Nov 20 10:04:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJN4MT13231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:04:22 +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 eAJN4At13226 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:04:12 +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 13xdVA-000Myi-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:04:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:59:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >" Too much time in studies is sloth" > - Francis Bacon. > =<>= >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 6:11 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > >Todd Zimnoch, I think, gave this example: > >> The TD, having nothing better to do at the >> time, is watching the play at a table. There is >> a lead out of turn. The TD is aware that there >> is an irregularity. No player notices. >> >+=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list >consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table >idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >[* in whose answers lies my interest without >wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] I do not consider it suitable. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 20 10:15:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAJNFLw13276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:15:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAJNFDt13270 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:15:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.230] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13xdfx-000PwV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:15:09 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c0527e$9d77b980$e65908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B71D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001401c050d2$6a2c0d40$045608c3@dodona> <3A165565.EEE47D9F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 11:56:05 -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 "Sir Roger told them, with the air of a man who would not give his judgement rashly, that much might be said on both sides. " - Joseph Addison = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 10:09 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 81C6: in any manner > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > +=+ Interesting. How many Directors* on this list > > consider it desirable for a TD to watch at a table > > idly - i.e. not being at the table for a purpose? > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > [* in whose answers lies my interest without > > wishing to exclude other opinions! :-) ] > > > > I never do this, probably because I don't find it desirable. > > It singles out a single table for particular attention. > > However, when there is some reason for me to be there, I do > not turn away so as not to look. Particularly in the case > of time problems, I will often sit down and then of course > also watch the play. > > I am of the opinion that if I see something, I will rule on > it. Or rather, I'll ask by looks if they want to call me. > Many players do not know that even if I'm there, they still > have to call me. > > The revoke is a special case. If no one notices and no one > calls, then I do nothing except L64C after the first call by > NOs in the next deal. > > Is that a good practice ? > +=+ Personally I regard this as a pretty high standard. If I have a slight question in my mind it is the asking by looks. My tendency would be to remain impassive until the moment when I judge it opportune to rectify the irregularity. Give the players every chance to do what they will do without the TD's influence. It is probably wise to step in before a 10B situation is created unless you feel it would be desirable in all the particular circumstances to let a waiver stand., in which case I would not criticise the action per se - only maybe whether you had judged it rightly ~ 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 Nov 20 11:12:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAK0BeD13470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:11:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAK0BUt13465 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:11:30 +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 13xeYD-000EVL-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 00:11:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:16:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt> <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <01bd01c05178$30185400$09391dc2@rabbit> In-Reply-To: <01bd01c05178$30185400$09391dc2@rabbit> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <01bd01c05178$30185400$09391dc2@rabbit>, Thomas Dehn writes > >"David Stevenson" wrote: >> In article <3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain >> gottcheiner writes >> >At 00:14 11/11/00 +0300, Sergei Litvak wrote: >> >>Board 17, N,- >> >> x >> >> KJx >> >> Q98xx >> >> Qxxx >> >>Jx KTxxxxx >> >>AQTxx -- >> >>JTxx xx >> >>xx KJxx >> >> AQx >> >> 98xxx >> >> AK >> >> Axx >> >>The bidding and explanation >> >>W N E S >> >> p p 1NT >> >>2D db 2S p >> >>p ...db p 3NT >> >>p p 4C db >> >> all pass >> >>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >> >>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about 1 min. >> >>hesitation) - as showing extra values. >> >>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. >> >> W was not agreed with her partner and >> >>said that there on her opinion they fon't need TD. >> >>After the end if the board (TD was at >> >> tthe table during the play) E asks for >> >>the ruling. >> >>What should you do as TD and as >> >> AC member (L12C3 is available for AC). >> > >> >AG : after a 'value' double, south might >> > let it in, or take it out. I'd say >> >one could rule with ease that the UI (I assume no screens) made him bid >> >3NT. If the auction had stopped >> > there assuming 3NT made, I would take the >> >contract back to 3S, most probably -1, >> > perhaps -2 if N/S do hold both C10 >> >and C9. > >"Back" to *three* spades?? > >> >But what was East hoping for, when bidding 4C in an obviously misfitting >> >hand ? I would feel fairly confident about calling this a wild, gambling >> >bid, thus snapping the connection between the infraction and the damage. >> >Score stands (at least for E/W). >> >> If East's 4C isn't IWoG then West's pass of it certainly is. Let E/W >> keep their score. > >Oh yes. A keep the deposit if they appeal. > >> For N/S I might give 3S*-1 but it is a bit generous - I would be >> tempted by 3S*-2. For the AC: >> >> 75% of 3S*-2 NS+300 + >> 25% of 3S*-1 NS+100 > >I disagree. As W had already passed 2S, it is likely >that he would have passed 2SX, too. Hence for N/S >the score should be adjusted to *two*SX making whatever. >If S does not use the UI and passes 2SX, the bidding is over. Just reading too fast. When the problem referred to putting it "back to 3S" I failed to go back and look at the auction. So I meant: 75% of 2S*-1 NS+100 + 25% of 2S*= NS-470 -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 20 18:43:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAK7drg14954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:39:53 +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 eAK7djt14949 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 18:39:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.10] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13xlXO-0004VG-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:38:51 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c052c4$fbbb5600$0a5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt><3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003801c051a5$99766220$68047bc3@marina> Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:58:22 -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 "Sir Roger told them, with the air of a man who would not give his judgement rashly, that much might be said on both sides. " - Joseph Addison = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Sergey Kapustin To: Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Someone wrote [who?] :- >> In the Code of Practice I read > > SCORE ADJUSTMENT > > ...IF THE DAMAGED SIDE HAS WHOLLY OR PARTLY > CAUSED ITS OWN DAMAGE BY IRRATIONAL, WILD > OR GAMBLING ACTION, IT DOES NOT RECEIVE > RELIEF IN THE ADJUSTMENT FOR SUCH PART OF > THE DAMAGE AS IS SELF-INFLICTED... > > The EW's damage consequence of the infraction is > losing +470 (2S* making) > The EW's damage subsequent to the infraction is -1400 (4C*, -6) > So the part of the self-inflicted's damage is -1400+470 = -930 > +=+ I would suggest the calculation might preferably be done in this style: Consequent damage: 2S making = NS +470 = (say) +11 imps Subsequent damage: 4CX = NS +1400 = (say) +16 imps So the self-inflicted damage is the difference of 5 imps. This is merely an illustration, without comment on the assumptions or on the judgement of the relevant scores. ~ 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 Nov 20 21:34:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKAXYm15451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:33:34 +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 eAKAXKt15446 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:33:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.242]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA06939 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:33:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:32:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper Dybdal wrote: > (several posts) > > > > So you are gaining an advantage at the game because of information > >gleaned from pd, and you believe that to be legal? > > Yes, I believe it to be legal to base my actions on knowledge of > the legal auction, regardless of how I got that knowledge. The > first words of L16 seem to me to say so fairly clearly. > > [Well, in Denmark I have a problem with the recent precedent set > by the DBF LC, but we're talking principles here...] > > I fail to see how it can be a disadvantage for the game to allow > players to use their knowledge of the auction. > > And as I've also said elsewhere, I believe this principle should > also cover all other information that is always freely available > (the vulnerability, who is dealer, opponents' system, etc.) - > even though L16 does not mention that explicitly. > Jesper's view certainly has one advantage : no need for the question "would he have realised himself that there was something strange ?". However, Jesper, I would gladly concede that one problem for getting rid of one other : the pro question. You agree with me that all info that a player is entitled to is AI. So, when my partner asks for an explanation of opponent's calls, I am entitled to listen to that. Which opens the door to the pro question. So we must keep the distinction. The information itself is AI, but the fact that it is interesting remains UI, unless it would be normal for the player to also seek the info. Normal being viewed quite large when partner does nothing wrong. What is your stance on the pro question, Jesper ? Don't you see there is a similarity here ? In the Danish case, there is no need for the player to ask for a review of the bidding that has, according to his beliefs, gone 1He=1Sp=4He. -- 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 Nov 20 21:34:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKAXhh15455 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:33:43 +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 eAKAXPt15447 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 21:33:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.242]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA07011 for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:33:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A179FC4.59386F38@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:39:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <002101c051db$0a28af20$4761040c@mom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Nancy, nancy wrote: > > At our club last Sunday, the boards got mixed up and the director was unable > to sort out the mess so she gave A/A for boards not played. Later, I played > around with ACBL score and scored the game in a practice mode, placed the > boards in the correct order and rescored the game using NP (not played) and > the results were exactly the same! However, discussing it with some of the > players involved, I found that they felt more comfortable with the NP entry > (which is what it would be if we scored by hand.) Hope this gives you some > insight into the problem. Nancy > That's impossible, Nancy. The scores for the other competitors are the same, true, but not for the pairs in question. Suppose it were a good pair, scoring 67% on the other boards. If they play late, they really should not get 67% for that board. They should get 40%. And I can believe they get 50% off Tony, but not 67%. I also have an "N" in brigitte (it's F7 here), but I recommend it's use only when more than 2 consecutive boards are left unplayed, for non-bridge reasons. -- 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 Nov 21 00:35:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKDYtM16159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:34:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from svuns012.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAKDYmt16154 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:34:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.250.197) by svuns012.its.it (5.1.050) id 3A0E65F600060D1A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:34:02 +0100 Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it (151.92.249.147) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.050) id 39F3FD160013059B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:32:40 +0100 Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:25:11 +0100 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] (BLML)Values Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:20:53 +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 SCREENS - W N E S 2H P 2NT(#) P 3C(*) P 3H D! P 3S P P P 3C : W to S : SINGLETON : E to N : VALUES ALSO AS SINGLETON JT987 XX KX | JXXX |_____ KX | AXX KQTXXX | JXX XXXX | QJXX X | QT98 |_________________ QXX AX ATXX AKXX The play : E S W N 10C AC XC XC AS XP XS 7S 9C KC KS XC Result : -1 What is your rule ? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 00:49:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKDnGF16209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:49:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAKDn9t16205 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:49:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-42.cswnet.com [209.136.193.42]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5DB445D04B; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:49:04 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "David J Grabiner" , , References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 07:49:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: 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 J Grabiner" To: ; "A. L. Edwards" ; Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2000 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, A. L. Edwards wrote: > > venue: ACBL club game. > > A table is late, so I pull the last board. Both pairs are at fault. > > I usually give a late play, [snip] > I can see a case for the N under the following logic: The players were > late in playing the board, and should pay the standard penalty, which > is having to stay late and play the board then. [snip] Excuse me for butting in, but why is staying late to play a board a "penalty" except that it penalizes everyone else who would like to see the final results without having to wait around another 10 minutes. The director has said that both pairs were at fault, yet he ususally gives a late play. The ACBL's rules on slow play state that "Bridge is a timed event" and that aside from inconveniencing everyone else, slow play is unfair because the offenders get more time to play the hands, giving them at advantage over everyone else. As I recall, in school if we took a test, we had a specific amount of time and we didn't get to stay late to finish if we were too slow. Since ACBL specifically says that offenders should be penalized, why do we not penalize them rather than allowing late play? One reason for my asking this is that Saturday, one pair had not started bidding the last board when everyone else was already finished. At their pace of play, everyone interested in the final results would have had to sit around another 10 minutes waiting, so I gave both pairs an Average (in the spirit of compromise since most directors let them get away with late plays). But I got a lot of grief from one of the players, so I would like some more guidance in what the rules expect of the TD in this situation. Nelson Ford http://www.hsbridge.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 Nov 21 02:15:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKFEOq16440 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:14:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAKFEIt16436 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 02:14:18 +1100 (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 KAA20440; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:14:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA101983247; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:14:07 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:14:05 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu, nford@mail.cswnet.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 20 Nov 2000 10:14:04 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAKFEKt16437 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson Ford wrote: One reason for my asking this is that Saturday, one pair had not started bidding the last board when everyone else was already finished. At their pace of play, everyone interested in the final results would have had to sit around another 10 minutes waiting, so I gave both pairs an Average (in the spirit of compromise since most directors let them get away with late plays). But I got a lot of grief from one of the players, so I would like some more guidance in what the rules expect of the TD in this situation. _______________________________________________________________________ I dont know if I am right, but at the club level I try not to have late plays as hard as I can. Other players dont like to wait another 10 min. for results. So I push slow players. If a table is realy late, I try to convince both pairs it would be nice if they agree not to play the hand (I use N command if they do). If one pair does not agree, I allow a late play but make some pressure on them during play saying something like "go fast, whole people is waiting for you". Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 03:31:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKGUUC16656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:30:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAKGUOt16652 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 03:30:25 +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 IAA06003; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:30:19 -0800 Message-Id: <200011201630.IAA06003@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML)Values In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:20:53 PST." Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 08:30:20 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Please don't use tabs in posts; it causes formatting problems. I've tried to reformat the hand diagram. Also: the vulnerability should be included, since it might be significant in a competitive part-score auction such as this. Ennio Nardullo wrote: > SCREENS - > > W N E S > 2H P 2NT(#) P > 3C(*) P 3H D! > P 3S P P > P > > 3C : W to S : SINGLETON > : E to N : VALUES ALSO AS SINGLETON > > > >\ JT987 > \ XX > \ KX > \ JXXX > \ > KX \ AXX > KQTXXX \ JXX > XXXX \ QJX > X \ QT98 > \ > \ > QXX \ > AX \ > ATXX \ > AKXX \ The original post had East with 14 cards, and 14 diamonds around the table, so I assume East's distribution is actually as shown. > The play : E S W N > 10C AC XC XC > AS XP XS 7S > 9C KC KS XC Result : -1 > > What is your rule ? I don't know what I'm being asked to rule on, but I can't see a reason to adjust. The discrepancy here is that South wasn't told that West was showing values, while North was told that he was. However, both opponents knew that E-W didn't have the values for game, since they were ready to stop in 3H. One of N-S might be misinformed about the distribution of values between East and West, but I don't see how this has an impact on any decisions N-S made. Also, North should duck the first club around to the jack and make his contract. If North is claiming that the "values" explanation led him to believe West was likely to have a singleton queen of clubs---sorry, I don't buy it. Singleton queens don't really count as a "value". (IMHO, of course.) I don't see any MI damage here. But maybe I didn't look hard enough? -- 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 Nov 21 05:55:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKIrdP17017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:53:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAKIrXt17012 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 05:53:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A244DD81BD for ; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:53:27 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:53:27 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAKIrat17013 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 10:32:44 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >You agree with me that all info that a player is entitled to >is AI. Yes. >So, when my partner asks for an explanation of opponent's >calls, I am entitled to listen to that. Yes. >Which opens the door to the pro question. > >So we must keep the distinction. I don't think that follows. I assume that "the pro question" means "asking about opponents' system in order to inform partner about that system". Assume my LHO opens 2D, alerted. My partner asks what it means and is told that it is a multi. I assume that we agree that this does not in general mean that it is now UI to me that opponents play multi (typically I would have asked or looked at the CC when it became my turn, but I don't need that now). If it did mean that, I would be obliged to assume it meant something else, which would not have much to do with bridge. But what if my partner is a pro? Surely that cannot in itself make the information UI. But there is no difference from my side of the table: all I know is that partner has asked a question and I've heard the answer. So how could we determine exactly when the answer to partner's question is UI and when it is not? If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we must penalize the question itself. That is, (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not interested in right now), and (b) penalize when it happens, using either a PP or L72B1. This can only be done if we can actually rule that a question is asked for partner's sake, but we will have to make that distinction anyway. >The information itself is AI, but the fact that it is >interesting remains UI, unless it would be normal for the >player to also seek the info. Normal being viewed quite >large when partner does nothing wrong. I would say that the gained information about opponents' system is AI, but the fact that partner found it relevant to ask at that particular time is UI. As for it "being normal to also seek the info", I hope that it is normal for any player above the rank of beginner always to seek information about alerted calls that he does not know the meaning of, unless it clearly does not matter to him. >What is your stance on the pro question, Jesper ? Personally I prefer a game where people know the opponents' system, even if they are so much beginners that they do not ask. My objections to the pro question are: * it disturbs the game with more questions than necessary, * it tends to keep being necessary, because it stops players from learning to ask for themselves, and * sometimes it provides UI of the form "you had better think carefully about what is going on now, partner". So I am clearly against the pro question. But I definitely don't mind the beginner actually knowing his opponents' system. And I have very little sympathy for players who feel cheated because they did not gain an advantage through their opponents' lack of knowledge of the system. >Don't you see there is a similarity here ? Yes. And my solution is the same: let the information be AI, and penalize the violation of procedure that is the real problem. I think my attitude to these questions is based on a belief that while it is an important and deliberate part of the game that players are required to remember their own system if they want to score well, the rules of the game do not require players to remember things like the auction (while it is going on), the vulnerability, the opponents' system, etc. in order to score well. So I cannot really see it as anything other than a benefit to the game that players are aware of those things. If a player learns such things accidentally, but through legal actions (e.g., the alert from E when W jumped to 2S), that is just fine. That does not mean, of course, that it is acceptable for partner to deliver such information in a way that violates correct procedure: the pro question, "Didn't you see my jump, partner", etc. But when that happens, I'd much prefer the penalty to apply to the violation of procedure and let the information remain AI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 06:06:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKJ62R17066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:06:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAKJ5ut17062 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 06:05:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id TAA29824 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:05:44 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 19:05 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Jesper's view certainly has one advantage : no need for the > question "would he have realised himself that there was > something strange ?". > However, Jesper, I would gladly concede that one problem for > getting rid of one other : the pro question. > > You agree with me that all info that a player is entitled to > is AI. Yes > So, when my partner asks for an explanation of opponent's > calls, I am entitled to listen to that. Yes > Which opens the door to the pro question. No. Asking a question in order to draw partner's attention to a particular aspect of your own hand (The Pro Question) is clearly illegal under Law seventy something (no law-book handy). The question itself is a serious offense punishable by anything up to disqualification. There is no need, or reason, to punish the amateur opposite who hears the legitimate answer. If you are not prepared to rule something a pro question then you can't adjust under L16 anyway (unless you rule that the question itself had UI content - and you can still do that). As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol). S: "2 Clubs", alert from North Me: "Yes please" N: "Ordinary Benji." Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so obviously right that in future I will just ask. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 08:17:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKLE1Y17307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:14:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAKLDtt17303 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 08:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKENcX00631 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:23:38 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 14:12:12 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Tim West-meads wrote: > As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the > weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed > CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol). > > S: "2 Clubs", alert from North > Me: "Yes please" > N: "Ordinary Benji." > > Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is > played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask > them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here > I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the > rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I > don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, > and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so > obviously right that in future I will just ask. The difference here is that North's explanation is an infraction; conventions should not be identified by name but by description. You should be allowed to correct the infraction. As a similar situation, which has happened to me: W N E 1C 1S 3C There is no alert, but I check the convention card anyway and jump raises in competition are marked as weak (alertable in the ACBL, but many players don't know this even though the box is red on the card; my partner is one of those players). I believe that I am allowed to ask here because I know something is wrong. The alternative is not to ask and then to call the director at the end of the hand if we could have been damaged (say, because partner declares the hand and misplaces the cards on the auction). Not only is this going to lead to ill will, but it also looks like a double shot because I could have avoided the problem. -- 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 Nov 21 09:21:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKMK8u17397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:20:08 +1100 (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 eAKMK2t17393 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:20:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25616; Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:15:16 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:17:02 -0500 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim West-Meads wrote: >I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the >rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I >don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, >and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so >obviously right that in future I will just ask. You have my sympathy , but... you know it's against the rules, but you'll do it anyway? ln this case, at least, I think asking further would be justified - as someone pointed out, the "explanation" is insufficient under the regulations anyway. I had an interesting discussion at the table yesterday. My partner and I missed a slam, and we were discussing what she might have bid with a balanced 17 HCP other than a limit raise . I allowed that she should have bid 2NT, which in our Precision system is unlimited. "No," says LHO, "you can't do that, because Jacoby is limited to 15 HCP." I explained to her that we were playing our system, not hers , but the point is that clearly if partner *had* bid 2NT, and I had alerted and explained it as "Jacoby", that would have been misinformation to LHO, who would (probably) have assumed it was limited to 15 HCP, as she plays it. I think the best thing to do when you hear "that's the XYZ convention" is simply to say "continue, please" or "more detail, please". 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/AwUBOhmjbb2UW3au93vOEQInywCgj0AZPfgPd2BT/U5wQ+Ry2RwgJYUAnRA4 F6Kujth1r1YsbG2KCaV+rWRz =LMW7 -----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 Nov 21 09:27:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAKMRfO17409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:27:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gateway.telekom.ru (relay1.telekom.ru [194.190.195.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAKMRUt17405 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:27:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from elnet.msk.ru (h88.37.elnet.msk.ru [195.58.37.88]) by gateway.telekom.ru (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAKMR5K03504; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:27:05 +0300 (MSK) Message-ID: <3A19A517.413003FB@elnet.msk.ru> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 01:26:31 +0300 From: vitold X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [ru] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Grattan Endicott CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams References: <006901c04b5b$489f9920$24e07ac3@toshiba4020cdt><3.0.6.32.20001113185941.00797100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <5PkEBwADPsE6EwWE@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <003801c051a5$99766220$68047bc3@marina> <001301c052c4$fbbb5600$0a5908c3@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Sergey Kapustin > > The EW's damage consequence of the infraction is > > losing +470 (2S* making) > > The EW's damage subsequent to the infraction is -1400 (4C*, -6) > > So the part of the self-inflicted's damage is -1400+470 = -930 > I guess Sergey ment (470) - (-1400) = 1870, that means lost 1870 instead of 930 > > > +=+ I would suggest the calculation might preferably be done > in this style: > Consequent damage: 2S making = NS +470 = (say) +11 imps > Subsequent damage: 4CX = NS +1400 = (say) +16 imps Sorry - at the first case NS -470 = (say) -11 imps > > So the self-inflicted damage is the difference of 5 imps. This is > merely an illustration, without comment on the assumptions or > on the judgement of the relevant scores. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > That's why Grattan's numbers are (11) - (-16) = 27 imps lost for EW (innocent pair, that made wild action). Right?:) Vitold -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 17:40:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAL6aud18518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:36:56 +1100 (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 eAL6apt18514 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:36:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da603619 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:36:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-213.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.213]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Ludicrous-MailRouter V2.9c 3/2106131); 21 Nov 2000 16:36:16 Message-ID: <020301c05385$3942aa80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML)Values Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:35:18 +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 Introduction: The crucial point is surely that at Trick Three declarer played CK because he thought the leader might have C109 and the opener CQ8x. Adam Beneschan wrote: >Ennio Nardullo wrote and Adam repaired: > >> SCREENS - >> >> W N E S >> 2H P 2NT(#) P >> 3C(*) P 3H D! >> P 3S P P >> P >> >> 3C : W to S : SINGLETON >> : E to N : VALUES ALSO AS SINGLETON >> >>\ JT987 >> \ XX >> \ KX >> \ JXXX >> \ >> KX \ AXX >> KQTXXX \ JXX >> XXXX \ QJX >> X \ QT98 >> \ >> \ >> QXX \ >> AX \ >> ATXX \ >> AKXX \ > >The original post had East with 14 cards, and 14 diamonds around >the table, so I assume East's distribution is actually as shown. > >> The play : E S W N >> 10C AC XC XC >> AS XP XS 7S >> 9C KC KS XC Result : -1 >> >> What is your rule ? > >I don't know what I'm being asked to rule on, but I can't see >a reason to adjust.... I assume that E told N that 3C was "singleton or values in clubs", with the translation to English above not being totally clear. If E's explanation is incorrect, and W's explanation that 3C showed a singleton club is correct, then IMO NS are entitled to make at least one extra trick. Of course, if the explanation given to N was correct, then there should be no adjustment. Now we come to the "big mystery" - why didn't N ruff out the diamonds and make his contract anyway? I assume there was a heart switch at Trick 4, and declarer drew trumps (which is necessary if diamonds are 6-1, "impossible" on the play and bidding, but not irrational enough to break the link between damage and adjusted score IMO). Then declarer lacked an entry to dummy to access D10. However had declarer ducked the club, he has a club entry to D10 and cannot sensibly avoid making ten tricks instead of nine tricks. I can understand someone giving North only nine tricks but I think it's correct to give him ten tricks if E's explanation is wrong. Thus my ruling is: - E's explanation found to be incorrect: 170 to NS. - E's explanation found to be correct: no adjustment. Adam wrote: >Also, North should duck the first club around to the jack and >make his contract. Not a good play if C10 is a singleton or is from C1098x or from C109 or from (unlikely on the bidding) C109x. One final question: say that at Trick Three when E played C9, N called the Director and said: "My screenmate was a bit vague about his explanation of 3C, can I please see what W wrote as his explanation on the other side of the screen?" What should the Director tell North? 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 Nov 21 17:41:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAL6f6v18543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:41:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAL6f2t18539 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:41:02 +1100 (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 RAA13505 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:35:06 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:36:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:37:50 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 21/11/2000 06:32:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby gaining first place. On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the event when I noticed that our final round opponents had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, propelling them into fourth place. Question: Although the correction period under L79C had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* score - two opposing teams both winning their match by a maximum - be adjusted? 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 Nov 21 18:10:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAL7AYJ18621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:34 +1100 (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 eAL7ATt18617 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:10:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot25.domain0.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca558638 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:09:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-141.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.141]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Equine-MailRouter V2.9b 13/3905261); 21 Nov 2000 17:09:48 Message-ID: <02bc01c05389$ea208a80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 18:08:55 +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 Sergei Litvak wrote: >Mixt National Championship.Swiss Teams.Table 2. >Women are at W and N. >Board 17, N,- > x > KJx > Q98xx > Qxxx >Jx KTxxxxx >AQTxx -- >JTxx xx >xx KJxx > AQx > 98xxx > AK > Axx >The bidding and explanation >W N E S > p p 1NT >2D db 2S p >p ...db p 3NT >p p 4C db > all pass >2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about >1 min. hesitation) - as showing extra values. >TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with >her partner and said that there in her opinion they don't need TD. >After the end if the board (TD was at the table during the play) >E asks for the ruling. >What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is >available for AC). First I would try to find out what the double of 2S really meant, and whether South's explanation of it was correct. EW's failure to return to 4S over 4C is curious and may have been affected by their misinterpretation of words used to describe the double of 2S. The extent to which both males try to play the hand is interesting. East was prepared to bid 4C to play the hand, and had reached Table 2 of the Swiss nonetheless. And South would rather play 3Nt himself than let his rival play 2SX. If East is a good card player then I suspect that South would never ever have considered passing 2SX at teams with a good player as declarer. His LHO and his partner have both shown diamonds, making his DAK less likely to win tricks in 2SX, all his partner has shown beyond diamonds is "extra strength" in which case with his maximum 3NT looks good, and he lack the basic requirement of four good trumps to pass a double which merely shows extra strength (nothing to do with spades) if the description of 2S as "extra values" is accurate. The UI from North's slow double presumably is that the extra values double could be somewhat lacking in spade content. But according to the information provided to BLML there is no required spade content for the double. As director, I would most certainly explore this avenue at the table. In summary I do not think BLML has enough information to make a decision, but my tendency based on the information provided would be to allow the score to stand, on the grounds that passing the double is probably not a LA at teams at this level. 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 Nov 21 20:32:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAL9SUc18986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:28:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAL9Rkt18982 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 20:27:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-7.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.7]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA18718 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:27:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A19048C.BC4C7865@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 12:01:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <001101c044a9$dc815880$9f5408c3@dodona> <3A186732.6712.2C1FA42@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jens Brix Christiansen wrote: > > > This present ruling has this same flavor. Jesper is in a way a > party, since he was consulted in connection with the ruling made > by the Appeals Committee at the event. We have overruled this > Appeals Committe, and thereby indirectly Jesper. We have > presented our reasons for our ruling as best we could, and we have > listened to the opinions expressed afterwards. We will continue to > listen. Thanks Jens, for this input. I fully appreciate your decision not to comment. I also appreciate your willingness to listen, and to correct facts if necessary. You must agree that it is an interesting topic. I should say that I have learnt a great deal from it. Not in the sense that I needed to alter my views. But rather that I am now better able to more quickly see where the problem lies. Thanks also to Jesper for submitting the case in the first place. -- 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 Nov 21 21:21:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALAKUm19110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:20:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eALAKOt19106 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:20:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id KAA27900 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:20:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:20 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: Ed Reppert wrote: > >I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the > >rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I > >don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, > >and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is > >soobviously right that in future I will just ask. > > You have my sympathy , but... you know it's against the rules, but > you'll do it anyway? Not exactly. I have always believed that asking here should be legal but was trying to give the other side of the argument a chance. I am now absolutely convinced that I should be, and am, allowed to ask here. I will, of course, call the TD after the hand and tell him that I have committed what some consider an infraction in order to make sure that a ruling can be given. > ln this case, at least, I think asking further would be justified - > as someone pointed out, the "explanation" is insufficient under the > regulations anyway. Sure the explanation is an infraction - but it was adequate to *my* needs. *I* knew that if I asked a follow-up it would be solely for partner's benefit. Of course the "damage" from this infraction was to my wife's learning opportunity and enjoyment of the game - not easy to quantify when adjusting a board. Nor did I feel that the opponent was being deliberately unhelpful - she knew I was an experienced player and that our partnership had had two c60% sessions, it hadn't occurred to her that my partner might be so inexperienced as not to know Benji. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 21 21:51:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALAoOn19186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:50:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eALAoHt19182 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:50:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.50] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13yB05-000Ifb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:50:10 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c053a8$e0b5dd00$0e5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:50:01 -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 "Sir Roger told them, with the air of a man who would not give his judgement rashly, that much might be said on both sides. " - Joseph Addison = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race > > Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, > scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > > In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby > gaining first place. > > On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the > event when I noticed that our final round opponents > had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, > propelling them into fourth place. > > Question: Although the correction period under L79C > had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* > score - two opposing teams both winning their match > by a maximum - be adjusted? > +=+ The Geneva question again? If the SO has remembered to cover the point in its regulations you follow the guidance in the regulations. Or you may be lucky and the NBO may have made a relevant provision. If not, 'tabulating' in Law 79C applies. Law and regulations are binding. I would, however, refer the matter to the tournament committee since this may have some reserve powers that it could use. ~ 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 Nov 21 23:23:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALCMHI19456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:22:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com [139.134.5.180]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eALCMAt19452 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:22:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa543078 for ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 22:21:31 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-181.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.181]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Colourful-MailRouter V2.9c 17/1920295); 21 Nov 2000 22:21:29 Message-ID: <010f01c053b5$74276a20$9bd436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 23:20:35 +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 Warning: the bidding is a bit complicated. A major Sydney teams championship 20/11/00 (imps) Swiss (Table 1 - the two leading teams, all expert players) Dealer E, NS vul AK5 2 K97 AQ10954 97643 10 10754 AJ963 6 AJ542 J76 82 QJ82 KQ8 Q1083 K3 W N E S Pass 1S Pass 2C 2NT Dbl 3H 3S Pass 3NT Pass 4C Pass 4S Pass 4NT All Pass NS play a new bidding system which is gaining popularity here following its stunning top-level success. The system is 5 card majors with 2/1 GF, but with 11-14 balanced one opens 4 card majors aggressively then passes the "forcing 1NT response". After a 2/1 GF response, the 11-14 4M hand rebids 2NT. The idea is to combine scientific bidding with an attacking preemptive 4 card major approach. Thus South opened 1S. North's 2C was game-forcing, natural. 2NT showed 5/5 in the unbid suits. NS were on undiscussed territory now, South intending his double as simply looking for penalties, but North being unsure whether South should pass with the 11-14 balanced 4M hand and double with extra strength. North almost passed 3NT but decided to try a (hopefully natural) 4C. South tried to sign off in 4S. North thought for a long time (2 minutes?) and decided to Blackwood (straight BW, not RKCB). South passed 4NT like a shot, and explained to the opening leader's questions that he wasn't sure what any of the bids meant from 4C onwards, especially 4NT. A diamond was led and 4NT made five. The Director was called about South's pass after North's long tank. South said that since he didn't know what his partner's bids meant, he judged that East was likely to have HA and a top diamond for the 2NT bid so South's values were a pile of rubbish, so he passed since North could have Blackwooded earlier if he really wanted to go slamming. He thought it sounded to him like North was just prodding around beyond 3NT looking rather than insisting on higher levels. On the bidding his HKQx looked like dud values opposite a likely singleton. North said that he thought 4NT was Blackwood and he was surprised South passed. He said that before he bid 4NT he tried to work out his continuations and decided to bid 5H over 5D in order to offer a choice of contracts (5S, 5NT, 6C or 6S). NS have only played together four times (they were in a Team of Five and were not a regular partnership). The Director ruled that South's Pass may have been affected by the slow tempo of North's 4NT, and adjusted to NS minus 100. At the other table EW went for 1400 in 5H doubled. How would you rule? 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 Nov 22 00:40:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALDd7K19642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:39:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from svuns012.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eALDd0t19638 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 00:39:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.250.197) by svuns012.its.it (5.1.050) id 3A0E65F600071558; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:35:17 +0100 Received: from ex1unintd03.its.it (151.92.249.147) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.050) id 39F3FD16001407FD; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:35:20 +0100 Received: by EX1UNINTD03 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:27:51 +0100 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: Peter Gill Cc: BLML Subject: R: [BLML] (BLML)Values Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 14:23:31 +0100 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 eALDd3t19639 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry for my english . I was not the arbiter (my friend). EST say "values also of singleton" and i suppose that he means that the singleton is a value of distribution interesting . OVEST , the woman , perhaps says the cards ... I don't know ................................ -----Messaggio originale----- Da: Peter Gill [mailto:GillP@bigpond.com] Inviato: martedė 21 novembre 2000 7.35 A: BLML Oggetto: Re: [BLML] (BLML)Values Introduction: The crucial point is surely that at Trick Three declarer played CK because he thought the leader might have C109 and the opener CQ8x. Adam Beneschan wrote: >Ennio Nardullo wrote and Adam repaired: > >> SCREENS - >> >> W N E S >> 2H P 2NT(#) P >> 3C(*) P 3H D! >> P 3S P P >> P >> >> 3C : W to S : SINGLETON >> : E to N : VALUES ALSO AS SINGLETON >> >>\ JT987 >> \ XX >> \ KX >> \ JXXX >> \ >> KX \ AXX >> KQTXXX \ JXX >> XXXX \ QJX >> X \ QT98 >> \ >> \ >> QXX \ >> AX \ >> ATXX \ >> AKXX \ > >The original post had East with 14 cards, and 14 diamonds around >the table, so I assume East's distribution is actually as shown. > >> The play : E S W N >> 10C AC XC XC >> AS XP XS 7S >> 9C KC KS XC Result : -1 >> >> What is your rule ? > >I don't know what I'm being asked to rule on, but I can't see >a reason to adjust.... I assume that E told N that 3C was "singleton or values in clubs", with the translation to English above not being totally clear. If E's explanation is incorrect, and W's explanation that 3C showed a singleton club is correct, then IMO NS are entitled to make at least one extra trick. Of course, if the explanation given to N was correct, then there should be no adjustment. Now we come to the "big mystery" - why didn't N ruff out the diamonds and make his contract anyway? I assume there was a heart switch at Trick 4, and declarer drew trumps (which is necessary if diamonds are 6-1, "impossible" on the play and bidding, but not irrational enough to break the link between damage and adjusted score IMO). Then declarer lacked an entry to dummy to access D10. However had declarer ducked the club, he has a club entry to D10 and cannot sensibly avoid making ten tricks instead of nine tricks. I can understand someone giving North only nine tricks but I think it's correct to give him ten tricks if E's explanation is wrong. Thus my ruling is: - E's explanation found to be incorrect: 170 to NS. - E's explanation found to be correct: no adjustment. Adam wrote: >Also, North should duck the first club around to the jack and >make his contract. Not a good play if C10 is a singleton or is from C1098x or from C109 or from (unlikely on the bidding) C109x. One final question: say that at Trick Three when E played C9, N called the Director and said: "My screenmate was a bit vague about his explanation of 3C, can I please see what W wrote as his explanation on the other side of the screen?" What should the Director tell North? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 22 02:14:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALFCv119828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:12:57 +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 (oe27.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eALFCpt19824 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:12:43 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [38.27.214.226] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <010f01c053b5$74276a20$9bd436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 09:15:10 -0600 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Nov 2000 15:12:43.0811 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F746730:01C053CD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 6:20 AM Subject: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear > Warning: the bidding is a bit complicated. > > A major Sydney teams championship 20/11/00 (imps) > Swiss (Table 1 - the two leading teams, all expert players) > > Dealer E, NS vul > > AK5 > 2 > K97 > AQ10954 > 97643 10 > 10754 AJ963 > 6 AJ542 > J76 82 > QJ82 > KQ8 > Q1083 > K3 > > W N E S > Pass 1S > Pass 2C 2NT Dbl > 3H 3S Pass 3NT > Pass 4C Pass 4S > Pass 4NT All Pass > > NS play a new bidding system which is gaining popularity > here following its stunning top-level success. The system > is 5 card majors with 2/1 GF, but with 11-14 balanced one > opens 4 card majors aggressively then passes the "forcing > 1NT response". After a 2/1 GF response, the 11-14 4M hand > rebids 2NT. The idea is to combine scientific bidding with an > attacking preemptive 4 card major approach. > > Thus South opened 1S. North's 2C was game-forcing, natural. > 2NT showed 5/5 in the unbid suits. NS were on undiscussed > territory now, South intending his double as simply looking for > penalties, but North being unsure whether South should pass > with the 11-14 balanced 4M hand and double with extra strength. > > North almost passed 3NT but decided to try a (hopefully natural) > 4C. South tried to sign off in 4S. North thought for a long time > (2 minutes?) and decided to Blackwood (straight BW, not RKCB). > South passed 4NT like a shot, and explained to the opening leader's > questions that he wasn't sure what any of the bids meant from 4C > onwards, especially 4NT. A diamond was led and 4NT made five. > > The Director was called about South's pass after North's long tank. > South said that since he didn't know what his partner's bids meant, > he judged that East was likely to have HA and a top diamond for > the 2NT bid so South's values were a pile of rubbish, so he passed > since North could have Blackwooded earlier if he really wanted to > go slamming. He thought it sounded to him like North was just > prodding around beyond 3NT looking rather than insisting on > higher levels. On the bidding his HKQx looked like dud values > opposite a likely singleton. > > North said that he thought 4NT was Blackwood and he was > surprised South passed. He said that before he bid 4NT he > tried to work out his continuations and decided to bid 5H over 5D > in order to offer a choice of contracts (5S, 5NT, 6C or 6S). > NS have only played together four times (they were in a Team > of Five and were not a regular partnership). > > The Director ruled that South's Pass may have been affected > by the slow tempo of North's 4NT, and adjusted to NS minus 100. > > At the other table EW went for 1400 in 5H doubled. > > How would you rule? > > Peter Gill > Sydney Australia. When employing 2-way bids it is imperative for players to be fastidious in their tempo so as to not create extraneous information that could clarify the situation. Here the players have asserted that they were in uncharted territory and time was used to sort things out. Once that time was used, certainly the players must respect the conclusion and here south did not. South opened the bidding on a motley collection of cards in the hopes of gain, with the understanding that it could propel the partnership beyond its capacity- the cost of doing business. It is indeed understandable given his pathetic values that S would want to put the emergency brakes on when partner asks for aces but he has no legal information [ in fact the legal information suggests that N has the stuff because he knows the cheesy openings that are systemic] upon which to base such an action, but he does have UI available. The huddle suggests that N is likely to be thin for asking for aces [and that east probably has some of the needed values]. A response to blackwood has been called for and if South does not give it then it must be adjudicated for him because UI was available. I feel that 5S is not very probable because of the likely 4-3 fit and bad split; and 5N is not very probable because of stiff heart. 5C appears to be the most likely contract absent the infraction which is likely to be down one or two tricks [DA, D ruff, HA, D ruff]. A weighted 12C3 score looks best. 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 Wed Nov 22 02:29:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALFTQa19871 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:29:26 +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 eALFTKt19866 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 02:29:20 +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 HAA00739; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:29:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200011211529.HAA00739@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] (BLML)Values In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 21 Nov 2000 17:35:18 PST." <020301c05385$3942aa80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 07:29:15 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: > I assume that E told N that 3C was "singleton or values in clubs", > with the translation to English above not being totally clear. I read it as showing a singleton club plus values (i.e. a non-minimum hand). My whole response was based on this assumption. If I misunderstood, then please ignore my previous response. -- 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 Nov 22 04:11:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALHAX720070 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:10:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eALHAKt20066 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:10:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eALHAth13063 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:10:55 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011211710.eALHAth13063@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:10:54 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> from "David J Grabiner" at Nov 20, 2000 02:12:12 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes: > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the > > weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed > > CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol). > > > > S: "2 Clubs", alert from North > > Me: "Yes please" > > N: "Ordinary Benji." > > > > Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is > > played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask > > them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here > > I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the > > rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I > > don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, > > and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so > > obviously right that in future I will just ask. > > The difference here is that North's explanation is an infraction; > conventions should not be identified by name but by description. You > should be allowed to correct the infraction. > > As a similar situation, which has happened to me: > > W N E > 1C 1S 3C > > There is no alert, but I check the convention card anyway and jump > raises in competition are marked as weak (alertable in the ACBL, but > many players don't know this even though the box is red on the card; > my partner is one of those players). I believe that I am allowed to ask > here because I know something is wrong. The alternative is not to ask > and then to call the director at the end of the hand if we could have > been damaged (say, because partner declares the hand and misplaces the > cards on the auction). Not only is this going to lead to ill will, but > it also looks like a double shot because I could have avoided the > problem. That's precisely the argument that Kaplan put forth in his Bridge World editorial. You may feel that you should be allowed to ask questions to clarify for your partner, but I don't see any support for that point of view in the WBFLC pronouncement on the subject. Perhaps they missed this point. Perhaps they felt that this is still the best that can be done -- that in making exceptions they are opening the door to the evil that is the "Pro question" (and I'm not being sarcastic here. A lot of people who have a good grasp of the practical side of running a fair game feel very strongly on this point. All I can say is that my bridge experience hasn't been the same as theirs on the evils of questioning). But whatever the reason it seems clear to me than in asking you'd be breaking the Laws. Dunno here. I have always had a lot of sympathy with Tim's point of view. And I'm playing most frequently with somebody who's roughly at Tim's patners level so I can relate. I've chosen not to ask and to discuss with my partner afterwards. YMMV Incidently, I just discussed this with my partner. He doesn't agree with Tim's wife. Not that it makes any sense to him, but if it's against the Laws of the game he doesn't want any part of 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 Nov 22 04:38:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eALHc4F20116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:38:04 +1100 (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 eALHbvt20112 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 04:37:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive457.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.167]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA28816; Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:37:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003701c053e2$8b369ba0$a710f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Nelson/Kay Ford" , "David J Grabiner" , , References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 12:42:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At the club level, players attend to play bridge and resent not getting their money's worth if you take away a board. If you want to keep the paying customers reasonably happy, you had best allow one late play per customer...and on occasion give them some leeway if on another round slow opponents are the problem. Some pairs are continually slow despite all attempts to speed them up...but they are usually among the worst bridge players in the room as well. It is not fair to the opponent who gets them last to lose a putative 70-80% result on the unplayed hand...even if he caught a late earlier against another slow pair. (If a pair has had repeated warnings and still will not at least attempt to play to tempo I suggest a PPw, with the understanding that it will become an increasingly large PPf if no improvement is attempted. This way you give the culprits a fair chance to amend things...and only risk offending the offensive.) Perhaps you can be more draconian at the regional level and above where the Mr. & Mrs. Slowpoke N. Novice pairs aren't playing in the stratified event. But you WILL lose customers if you take boards away. Try it...the 2 1/2 table movement is remarkable! At least this problem has been minimized these days by non-smoking games with smoking breaks...it gives some slack for the slow to catch up. Of course if a smoker is late, that's too bad. I do give PPf's for one who refuses to come back when the round is called, even if he couldn't finish giving himself cancer. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "David J Grabiner" ; ; Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 8:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David J Grabiner" > > On Sat, 18 Nov 2000, A. L. Edwards wrote: > > > venue: ACBL club game. > > > A table is late, so I pull the last board. Both pairs are at fault. > > > I usually give a late play, > > [snip] > > > I can see a case for the N under the following logic: The players were > > late in playing the board, and should pay the standard penalty, which > > is having to stay late and play the board then. > > [snip] > > Excuse me for butting in, but why is staying late to play a board a > "penalty" > except that it penalizes everyone else who would like to see the final > results without having to wait around another 10 minutes. > > The director has said that both pairs were at fault, yet he ususally gives > a late play. The ACBL's rules on slow play state that "Bridge is a timed > event" and that aside from inconveniencing everyone else, slow play is > unfair because the offenders get more time to play the hands, giving them > at advantage over everyone else. As I recall, in school if we took a test, > we had a specific amount of time and we didn't get to stay late to finish > if we were too slow. Since ACBL specifically says that offenders should > be penalized, why do we not penalize them rather than allowing late play? > > One reason for my asking this is that Saturday, one pair had not started > bidding the last board when everyone else was already finished. At their > pace of play, everyone interested in the final results would have had to > sit around another 10 minutes waiting, so I gave both pairs an Average > (in the spirit of compromise since most directors let them get away with > late plays). But I got a lot of grief from one of the players, so I would > like > some more guidance in what the rules expect of the TD in this situation. > > Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 22 19:43:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAM8fV421247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:41:31 +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 eAM8fNt21243 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 19:41:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id JAA24906 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:41:20 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Nov 22 09:43:19 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 <01JWU46B22GW000L9H@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:40:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:36:42 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 09:40:24 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] The Caucus Race To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , bridge-laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B726@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 > > Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, > > scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > > > > In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby > > gaining first place. > > > > On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the > > event when I noticed that our final round opponents > > had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, > > propelling them into fourth place. > > > > Question: Although the correction period under L79C > > had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* > > score - two opposing teams both winning their match > > by a maximum - be adjusted? > > > +=+ The Geneva question again? If the SO has > remembered to cover the point in its regulations > you follow the guidance in the regulations. Or you > may be lucky and the NBO may have made a > relevant provision. > If not, 'tabulating' in Law 79C applies. Law > and regulations are binding. I would, however, > refer the matter to the tournament committee > since this may have some reserve powers that > it could use. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ By refering to the Geneva question the suggestion for THE answer seems too strong to me. In Geneva a result on a board was handed in that looked completely normal: 5CX - 5. Next morning we were told that the result was minus 6. When I remember well a Canadian player, not being able to sleep suddenly realised that the contract had been beaten by 6 tricks. Now it seems to be a 79B case, or might have been a 79B case. In the regulations it is possible to make a distinction between 79B and 79C, giving (much) more time for correction in case of a 79C case. If this was a club event, some players leaving after finishing play, my idea of the half hour is extended till the start of next session, certainly for 79C preferably also for 79B. This half hour is meant for inspection by the players and that should be a real possibility. I know that I am getting very inventive now, but obeying my general rule that a score needs to be based on the results and not on unnoticed errors or the like, and all possibilities to rectify the score are exhausted, I still would try to subtract the 25. Were they confronted in any way with their amazing result by calling the ranking? In that case I would tell them that they had the obligation to inform the TD about the mistake and even use L91B, using a special meaning for disqualification: disqualifying them for 4th place. I might do that anyway. There seems no time limit for that. If they want to appeal let them, but probably they will agree that something has to be done to get the right results out. 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 Nov 22 22:16:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMBFRY21366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:15:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAMBFKt21362 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:15:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-164.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.164]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11500 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 12:15:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 16:38:31 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: > > > Sure the explanation is an infraction - but it was adequate to *my* needs. > *I* knew that if I asked a follow-up it would be solely for partner's > benefit. Of course the "damage" from this infraction was to my wife's > learning opportunity and enjoyment of the game - not easy to quantify when > adjusting a board. Nor did I feel that the opponent was being > deliberately unhelpful - she knew I was an experienced player and that our > partnership had had two c60% sessions, it hadn't occurred to her that my > partner might be so inexperienced as not to know Benji. > > Tim West-Meads > Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full explanation. The only person that needs to learn something from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to her to ask, not up to you. -- 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 Nov 23 01:37:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMEWZX21480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:32:35 +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 eAMEWPt21476 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 01:32:26 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA16882 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:32:17 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:32 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear 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: Roger Pewick wrote: > The huddle suggests that N is likely to be thin for > asking for aces [and that east probably has some of the needed values]. North doesn't appear to me to be thin in values/distribution. Nor does the tempo suggest, at least to me, that he is. There are several things about which he could be thinking on this auction. I think Peter's title should have read "Another slow *call* whose meaning is unclear". It is far from clear to me whether 4N should be Blackwood or a sign-off and the tempo doesn't make this any clearer. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 03:28:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMGRTR21598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:27:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAMGRJt21590 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:27:24 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA27354 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:27:12 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: <200011211710.eALHAth13063@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Ron Johnson wrote: > Incidently, I just discussed this with my partner. He doesn't agree > with Tim's wife. Not that it makes any sense to him, but if it's > against the Laws of the game he doesn't want any part of it. My wife would be in full agreement with him - she too would want no part of something against the laws of the game. Nor would I. It is just that her comment to me has made me absolutely convinced that asking in this situation would not be considered "illegal communication between partners" by any sane lawmaker. 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 Nov 23 03:29:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMGRP521594 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:27:25 +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 eAMGRJt21589 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:27:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA27334 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:27:11 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:27 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: hermandw@village.uunet.be, 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: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing > nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full > explanation. Not strictly true. They *should* have had CCs and I believe EBU regs state that naming a convention is not normally sufficient as an explanation. Had she said "would you like to know more?" I would have said yes. > The only person that needs to learn something > from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to > her to ask, not up to you. Which she has learnt. Unfortunately learning what questions to ask, and how to ask them without making UI available is considerably more complex. It therefore seems reasonable to me that the opponents should learn to give better explanations. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 03:37:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMGapu21617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:36:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAMGajt21613 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 03:36:46 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eAMGbGv14872 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:37:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011221637.eAMGbGv14872@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 11:37:16 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "Tim West-meads" at Nov 22, 2000 02:32:00 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes: > > In-Reply-To: > Roger Pewick wrote: > > > The huddle suggests that N is likely to be thin for > > asking for aces [and that east probably has some of the needed values]. > > North doesn't appear to me to be thin in values/distribution. Nor does > the tempo suggest, at least to me, that he is. There are several things > about which he could be thinking on this auction. > > I think Peter's title should have read "Another slow *call* whose meaning > is unclear". It is far from clear to me whether 4N should be Blackwood or > a sign-off and the tempo doesn't make this any clearer. And yet an old "rule" that I first heard nearly 30 years ago works again. (and it's worked with surprising accuracy in my experience) Slow 4NT is to play. In tempo 4NT is Blackwood. I'm not saying this is the standard to use. I am however observing that it tends to take extra time to produce a natural 4NT in an unclear situation. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 04:45:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMHhkp21649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 04:43:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAMHhet21645 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 04:43:40 +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 13ydvj-000DlM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:43:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 17:42:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> >HdW wrote: >> Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing >> nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full >> explanation. > >Not strictly true. They *should* have had CCs and I believe EBU regs >state that naming a convention is not normally sufficient as an >explanation. Had she said "would you like to know more?" I would have >said yes. > >> The only person that needs to learn something >> from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to >> her to ask, not up to you. > >Which she has learnt. Unfortunately learning what questions to ask, and >how to ask them without making UI available is considerably more complex. >It therefore seems reasonable to me that the opponents should learn to >give better explanations. > >Tim West-Meads > I think you should say to your opponents "My partner is inexperienced and a fuller explanation would be helpful to her". By so doing you have prepared the moral high ground, and I cannot think of any TD who would be inclined to find against you. The point being that you have not asked any lead directing questions, nor suggested any particular action over another. In my book at least this is much preferable to asking the questions which you know your partner needs answering. I would then be inclined to find against you, as you have not set out your stall honestly, and I can deem you "... could have known ... might damage ...". cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 05:53:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMIpam21682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:51:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAMIpUt21678 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 05:51:31 +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 NAA23324 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:51:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA25366 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:51:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:51:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011221851.NAA25366@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > The difference here is that North's explanation is an infraction; > conventions should not be identified by name but by description. The existence of the infraction changes the "pro question" to the "Kaplan question." While there are people who think the Kaplan question is also illegal, as Dave says: > The alternative is not to ask > and then to call the director at the end of the hand if we could have > been damaged.... Not only is this going to lead to ill will, but > it also looks like a double shot because I could have avoided the > problem. Personally, I'd be happy to have the pro question be legal, but I seem to be in the minority on that point of view. Anyway, I'm with Jesper: if the question is an infraction, penalize the question! Don't confuse the issue by trying to make the answer UI. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 09:48:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMMkqB21786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:46:52 +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 (f124.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.149.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAMMkkt21782 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 09:46:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 14:46:38 -0800 Received: from 212.216.240.49 by lw4fd.law4.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:46:38 GMT X-Originating-IP: [212.216.240.49] From: "David Stevenson" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:46:38 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Nov 2000 22:46:38.0818 (UTC) FILETIME=[13326C20:01C054D6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol).S: "2 Clubs", alert from NorthMe: "Yes please"N: "Ordinary Benji."Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so obviously right that in future I will just ask. Tim West-Meads Perhaps you could convince her that when she does know what to ask she should ask. When she said she did not know Benjamin she made it clear what the problem was, so now you could convince her what to do about it. The trouble with communicating with partner in this way, apart from being illegal, is that once you have taken the first step in what might be considered a reasonable and acceptable situation it will become very difficult not to communicate wiht partner illegally in other more grey situations. Sorry about the format!!! David Stevenson in Sicily -- David Stevenson Reply to hotmail: copy to blakjak Liverpool, England, UK bridge@blakjak.demon.co.uk bluejak666@hotmail.com david@blakjak.demon.co.uk _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.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 Nov 23 10:43:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAMNgv721865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:42:57 +1100 (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 eAMNgpt21861 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:42:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-86.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.86]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 9ED3736ECA for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:42:28 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:44:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This week, I have had to rule several cases in which declarer, having to play from dummy, had named a card and subsequently announced that he had been mistaken and wanted to play a different card from the one named. I have ruled these cases all against these declarers, and I have now started wondering whether there might be a case at all in which a card named by declarer can be replaced under L45C4(b). Of course, the card named by declarer might constitute a revoke, but I would rule such a case under L62A, and not under L45C4(b). Can somebody construct an example for me in which L45C4(b) is correctly used to allow declarer to change a designation of a card that is in dummy while it is dummy's turn to play, please ? Thanks, Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 23 16:56:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAN5tj222130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:55:45 +1100 (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 eAN5tdt22126 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:55:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa177803 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 15:55:28 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-009-p-222-159.tmns.net.au ([203.54.222.159]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Logical-MailRouter V2.9c 11/370808); 23 Nov 2000 15:55:27 Message-ID: <005d01c05511$c9092a80$9fde36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:54:03 +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 Tim West-meads wrote: >I think Peter's title should have read "Another slow *call* >whose meaning is unclear". It is far from clear to me >whether 4N should be Blackwood or a sign-off and the >tempo doesn't make this any clearer. Oops - you're right - I meant to write "Another slow call" but I was think of the similarity to the slow pass in the "Two Aces" thread and made an error. The similarity being that in both cases it's hard to determine exactly what the player's tank meant. NS didn't appeal so the facts presented to BLML were limited. I now have a lot more detail of what North was thinking about, if it helps: - North says that South bid 3NT very quickly and he almost passed 3NT until he realised that that would probably be unethical, so he bid 4C (natural, cue, whatever), then heard 4S and his first instinct was to pass because partner might have cued a red ace if he had one. Then the more he thought the more he realised he had no idea what to call over 4S, so he Blackwooded planning to "cue" 5H over 5C or 5D then pass 5NT (he suspected partner held either something like Q9xx, KQ10, J10xx, KJ in which case 5NT has better prospects than 4S with a possible 5-1 spade break on the bidding, but perhaps partner held a good hand for his double of 2NT in which case a good slam would be reached). Had his partner bid 4NT over 4C, North had definitely planned to pass 4NT. - NS normally bid and play very quickly, and are the first pair finished almost all the time, which may or may not be relevant. I have no idea whether the above material affects anything. NS didn't appeal as they won the match easily and have a massive lead over the field which consists of the best players in Australia. The Director asked me to let him know what BLML thinks. 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 Nov 23 17:22:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAN6MBv22161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:22:11 +1100 (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 eAN6M7t22157 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:22:07 +1100 (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 RAA11776 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:15:49 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:16:43 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 17:18:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 23/11/2000 06:13:19 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The cardplay L45C4(b) is parallel to the auction L25A - both laws contain the phrase *without pause for thought*. A typical case where L45C4(b) might apply is where declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, and finesses the queen. Suddenly noticing that LHO has played the king, declarer tries to change dummy's card to the ace. However, I would rule that awakening from a doze does require thought, and allow LHO to win the trick. 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 Nov 23 20:47:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAN9jZ922265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:45:35 +1100 (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 eAN9jTt22261 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 20:45:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-191.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.191]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7759E36B09; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:45:08 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001901c05531$bd7e3fa0$bfb6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:42:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Strange question. L45 is quite clear about this. So I can give thousands of examples in which I allow declarer to change his designation. The 'only' thing that needs to be cleared is the question whether he inadvertently called for the card. If the director is convinced declarer did, he allows him/her to change that inadvertent statement. So it is your job Jac! And apparently you were not convinced in the cases this week. If you ask me whether I think it possible to make an inadvertent call for a card to be played from dummy my answer is 'yes'. For example an Italian lady calling in English for the K of hearts when she wanted to play the K of spades, which happened in the European Ch. in Turku '89. You must have heard about that case. So it happens at least once in a century. This statement is an eyeopener for myself. An inadvertent call for a card from dummy is so rare that we might consider not to make an exception to the normal rule that a card placed in the played position has to be played. This is also easier for the TD and for AC (wasn't there a case in the ACBL last year?). Do I still have no companions to allow the change of a card to be played in dummy in the following case? Dummy has AQJT and declarer plays small to the T winning, next trick winning in hand plays small to the J winning again, back and plays small saying Q before LHO plays a card. LHO produces the K thereafter. My statement was that declarer didn't designate the queen to be played, but indicated to finesse once more. So I think that 46B applies here: ' except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible' . This is not the same case as mentioned in the reply by Richard Hills. I would not allow the queen to be replaced by the ace if the K was played before asking for the queen. That is stupid, lazy etc. ton >This week, I have had to rule several cases in which declarer, having >to play from dummy, had named a card and subsequently announced that >he had been mistaken and wanted to play a different card from the one >named. I have ruled these cases all against these declarers, and I >have now started wondering whether there might be a case at all in >which a card named by declarer can be replaced under L45C4(b). >Of course, the card named by declarer might constitute a revoke, but I >would rule such a case under L62A, and not under L45C4(b). > >Can somebody construct an example for me in which L45C4(b) is >correctly used to allow declarer to change a designation of a card >that is in dummy while it is dummy's turn to play, please ? > >Thanks, > >Jac >(Jac Fuchs) > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 00:18:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eANDGtu22436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eANDGmt22432 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 00:16:49 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id NAA23283 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:16:40 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 13:16 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: John Probst wrote: > I think you should say to your opponents "My partner is inexperienced > and a fuller explanation would be helpful to her". Pretty much the question I would have asked. > By so doing you have > prepared the moral high ground, and I cannot think of any TD who would > be inclined to find against you. Judging for his comments I think DWS would. I think he is wrong to deem this sort of question illegal but I expect him to do so. > The point being that you have not asked > any lead directing questions, nor suggested any particular action over > another. Of course. I wouldn't have known what course of action to suggest anyway - all I could see was that Emily was visibly distressed at not understanding the answer we had been given. > In my book at least this is much preferable to asking the > questions which you know your partner needs answering. I would then be > inclined to find against you, as you have not set out your stall > honestly, and I can deem you "... could have known ... might damage > ...". cheers john I agree. 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 Nov 24 02:44:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eANFiYD22528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 02:44:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp9.xs4all.nl (smtp9.xs4all.nl [194.109.127.135]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eANFiRt22524 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 02:44:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from woek (s340-isdn1234.dial.xs4all.nl [194.109.184.210]) by smtp9.xs4all.nl (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA02690 for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:44:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002301c05553$52f4df00$d2b86dc2@xs4all.nl> From: "Kees van der Weijden" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 14:42:56 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk wrote: > The cardplay L45C4(b) is parallel to the auction L25A > - both laws contain the phrase *without pause for > thought*. > > A typical case where L45C4(b) might apply is where > declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, and finesses > the queen. Suddenly noticing that LHO has played > the king, declarer tries to change dummy's card to > the ace. Exactly this was a case during the oral examination for TD in Holland this year. The good decision was (ment to be): "rule against declarer". The reason for this was that there was a change of mind, so implicit a (very short behaps) *pause for thought*. When this is the way there have to be ruled, then there is indeed no right to exist for 45C4(b) in this case, and maybe not in general. Kees van der Weijden. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 02:44:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eANFiDe22522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 02:44:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eANFi6t22518 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 02:44:07 +1100 (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 KAA00615; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA182734238; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:43:58 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:43:56 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] L45C4(b) Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, jfuchs@worldonline.nl, t.kooyman@worldonline.nl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Thu, 23 Nov 2000 10:43:56 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eANFi9t22519 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Wrote: Dummy has AQJT and declarer plays small to the T winning, next trick winning in hand plays small to the J winning again, back and plays small saying Q before LHO plays a card. LHO produces the K thereafter. My statement was that declarer didn't designate the queen to be played, but indicated to finesse once more. So I think that 46B applies here: ' except when declarer's different intention is incontrovertible' . __________________________________________________________ I already sent such a case to BLML saying I ruled "the Q is played and the K win the trick" and was told by most my ruling was good. Law 45B reads "Declarer plays a card from dummy by naming the card". I find nothing in Laws about "premature play (not lead) by declarer". I dont see how 46B can be applied; the card was not called incompletely or erroneously. I can no more apply 45C4(c). It is not an inadvertent designation changed without pause for thought. IMHO the case above is just a negligent premature play by declarer and I still have to be convinced not to rule "the card is played". Dealing with declarer's intention is a dangerous slope I try to avoid (remember the famous Vancouver case...). It is like saying "Tiger Woods missed his last hit, 3 inches from the cup. I give it. His intention was to put the ball in the cup and I know he his a great player and can do it." I prefer to rule on facts. Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 05:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eANIuo222641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:56:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eANIuht22637 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:56:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis209.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.209]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4H00GJ3RA7GP@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:56:35 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 19:56:22 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-reply-to: <001901c05531$bd7e3fa0$bfb6f1c3@kooijman> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: blml Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001123194920.00a29e20@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 10:42 23.11.2000 +0100, you wrote: >Strange question. L45 is quite clear about this. So I can give thousands of >examples in which I allow declarer to change his designation. hmm. What is with the case where a declarer announces a card which he wanted to play for the NEXT trick. simple case: (lead in dummy = N) x J - xx x x xx xx - - A Q A - xx x contract: NT Obviously declarer wants to draw the heart (J) than go to spade ace and draw the diamonds for all tricks. He is not claiming beacuse then it would be no case... Say declarer misminds the situation and thinks now he already picked the heart and calls for the spade ace. Inadvertendly or advertendly??? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 09:55:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eANMsId22763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:54:18 +1100 (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 eANMsBt22759 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:54:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp236-161.worldonline.nl [195.241.236.161]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0B76636B69; Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:53:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002001c055a0$886ac1c0$a1ecf1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "ton kooijman" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 23:55:51 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: >Strange question. L45 is quite clear about this. >So I can give thousands of examples in which I allow >declarer to change his designation. L45 is clear indeed. But I haven't come across thousands of examples. The one you quote (declarer, whose knowledge of English is less than basic asks for the wrong card while discarding, whereas a card of the rank named is present in dummy in more than one suit) is the only case quoted so far that sounds convincing. I had indeed forgotten about this celebrated case .... The other cases quoted so far are either not L45C4(b), or are cases in which declarer would *not* be allowed the change. >The 'only' thing that needs to be cleared is the question >whether he inadvertently called for the card. >If the director is convinced declarer did, he allows him/her to change that >inadvertent statement. I agree, but I found it extremely hard to come up with a case in which it would be obvious that declarer had inadvertently called for the card. >So it is your job Jac! And apparently you were not convinced in the cases >this week. I was. I will quote two of them for you - I have forgotten the details of the others, but they were similar. I) declarer did end up in 3NT by way of a misbid and misinterpretation with about these hands (LHO had announced a two-suiter with both majors): Dummy : S xx H xx D KQxxx C QJxx Declarer: S Jx H KQx D Axxxx C AKx and the lead was a small heart, underleading the Ace ... Declarer got quite excited, smiled to LHO and said, "Well, I am going to make it after all". She won the HQ, cashed the Ace of diamonds, and next ducked a diamond to the by then bare jack of LHO, said she was mistaken and wanted to play DQ from dummy. (This happened in a hand played by the winners and the runners-up of last weekend's Dutch National Teams of Four Championship for children under 15 (or thereabouts; we call them pupillen. The hand was played after the tournament was over, though, and not during it). II) Declarer did end up in 3D doubled, and defence start with Ace of hearts and a heart ruff - dummy holds Kxx of hearts, declarer has QJxx of that suit. RHO returns a spade, won by dummy. Declarer now asks for the King of hearts to be played by dummy, which is the one and only King in dummy, but immediately announces he did not really want to play it. Declarer, when queried, he says that of course he has no intention whatsoever to present the defenders with another ruff; yet, he could not immediately say which card he *did* want to play. >If you ask me whether I think it possible to make an inadvertent call for a >card to be played from dummy my answer is 'yes'. For example an Italian lady >calling in English for the K of hearts when she wanted to play the K of >spades, which happened in the European Ch. in Turku '89. You must have heard >about that case. > I did, but I had forgotten about it. I found it a fair, but not 100% clearcut ruling at the time, and I still agree, but not wholeheartedly so. >So it happens at least once in a century. >This statement is an eyeopener for myself. An inadvertent call for a card >from dummy is so rare that we might consider not to make an exception to the >normal rule that a card placed in the played position has to be played. This is what prompted my question: I found it very hard to imagine such a case. > Jac -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 12:26:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAO1PgF22818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:25:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAO1Pbt22814 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:25:37 +1100 (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 MAA02772 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:19:38 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:20:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:22:17 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 24/11/2000 01:17:08 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Was: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear Peter Gill: - North says that South bid 3NT very quickly and he almost passed 3NT until he realised that that would probably be unethical, so he bid 4C (natural, cue, whatever), then heard 4S and his first instinct was to pass because partner might have cued a red ace if he had one. Then the more he thought the more he realised he had no idea what to call over 4S, so he Blackwooded planning to "cue" 5H over 5C or 5D then pass 5NT (he suspected partner held either something like Q9xx, KQ10, J10xx, KJ in which case 5NT has better prospects than 4S with a possible 5-1 spade break on the bidding, but perhaps partner held a good hand for his double of 2NT in which case a good slam would be reached). Had his partner bid 4NT over 4C, North had definitely planned to pass 4NT. - NS normally bid and play very quickly, and are the first pair finished almost all the time, which may or may not be relevant. Richard Hills: Classical hesitation Blackwood is 1. Feelgood Blackwood; 2. Response showing one ace missing; 3. Agonising over whether there is a second loser; 4. Signoff at five level; 5. Blackwooder's partner has UI that 2 aces are not missing; and, 6. Blackwooder's partner succesfully raises to slam. IMHO, the situation described by Peter Gill is merely a 21st century revision. Hyper-modern hesitation Blackwood is 1. Agonised Blackwood, showing either a) 4NT intended as natural signoff, or b) minimum slam-try; 2. Blackwooder's partner has UI favouring a pass; 3. Blackwooder's partner successfully passes. 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 Nov 24 20:01:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAO903Z23236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 20:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAO8xit23228 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:59:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in ([202.54.82.46]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id OAA06359 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:27:57 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3A1E2C00.7189BBE9@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:21:12 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] can he pass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Local club tournament K9x Ax KT9x Qxxxx QTxxxx AJx 87x T9xxx 76x AJx x Tx x KQJ Q86 AKJxxx North Dealer Bidding as follows: N E S W 1D 1H 3C P 3NT P 4NT P 5D x 5NT P P P both pairs playing Strong Club system 1D = prepared 12-17 hcp 1H = normal overcall 3C = natural good 6 card C suit 4NT = simple BW asking for aces 5NT = asking for kings 5NT was bid after very very long pause. QUESTION : Opps Object Can North Pass this 5NT bid of asking Kings ? what shud be the ruling thx n best regards yogesh -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 22:57:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOBs4423416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:54:04 +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.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAOBrvt23412 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:53:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (dialup-010.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.202]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA22666 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:53:45 GMT Message-ID: <000e01c0560d$c85437e0$ca307dc2@default> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: [BLML] Law 69 A: When Acquiescence Occurs Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 11:57:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0560D.C4E3C940" 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_000B_01C0560D.C4E3C940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello All, My internet link is working again! I was about to post a query on 69 A, when I got confused by the phrase = "before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round = ends".=20 I used to think that this meant 'whichever came first' but that is not = clear and I am beginning to doubt myself. Any clarifications? Best regards, Fearghal ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0560D.C4E3C940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello All,
 
My internet link is working = again!
 
I was about to post a query on 69 A, = when I got=20 confused by the phrase "before his side makes a call on a = subsequent=20 board, or before the round ends".
 
I used to think that this meant = 'whichever came=20 first' but that is not clear and I am beginning to doubt = myself.
 
Any clarifications?
 
Best regards,
 
Fearghal
 
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C0560D.C4E3C940-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Nov 24 23:23:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOCN5w23439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:23:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAOCMwt23435 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-242.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.242]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA14545 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:22:53 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 12:36:30 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? 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: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> > HdW wrote: > > Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing > > nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full > > explanation. > > Not strictly true. They *should* have had CCs and I believe EBU regs > state that naming a convention is not normally sufficient as an > explanation. Had she said "would you like to know more?" I would have > said yes. > No, sorry, Tim, not true. They should have CC's, but that does not alter their obligations. Maybe EBU regs state what you say, but I don't think they should, or that you are correct in assuming that they do. L40B contains "reasonably be expected to understand". Without going into the specifics, if you are "reasonably expected to understand" the explanation by just one word, then that is sufficient for the time being. > > The only person that needs to learn something > > from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to > > her to ask, not up to you. > > Which she has learnt. Unfortunately learning what questions to ask, and > how to ask them without making UI available is considerably more complex. > It therefore seems reasonable to me that the opponents should learn to > give better explanations. > Explanations are always incomplete. For instance, when my partner opens 2He, I am allowed to answer "Muiderberg" if my opponents are Dutch (they all know that); or if they are Flemish and I know them (which also means they are good enough so that I can assume they know what it means); or if they are Walloons and I add a question mark showing that I want them to acknowledge that they know what that means (most of them do by now). But if I am playing against you, I will say "5-11, 5 hearts, 4 or more of a minor". I would assume that you now know enough. And still that explanation would be insufficient. It would not include that it is (almost) never done with 6 hearts (I am assuming the "or more" with the minor suggests the omitted "exactly" with the 5 hearts). It would not include that it is almost never done with 7 of a minor. It would not include that we do have ways of showing which minor (I can assume that you assume that we are that clever). It would not include that we do have ways of showing a six card suit in the minor, but not a five card suit. And so on. All those things are available to you. But you need to ask. -- 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 Nov 24 23:49:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOCnlW23487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:49:47 +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 eAOCnet23483 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 23:49:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by stargate.agro.nl (8.9.0/AGROnet/8Dec1998) with SMTP id NAA24117 for ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:49:36 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Nov 24 13:51:34 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 <01JWX5EX76X8000O7C@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:48:48 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:45:01 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:48:47 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Law 69 A: When Acquiescence Occurs To: "'Fearghal O'Boyle'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B72B@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 about to post a query on 69 A, when I got confused by the phrase "before his side makes a call on a subsequent board, or before the round ends". I used to think that this meant 'whichever came first' but that is not clear and I am beginning to doubt myself. Any clarifications? Best regards, Fearghal Don't hesitate and post your query, your interpretation is the right one. Apparently something to clear up if even the 'mother tongue' has problems. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 25 04:37:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOHaOR23671 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 04:36:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAOHaHt23667 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 04:36:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-196.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.196]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2199536B97; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:35:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000001c0563c$a7bbc0a0$c4b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:50:43 +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 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, this was discussed before. That is why I asked for NEW companions. You are not aparently. And you have a good case. ton >Ton Wrote: > >Dummy has AQJT and declarer plays small to the T winning, >next trick winning in hand plays small to the J winning >again, back and plays small saying Q before LHO plays >a card. LHO produces the K thereafter. My statement was >that declarer didn't designate the queen to be played, >but indicated to finesse once more. So I think that 46B >applies here: ' except when declarer's different intention >is incontrovertible' . >__________________________________________________________ >I already sent such a case to BLML saying I ruled >"the Q is played and the K win the trick" and was >told by most my ruling was good. > >Law 45B reads "Declarer plays a card from dummy by >naming the card". I find nothing in Laws about >"premature play (not lead) by declarer". I dont see >how 46B can be applied; the card was not called >incompletely or erroneously. I can no more apply >45C4(c). It is not an inadvertent designation >changed without pause for thought. > >IMHO the case above is just a negligent premature >play by declarer and I still have to be convinced not >to rule "the card is played". Dealing with declarer's >intention is a dangerous slope I try to avoid >(remember the famous Vancouver case...). It is like >saying "Tiger Woods missed his last hit, 3 inches >from the cup. I give it. His intention was to put >the ball in the cup and I know he his a great player >and can do it." I prefer to rule on facts. > >Laval Du Breuil > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 25 07:45:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOKjEt23744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:45:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAOKj8t23740 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 07:45:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id XA98D29T; Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:45:04 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:50:20 -0600 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was somewhat in this position in the local Tuesday afternoon game earlier this week. I was declairer, spades were trums, and the lead was in dummy. I pointed at the spades and said, "club." Of course, I wanted a spade, and I said so immediately. A spade was allowed. REH >The cardplay L45C4(b) is parallel to the auction L25A >- both laws contain the phrase *without pause for >thought*. > >A typical case where L45C4(b) might apply is where >declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, and finesses >the queen. Suddenly noticing that LHO has played >the king, declarer tries to change dummy's card to >the ace. > >However, I would rule that awakening from a doze >does require thought, and allow LHO to win the >trick. > >Best wishes > >R Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 25 08:19:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAOLIt923800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:18:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAOLInt23796 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 08:18:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 24729 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2000 21:18:45 -0000 Delivered-To: fixup-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au@fixme Received: (qmail 24716 invoked by uid 0); 24 Nov 2000 21:18:44 -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; 24 Nov 2000 21:18:44 -0000 Message-ID: <3A1EDB38.CFD75777@uswest.net> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:18:48 -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] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear References: <005d01c05511$c9092a80$9fde36cb@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: > - North says that South bid 3NT very quickly and he almost > passed 3NT until he realised that that would probably be > unethical, so he bid 4C (natural, cue, whatever), then heard > 4S and his first instinct was to pass because partner might > have cued a red ace if he had one. Then the more he thought > the more he realised he had no idea what to call over 4S, so > he Blackwooded planning to "cue" 5H over 5C or 5D then pass > 5NT (he suspected partner held either something like > Q9xx, KQ10, J10xx, KJ in which case 5NT has better prospects > than 4S with a possible 5-1 spade break on the bidding, but > perhaps partner held a good hand for his double of 2NT in which > case a good slam would be reached). Had his partner bid 4NT > over 4C, North had definitely planned to pass 4NT. > We've heard a lot about North's thought processes. Earlier he was surprised to hear his partner pass 4NT. From this second collection of thoughts, it doesn't seem he was so surprised after all (since he had taken out his partner's supposedly unethically quick 3NT). Balancing these two independent statements it looks to me there is more than a possibility that North was giving his partner options. Peter. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 25 10:40:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAONdOk23869 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:39:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from diana.inter.net.il (diana.inter.net.il [192.114.186.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAONdHt23865 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:39:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Mizra-11-82.access.net.il [213.8.11.82]) by diana.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AET44724; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:39:06 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A1EFC4E.8975E09@inter.net.il> Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:39:58 +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 - November 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 26th 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(RB 2/2000), Gus, Gizmo (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 Beauvillain - Alphonse (1) 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 25 12:20:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAP1KBG23920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:20:11 +1100 (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 eAP1K6t23916 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:20:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from laptop.xtra.co.nz ([203.96.104.195]) by mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz with ESMTP id <20001125012000.BLAJ7475408.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@laptop.xtra.co.nz> for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:20:00 +1300 Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001125141634.02153490@pop3.xtra.co.nz> X-Sender: liz.burrows@pop3.xtra.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 14:19:24 +1300 To: Bridge Laws List From: Wayne Burrows Subject: Re: [BLML] Hesitation Blackwood 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 Richard Hills wrote: >IMHO, the situation described by Peter Gill is >merely a 21st century revision. Why doesn't he wait till the 21st century? Wayne Burrows -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Nov 25 12:24:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAP1OcQ23933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:24:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAP1OWt23929 for ; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:24:32 +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 13zU4m-0006pD-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 25 Nov 2000 01:24:24 +0000 Message-ID: <6nfaAcAbIrH6Ewdm@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 18:23:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A1D013E.A805C902@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 <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Tim West-meads wrote: >> >> In-Reply-To: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> >> HdW wrote: >> > Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing >> > nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full >> > explanation. >> > >> Not strictly true. They *should* have had CCs and I believe EBU regs >> state that naming a convention is not normally sufficient as an >> explanation. Had she said "would you like to know more?" I would have >> said yes. >> > >No, sorry, Tim, not true. > >They should have CC's, but that does not alter their >obligations. >Maybe EBU regs state what you say, but I don't think they >should, or that you are correct in assuming that they do. >L40B contains "reasonably be expected to understand". A beginner cannot be reasonably expected to understand "Benji". Were I playing with "she who must be obeyed" and that was the reply I would still explain that partner is inexperienced and a fuller explanation would be appreciated. I am of the view that this is not illegal communication with partner. One thing is for certain, it won't make any difference what explanation *is* given, it won't help partner who's going to get it all wrong anyway. I think it absurd even to contemplate how anyone who doesn't know what "benji" is could possibly have any UI. > >Without going into the specifics, if you are "reasonably >expected to understand" the explanation by just one word, >then that is sufficient for the time being. > >> > The only person that needs to learn something >> > from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to >> > her to ask, not up to you. >> >> Which she has learnt. Unfortunately learning what questions to ask, and >> how to ask them without making UI available is considerably more complex. >> It therefore seems reasonable to me that the opponents should learn to >> give better explanations. >> > >Explanations are always incomplete. >For instance, when my partner opens 2He, I am allowed to >answer "Muiderberg" if my opponents are Dutch (they all know >that); or if they are Flemish and I know them (which also >means they are good enough so that I can assume they know >what it means); or if they are Walloons and I add a question >mark showing that I want them to acknowledge that they know >what that means (most of them do by now). But if I am >playing against you, I will say "5-11, 5 hearts, 4 or more >of a minor". I would assume that you now know enough. >And still that explanation would be insufficient. It would >not include that it is (almost) never done with 6 hearts (I >am assuming the "or more" with the minor suggests the >omitted "exactly" with the 5 hearts). It would not include >that it is almost never done with 7 of a minor. >It would not include that we do have ways of showing which >minor (I can assume that you assume that we are that >clever). It would not include that we do have ways of >showing a six card suit in the minor, but not a five card >suit. And so on. > >All those things are available to you. But you need to ask. > -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Nov 26 15:11:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQ47xe24735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:07:59 +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 eAQ47ot24731 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:07:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.109] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 13zt6P-000IEa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:07:45 +0000 Message-ID: <005301c0575e$810c8e80$6d5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 04:07:13 -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 " Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank, The army of the unalterable law." - Meredith. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert E. Harris To: ; Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > > > >A typical case where L45C4(b) might apply is where > >declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, and finesses > >the queen. Suddenly noticing that LHO has played > >the king, declarer tries to change dummy's card to > >the ace. > > > >However, I would rule that awakening from a doze > >does require thought, and allow LHO to win the > >trick. +=+ Changes authorized by 45C4(b) apply only to inadvertent calls for cards. To call for the Q and then want to play the Ace involves a change of mind following a purposeful, not inadvertent, call by the definition recently reaffirmed by the WBFLC. If the player says 'finesse' then he may play LHO for the missing honour, including Ace on King.. This at any rate is the product of some 48 years of duplicate play, and some 26 years of appeal committee work, in which those with whom I have played and worked on committees have not dissented. ~ 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 Nov 26 23:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQCCsp25007 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:12:54 +1100 (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 [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eAQCCkt25003 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 74776 invoked for bounce); 26 Nov 2000 12:12:38 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-41-17.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.17) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 26 Nov 2000 12:12:38 -0000 Message-ID: <010801c057a2$7b0f69a0$11291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B726@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:14:38 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: > > > Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, > > > scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > > > > > > In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby > > > gaining first place. > > > > > > On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the > > > event when I noticed that our final round opponents > > > had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, > > > propelling them into fourth place. > > > > > > Question: Although the correction period under L79C > > > had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* > > > score - two opposing teams both winning their match > > > by a maximum - be adjusted? > > > > > +=+ The Geneva question again? If the SO has > > remembered to cover the point in its regulations > > you follow the guidance in the regulations. Or you > > may be lucky and the NBO may have made a > > relevant provision. > > If not, 'tabulating' in Law 79C applies. Law > > and regulations are binding. I would, however, > > refer the matter to the tournament committee > > since this may have some reserve powers that > > it could use. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > By refering to the Geneva question the > suggestion for THE answer seems too strong to me. > In Geneva a result on a board was handed in that looked completely normal: > 5CX - 5. Next morning we were told that the result was minus 6. When I > remember well a Canadian player, > not being able to sleep suddenly realised > that the contract had been beaten by 6 tricks. Now it seems to be a 79B > case, or might have been a 79B case. In the regulations it is possible to > make a distinction between 79B and 79C, giving (much) more time for > correction in case of a 79C case. The Geneva case is very different to Richard's case. In Richard's situation, there was an error which caused a score to be entered other than the one reported by the two teams, or even worse, Richard's opponents have cheated by reporting a maximum win when they had suffered a maximum defeat. In the Geneva case, the table was in time trouble, there was a claim for -1400 rather than -1700 (confusion about vulnerability), and defenders agreed with the claim. The (wrong) score upon which both declarer and defenders had agreed at the table then was reported by both teams. This clearly falls within the regulations for the correction period. 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 Nov 27 00:48:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQDlLT25084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:47:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAQDlDt25080 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:47:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.19] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 140297-000O9m-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:47:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c057af$724b3a80$135608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B726@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <010801c057a2$7b0f69a0$11291dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 13:31:27 -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 " Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank, The army of the unalterable law." - Meredith. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Thomas Dehn To: bridge-laws Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2000 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race > > The Geneva case is very different to Richard's case. > +=+ Not sufficiently to take it outside of 79C.+=+ > > In Richard's situation, there was an error which caused > a score to be entered other than the one reported > by the two teams, or even worse, Richard's opponents > have cheated by reporting a maximum win when they > had suffered a maximum defeat. > +=+ That is quite specifically an error in tabulation. The wrong figure for the score has been entered or the score has been entered in the wrong column(s). Law 79C applies, together with any applicable regulation made under this law, no matter how it may have occurred. I see no evidence of anything but genuine error and allegations unaccompanied by substantial evidence can only be strongly deprecated. +=+ > > In the Geneva case, the table was in > time trouble, there was a claim for -1400 rather than > -1700 (confusion about vulnerability), > and defenders agreed with the claim. > The (wrong) score upon which both declarer and > defenders had agreed at the table then was > reported by both teams. This clearly falls within the > regulations for the correction period. > +=+ The tragedy in Geneva was that the need for a regulation to cover the circumstances had not been foreseen. The AC's hands were firmly tied. In the committee room even Kaplan concurred in the unanimous decision (whatever he may have written subsequently to divert anger from himself). The stable door was subsequently closed. ~ 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 Nov 27 06:37:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQJaGe25243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:36:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAQJa8t25239 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 06:36:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d039.iae.nl [212.61.3.39]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A0D2E20F1F for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:36:01 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00c401c057e0$344b1300$bd053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:35:51 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Something I do not understand: The task of the administration room is to check the total of all the VP's gained, under certain corrections. The wrong total would have awaken the chief. Is it correct to say that the injured teams are able to claim compensation? I have met once that the SO had to pay the first price two times because the presumed winners would not give up! Ben ++ ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race > > Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, > scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > > In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby > gaining first place. > > On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the > event when I noticed that our final round opponents > had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, > propelling them into fourth place. > > Question: Although the correction period under L79C > had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* > score - two opposing teams both winning their match > by a maximum - be adjusted? > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 09:16:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQMGDG25328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:16:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from diana.inter.net.il (diana.inter.net.il [192.114.186.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAQMG6t25324 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:16:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-2-129.access.net.il [213.8.2.129] (may be forged)) by diana.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AEV14106; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:15:14 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A218BAD.FB1D818A@inter.net.il> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:16:13 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: n y abhyankar CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] can he pass References: <3A1E2C00.7189BBE9@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The TD should inquire about the player exact system - how do they "stop" bidding in 5NT - should they bid 5Sp ??? or 5Nt is 100% Ks question ???? As you told us bellow ....if they are novice player they tried - maybe inadvertently - to transmit an UI bidding 5NT with hesitation -> if this was the TD's opinion , after the careful examination and questionnaire - he should assign an artificial score , the proportional of a 20% making 6 and 80% one down ...... The percentage is my own humble opinion , but I'd accept any combination of these two results. Dany n y abhyankar wrote: > Local club tournament > K9x > Ax > KT9x > Qxxxx > > QTxxxx AJx > 87x T9xxx > 76x AJx > x Tx > > x > KQJ > Q86 > AKJxxx > > North Dealer > > Bidding as follows: > > N E S W > 1D 1H 3C P > 3NT P 4NT P > 5D x 5NT P > P P > > both pairs playing Strong Club system > 1D = prepared 12-17 hcp > 1H = normal overcall > 3C = natural good 6 card C suit > 4NT = simple BW asking for aces > 5NT = asking for kings > > 5NT was bid after very very long pause. > > QUESTION : > Opps Object > Can North Pass this 5NT bid of asking Kings ? what shud be the ruling > > thx n best regards > yogesh > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 27 09:18:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQMI7s25343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:18:07 +1100 (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 eAQMI1t25339 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:18:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAQFRec01144 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:27:40 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 15:13:40 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112615274000.01117@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 23 Nov 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > Explanations are always incomplete. > For instance, when my partner opens 2He, I am allowed to > answer "Muiderberg" if my opponents are Dutch (they all know > that); or if they are Flemish and I know them (which also > means they are good enough so that I can assume they know > what it means); or if they are Walloons and I add a question > mark showing that I want them to acknowledge that they know > what that means (most of them do by now). The problem with this type of explanation is that many players do not know that the standard or official way to play a convention is not the way they learned it. If South opens 1NT, West doubles, and East alerts and explains "Brozel", North may think he knows what West means but not actually know. As Brozel originally described the convention, the double shows a strong single-suited hand, and partner is likely to pass for penalty, bidding 2C only with a weak or distributional hand. Most players play the double to show any hand that would like to overcall; partner almost always bids 2C, and 1NT never gets doubled for penalty. Now, what do you do if E-W are playing penalty Brozel and N-S are playing takeout Brozel and have never heard of the penalty version? North passes, either because he expects the opponents to rescue or or because he has no way to run to 2D over a takeout double. East passes with a balanced 8-count, and 1NT goes for a number. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uEX25650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAR3tjt25612 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:47 +1100 (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 140FOF-00092A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:44:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00112014233804.00424@psa836>, David J Grabiner writes >On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >> As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the >> weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed >> CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol). >> >> S: "2 Clubs", alert from North >> Me: "Yes please" >> N: "Ordinary Benji." >> >> Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is >> played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask >> them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here >> I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the >> rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I >> don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, >> and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so >> obviously right that in future I will just ask. > >The difference here is that North's explanation is an infraction; >conventions should not be identified by name but by description. You >should be allowed to correct the infraction. > >As a similar situation, which has happened to me: > >W N E >1C 1S 3C > >There is no alert, but I check the convention card anyway and jump >raises in competition are marked as weak (alertable in the ACBL, but >many players don't know this even though the box is red on the card; >my partner is one of those players). I believe that I am allowed to ask >here because I know something is wrong. The alternative is not to ask >and then to call the director at the end of the hand if we could have >been damaged (say, because partner declares the hand and misplaces the >cards on the auction). Not only is this going to lead to ill will, but >it also looks like a double shot because I could have avoided the >problem. We have discussed it before, and I do not think we shall reach agreement, but just in case some of you believe everyone agrees with David's argument, then I feel I just have to repeat the argument the other way. Suppose a man walks into the next door house and rapes their seven year old daughter. You have a gun legally in your possession: should you kill the man? My view, and I believe the majority view is that I would like to: I would be tempted to: but if I do so then I demean civilisation and I am clearly wrong to kill him. It is not up to me to take the Law into my own hands, and break the Law even if it seems justified. Of course David's case is not very serious in comparison, but the approach is the same: he is saying that because the oppos have done something wrong he feel justified in breaking the Law himself and applying his own form of justice. Well, he isn't. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uCq25649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAR3tjt25615 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:47 +1100 (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 140FOF-00092D-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: <8ox1YNAmFbI6EwEk@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:57:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams References: <02bc01c05389$ea208a80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <02bc01c05389$ea208a80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <02bc01c05389$ea208a80$55dd36cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >Sergei Litvak wrote: >>Mixt National Championship.Swiss Teams.Table 2. >>Women are at W and N. >>Board 17, N,- >> x >> KJx >> Q98xx >> Qxxx >>Jx KTxxxxx >>AQTxx -- >>JTxx xx >>xx KJxx >> AQx >> 98xxx >> AK >> Axx >>The bidding and explanation >>W N E S >> p p 1NT >>2D db 2S p >>p ...db p 3NT >>p p 4C db >> all pass >>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about >>1 min. hesitation) - as showing extra values. >>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with >>her partner and said that there in her opinion they don't need TD. >>After the end if the board (TD was at the table during the play) >>E asks for the ruling. >>What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is >>available for AC). [s] >In summary I do not think BLML has enough information to make >a decision, but my tendency based on the information provided >would be to allow the score to stand, on the grounds that passing >the double is probably not a LA at teams at this level. So at teams you believe that when partner wishes to defend with extra values that more than three out of four player would not wish to defend with AQx of trumps, AK and an ace, and a poor suit and no intermediates for playing the hand. Don't your opponents ever go for 1400 in Australia? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3u9F25647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:09 +1100 (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 eAR3tjt25614 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:47 +1100 (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 140FOF-000929-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:36:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> In-Reply-To: <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk>, Jesper Dybdal writes [s] >If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we >must penalize the question itself. That is, >(a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake >(assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not >interested in right now), and >(b) penalize when it happens, using either a PP or L72B1. > >This can only be done if we can actually rule that a question is >asked for partner's sake, but we will have to make that >distinction anyway. The advantage of using L72B1 is that we do not have to actually rule that it was asked for partner's sake. The player could have known, etc. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uJM25653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:19 +1100 (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 eAR3tpt25627 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:52 +1100 (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 140FOK-000929-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:35:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford writes >The director has said that both pairs were at fault, yet he ususally gives >a late play. The ACBL's rules on slow play state that "Bridge is a timed >event" and that aside from inconveniencing everyone else, slow play is >unfair because the offenders get more time to play the hands, giving them >at advantage over everyone else. As I recall, in school if we took a test, >we had a specific amount of time and we didn't get to stay late to finish >if we were too slow. Since ACBL specifically says that offenders should >be penalized, why do we not penalize them rather than allowing late play? > >One reason for my asking this is that Saturday, one pair had not started >bidding the last board when everyone else was already finished. At their >pace of play, everyone interested in the final results would have had to >sit around another 10 minutes waiting, so I gave both pairs an Average >(in the spirit of compromise since most directors let them get away with >late plays). But I got a lot of grief from one of the players, so I would >like >some more guidance in what the rules expect of the TD in this situation. I am quite sure you made a good decision. Late plays are a pain when you score at the end of the evening as more and more clubs are doing. You should never let a table start a board once you have called the move, or the equivalent time at the end of the last round. It does not matter that a player has given you grief: he is out of line, and you have made a good decision, good for the majority of players and perfectly fair for the two pairs unable to play the board. The only time you might say this approach is wrong is if you have a policy in a club you do well to follow that policy. If late plays are always permitted, you should probably allow a late play. One advantage of not allowing a late play is that players take a littl more trouble to play boards within the allotted time. --------- In article <003701c053e2$8b369ba0$a710f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >At the club level, players attend to play bridge and resent not getting >their money's worth if you take away a board. If you want to keep the paying >customers reasonably happy, you had best allow one late play per >customer...and on occasion give them some leeway if on another round slow >opponents are the problem. Some pairs are continually slow despite all >attempts to speed them up...but they are usually among the worst bridge >players in the room as well. It is not fair to the opponent who gets them >last to lose a putative 70-80% result on the unplayed hand...even if he >caught a late earlier against another slow pair. This is a common argument, but I am never entirely convinced. If I have to play in a club where there is no particular event to control time, and I may have to wait at the end, then I am quite liable to look for another club. i think you lose as many customers by allowing too much leeway as by not allowing it. Better is to try to control it as you go along. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uJN25654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:19 +1100 (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 eAR3tkt25616 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:47 +1100 (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 140FOF-00092E-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:23:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, >scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > >In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby >gaining first place. > >On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the >event when I noticed that our final round opponents >had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, >propelling them into fourth place. > >Question: Although the correction period under L79C >had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* >score - two opposing teams both winning their match >by a maximum - be adjusted? I think not. Unfortunately, some people do not learn from experience, and the majority of SOs have not done so. I agree with Grattan's point of getting an AC or even the SO's Tournament Committee to look at it. There have been situations where gross or manifest scoring errors have been found and the advice is that the Correction period should be extended for such things, perhaps to a week for the final of a Championship event: if there are later rounds then for as long as possible. I believe every SO should put such a rule into the General CoC - not necessary in the Special CoC [the ones for the individual event]. Some suspicion has been shown about how this could have happened: if there is any suggestion that the other team have done something naughty they can be investigated for a C&E violation- that does not need to be in the Correction Period. However, I am surprised and saddened by the amount of suspicion shown in quite ordinary situations recently on BLML. Surely mistakes are far more frequent than anything else in all these situations we discuss? I am amazed that anyone thinks this could be deliberate - it seems such a strange and pointless way of getting banned for life - do people really cheat to get fourth place? I don't think so! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uH325652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:18 +1100 (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 eAR3tot25626 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:51 +1100 (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 140FOK-00092C-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:30:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >The cardplay L45C4(b) is parallel to the auction L25A >- both laws contain the phrase *without pause for >thought*. > >A typical case where L45C4(b) might apply is where >declarer leads towards dummy's AQ, and finesses >the queen. Suddenly noticing that LHO has played >the king, declarer tries to change dummy's card to >the ace. > >However, I would rule that awakening from a doze >does require thought, and allow LHO to win the >trick. Interesting. This is a basic on our Club courses: we allow LHO to win the trick, but not for the reason you give. There is often no pause for thought - when they say "Queen no I mean the ace" they have not paused for thought. But similarly to L25A the original call must be inadvertent - and it clearly is not in this case. So we do not allow the change. We train our TDs that in L25A and L45C4B cases to be generous to the player attempting a change in decisions over whether there was a pause for thought. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uGW25651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:17 +1100 (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 eAR3tot25623 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:51 +1100 (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 140FOK-00092A-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:27:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes >This week, I have had to rule several cases in which declarer, having >to play from dummy, had named a card and subsequently announced that >he had been mistaken and wanted to play a different card from the one >named. I have ruled these cases all against these declarers, and I >have now started wondering whether there might be a case at all in >which a card named by declarer can be replaced under L45C4(b). >Of course, the card named by declarer might constitute a revoke, but I >would rule such a case under L62A, and not under L45C4(b). > >Can somebody construct an example for me in which L45C4(b) is >correctly used to allow declarer to change a designation of a card >that is in dummy while it is dummy's turn to play, please ? Sure. "Play the top spade oh damn I mean diamond." I ask him why he said spade. "I was wondering why my partner bid 3S but I meant to play a diamond." I have no reason to doubt that he meant to ask for a diamond and would allow the change. Actually, when someone asks to change a card I think it is normal to allow a change in about 60% of cases. This remark is based on experience not logic just before people hit me with logical arguments to prove me wrong!! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:00:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR3uAF25648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:56:11 +1100 (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 eAR3tjt25613 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:55:47 +1100 (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 140FOF-00092C-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 03:55:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:50:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <200011211710.eALHAth13063@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> >Ron Johnson wrote: > >> Incidently, I just discussed this with my partner. He doesn't agree >> with Tim's wife. Not that it makes any sense to him, but if it's >> against the Laws of the game he doesn't want any part of it. > >My wife would be in full agreement with him - she too would want no part >of something against the laws of the game. Nor would I. It is just that >her comment to me has made me absolutely convinced that asking in this >situation would not be considered "illegal communication between partners" >by any sane lawmaker. OK, well, if I were a lawmaker I would be insane. What you are doing is putting yourself above the Law because of one perceived injustice and ignoring the bigger picture. Are the Lawmakers right to ban communication between partners in the specific case where an opponent has done something wrong? The lawmakers think yes, I think yes, and you think no. But I doubt that it makes the lawmakers insane - I think allowing communication between partners through questioning is far too serious a breach to allow even in such a specific situation. As for as your wife's learning [as you referred to earlier] you are in fact taking action to stop her learning rather than the reverse. Her enjoyment is a different matter, but when I play with lesser players I try to teach them that following the rules leads to long-term enjoyment. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:23:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR4M6B25721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:22:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAR4M0t25717 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:22:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:21:09 -0800 Message-ID: <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> Subject: [BLML] The pro question Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:10:19 -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 From: "Jesper Dybdal > If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we > must penalize the question itself. That is, > (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake > (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not > interested in right now) Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille Interpretation (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware of the answer." A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. There seems to be a need for some educational measures. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com At Birmingham, AL NABC 'til Nov 26 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 15:32:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR4W7a25735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:32:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAR4W1t25731 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:32:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:31:11 -0800 Message-ID: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 20:20:46 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > >I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the > >rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I > >don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, > >and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so > >obviously right that in future I will just ask. > > You have my sympathy , but... you know it's against the rules, but > you'll do it anyway? > > ln this case, at least, I think asking further would be justified - > as someone pointed out, the "explanation" is insufficient under the > regulations anyway. > > I had an interesting discussion at the table yesterday. My partner > and I missed a slam, and we were discussing what she might have bid > with a balanced 17 HCP other than a limit raise . I allowed that > she should have bid 2NT, which in our Precision system is unlimited. > "No," says LHO, "you can't do that, because Jacoby is limited to 15 > HCP." I explained to her that we were playing our system, not hers > , but the point is that clearly if partner *had* bid 2NT, and I > had alerted and explained it as "Jacoby", that would have been > misinformation to LHO, who would (probably) have assumed it was > limited to 15 HCP, as she plays it. > > I think the best thing to do when you hear "that's the XYZ > convention" is simply to say "continue, please" or "more detail, > please". > I can't find it now, but I believe the ACBL position is that one should provide the meaning of a conventional call, not the name of the convention it represents. This seems like a good rule. Marv San Diego, 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 Mon Nov 27 16:22:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR5MBq25765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:22:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAR5M6t25761 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:22:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:21:15 -0800 Message-ID: <010401c05831$b9c7e160$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011211710.eALHAth13063@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 21:15:00 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > David J Grabiner writes: > > > > On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > > As to asking a question for partner's benefit I give you a scene from the > > > weekend (EBU Licensed competition my wife and I had 2 of the 5 completed > > > CCs in existence around 14 tables - and we play basic rubber Acol). > > > > > > S: "2 Clubs", alert from North > > > Me: "Yes please" > > > N: "Ordinary Benji." > > > > > > Now I know damn well what Benji is and that my wife doesn't. The hand is > > > played and my wife says "You know I don't know Benji, why didn't you ask > > > them to explain it better?". Bearing in mind views previously stated here > > > I replied "I'm not allowed to ask on your behalf - it's against the > > > rules". I thought she summed it up rather well. "That's just silly, I > > > don't understand these conventions, I don't know what questions to ask, > > > and it's not fair that they know what's going on and I don't." She is so > > > obviously right that in future I will just ask. > > > > The difference here is that North's explanation is an infraction; > > conventions should not be identified by name but by description. You > > should be allowed to correct the infraction. > > > > As a similar situation, which has happened to me: > > > > W N E > > 1C 1S 3C > > > > There is no alert, but I check the convention card anyway and jump > > raises in competition are marked as weak (alertable in the ACBL, but > > many players don't know this even though the box is red on the card; > > my partner is one of those players). I believe that I am allowed to ask > > here because I know something is wrong. The alternative is not to ask > > and then to call the director at the end of the hand if we could have > > been damaged (say, because partner declares the hand and misplaces the > > cards on the auction). Not only is this going to lead to ill will, but > > it also looks like a double shot because I could have avoided the > > problem. > Asking in this case is not a Pro Question (PQ) in ACBL-land, but rather is calling attention to an infraction of the ACBL CC and Alert regulations. Nothing wrong with that. Everyone has the duty to call the TD when an irregularity becomes evident. If a side effect is that partner is aided, that doesn't matter. However, if you know the opponents play this as a weak raise but the red box is not checked on the CC, that would be different. There has been no infraction yet, and clearing up the matter with a question solely for partner's benefit would consitute an illegal PQ. Marv San Diego, 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 Mon Nov 27 16:26:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR5Q4f25777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:26:04 +1100 (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 eAR5Pvt25773 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:25:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet8u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.30]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA23800 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:25:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:24:30 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question In-Reply-To: <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:10 PM 11/26/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: >A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC >this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for >partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls >mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and >they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. >That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. Yes, that would be interesting. A reliable mind-reading machine. And it would have so many applications beyond our little universe as well. Do keep me posted. 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 Nov 27 16:44:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR5iYa25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:44:34 +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 eAR5iOt25793 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:44:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA04218; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:39:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:40:12 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Of course David's case is not very serious in comparison, but the >approach is the same: he is saying that because the oppos have done >something wrong he feel justified in breaking the Law himself and >applying his own form of justice. Well, he isn't. If I understand this correctly, the position is that an opponent has "explained" his partner's call with the words "it's ordinary benji". Now David G. understands what that means, so it is illegal for him to ask for further clarification. Have I got it right so far? Assuming that I do, it seems to me that the explanation is an infraction. If that's the case, is David now permitted to call the Director, and say "opponent explained his partner's alerted call as "ordinary benji", and I believe that is an infraction of law or regulation", or words to that effect? If not, why not? What *can* he do to ensure the opponents don't have an unfair and illegal advantage? 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/AwUBOiH0s72UW3au93vOEQIbcQCgxyDlxPX1GFf9OJnf9B5rgKUS8koAoKfg 0TyGv/PDY4EjUvzXlrj20Nx4 =tEJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 16:55:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR5taf25813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAR5tWt25809 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:55:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa053601 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:55:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-241.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.241]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Uncompromising-MailRouter V2.9c 5/1910388); 27 Nov 2000 15:55:48 Message-ID: <010b01c05836$65a0f720$f1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Russian National Mixt Teams Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:53:40 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Peter Gill writes: >>Sergei Litvak wrote: >>>Mixt National Championship.Swiss Teams.Table 2. >>>Women are at W and N. >>>Board 17, N,- >>> x >>> KJx >>> Q98xx >>> Qxxx >>>Jx KTxxxxx >>>AQTxx -- >>>JTxx xx >>>xx KJxx >>> AQx >>> 98xxx >>> AK >>> Axx >>>The bidding and explanation >>>W N E S >>> p p 1NT >>>2D db 2S p >>>p ...db p 3NT >>>p p 4C db >>> all pass >>>2D alerted and explained as diamonds with MAJOR suit. >>>first double was explained as penalty, second (made after about >>>1 min. hesitation) - as showing extra values. >>>TD was summoned after 3NT bid by S. W was not agreed with >>>her partner and said that there in her opinion they don't need TD. >>>After the end if the board (TD was at the table during the play) >>>E asks for the ruling. >>>What should you do as TD and as AC member (L12C3 is >>>available for AC). > > [s] > >>In summary I do not think BLML has enough information to make >>a decision, but my tendency based on the information provided >>would be to allow the score to stand, on the grounds that passing >>the double is probably not a LA at teams at this level. > > So at teams you believe that when partner wishes to defend > with extra values that more than three out of four player would > not wish to defend with AQx of trumps, AK and an ace, and a > poor suit and no intermediates for playing the hand. > > Don't your opponents ever go for 1400 in Australia? I submitted a thread to BLML last week where one of the tables went for 1400, which is a not uncommon score in Oz. If I obtained the extra information which you provide (i.e the new information that the double of 2S showed a desire to defend), then of course passing the double is a LA. The description "extra values" can mean different things to different people; to me it means that the hand is generally stronger than it might have been, and says nothing about the holding in the opponents' suit. I was influenced by the fact that in the city where I live, many good (young) pairs play that North's double simply shows extra values and no desire to defend i.e it even could be done on a spade void. Partner who is over the top of the spades is then expected to pass only with four good trumps. Hence my comment about further info being needed e.g would South's double of 2S have been takeout (quite common amongst the top young players in Sydney, believe it or not, although not an optimum way to play) or penalty (what the older set tend to assume)? 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 Mon Nov 27 17:13:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR6DOw25834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAR6DKt25830 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:13:20 +1100 (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 RAA18916 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:07:14 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:08:13 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:09:52 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 27/11/2000 06:04:47 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille >Interpretation (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: > >"It is held illegal to ask a question in order that >partner may be aware of the answer." > >A very prominent player argued the point with me at the >Birmingham NABC this week, insisting that it is perfectly >proper to ask a question for partner's benefit, since >s/he has a right to know what opposing calls mean. Out of >curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and >they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC >interpretation. That's a relief. Now, if they will only >find a way to enforce it. There seems to be a need for >some educational measures. > >Marv >mlfrench@writeme.com >At Birmingham, AL NABC 'til Nov 26 I have played as the *expert* half of a pro-am partnership in Canberra. Situation 1: My pro-am partnership encounters opponents playing modified Blue Club. Since I do not know their system, the Lille WBF ruling allows me to freely enquire about the opponents' alerted calls. Situation 2: My pro-am partnership encounters much more unusual methods, opponents playing the Symmetric Relay system. The Lille WBF ruling requires me to keep my lip zipped, since I play that system in my pro-pro partnership. Meanwhile, my amateur pard has no idea what to do. Therefore, the Lille WBF ruling encourages pros to be (or claim to be) pig-ignorant of all systems except the one they are currently playing. Alexander Pope, "A little learning is a dangerous thing..." 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 Nov 27 17:34:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR6XkI25850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:33:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAR6Xdt25846 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:33:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA19388; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:02:15 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:08:54 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:20 PM -0800 11/26/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >I can't find it now, but I believe the ACBL position is that one should >provide the meaning of a conventional call, not the name of the >convention it represents. This seems like a good rule. Hm. I had just posted a reply to DWS wondering if one shouldn't call the TD in the situation David Grabiner posed - where he knew what "benji" meant, but was sure his partner didn't. Seeing what you've written here, I went hunting, as I thought as you did. I can't find it either. The closest is an example in _Duplicate Decisions_ which talks about giving just the name of a convention "in an intimidating manner". The focus there is on the manner, though, not on the use of the name. Perhaps it *isn't* an infraction in the ACBL. :-( 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/AwUBOiH7t72UW3au93vOEQL7jACcDHo4fRbD1faiitAEcsaP8IzwgdMAmwWh nGaNkqqUumOn9G27IsPQbsUO =VjdJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 18:23:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR7NAK25877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:23:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAR7N4t25873 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:23:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:22:14 -0800 Message-ID: <019b01c05842$9e7dbc20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:19:08 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" > > Marvin L. French wrote: > >I can't find it now, but I believe the ACBL position is that one should > >provide the meaning of a conventional call, not the name of the > >convention it represents. This seems like a good rule. > > Hm. I had just posted a reply to DWS wondering if one shouldn't call > the TD in the situation David Grabiner posed - where he knew what > "benji" meant, but was sure his partner didn't. Seeing what you've > written here, I went hunting, as I thought as you did. I can't find > it either. The closest is an example in _Duplicate Decisions_ which > talks about giving just the name of a convention "in an intimidating > manner". The focus there is on the manner, though, not on the use of > the name. Perhaps it *isn't* an infraction in the ACBL. :-( > Okay, make me work. I found the referenced rule on Page 1 of the ACBL Alert Procedure: -- The bidding side has an obligation to disclose agreements according to the procedure established by the ACBL. -- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. *Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient* [emphasis ACBL's]. -- The opponents need not ask exactly the *right* question. -- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. -- The proper way to ask for information is "please explain." (The Principle of Full Disclosure in the ACBL Code of Active Ethics pamphlet gives further details on how to disclose properly.) Marv 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 Nov 27 18:57:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR7taJ25895 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAR7tTt25891 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 18:55:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP220.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.236]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA04560 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2000 23:55:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 01:55:16 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>I can't find it now, but I believe the ACBL position is that one should >>provide the meaning of a conventional call, not the name of the >>convention it represents. This seems like a good rule. >From the ACBL Alert Chart: The bidding side has an obligation to disclose itsagreements according to the procedures established by ACBL. -- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient. The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. -- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosure should be given automatically. -- http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alrtproc.htm Me, I rarely use the name of a convention when I'm explaining. (I have trouble remembering some of the names anyway.) Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Only YOU can prevent narcissism. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 21:00:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAR9x8r25954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:59:08 +1100 (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 eAR9x1t25950 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:59:02 +1100 (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 JAA13868 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:58:47 GMT Message-ID: <3A223062.62F68227@meteo.fr> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:58:58 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > From: "Jesper Dybdal > > > If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we > > must penalize the question itself. That is, > > (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake > > (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not > > interested in right now) > > Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille Interpretation > (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: > > "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware > of the answer." > > A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC > this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for > partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls > mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and > they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. > That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. There > seems to be a need for some educational measures. > > Marv > mlfrench@writeme.com > At Birmingham, AL NABC 'til Nov 26 > quoted from birmingham bulletin n°4: (maybe the same prominent player?) “Edgar always made sure I got full information,” said Kay. “ He often knew more about the opponents’ systems than they did. He protected me from those I needed protection from.” JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Mon Nov 27 21:57:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARAvXd26005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:57:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@[195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARAuJt26001 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:57:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F0C176A2 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:54:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A223D09.1C74A8AB@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:52:57 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" a écrit : > > At 08:10 PM 11/26/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: > >A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC > >this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for > >partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls > >mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and > >they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. > >That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. > > Yes, that would be interesting. A reliable mind-reading machine. And it > would have so many applications beyond our little universe as well. Do keep > me posted. > > Mike Dennis You won't always need a mind-reading machine. Here is a scene like this a couple of times in my life: PRO: What does this bid mean? ME: Fourth suit. PRO: Could you be more specific? ME: You don't know what the fourth suit means? PRO: I do, but I have to make sure my partner knows what's going on. Even if the pro doesn't openly admit to asking on partner's benefit I don't think a TD can seriously believe that he asked further questions because he needed them. Yes, he can ask for the meaning of an alerted bid but clearly an explanation along the lines "relay, GF", "splinter", "Landy" or "Lebensohl" should be quite clear to him. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 21:59:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARAwp726025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:58:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@[195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARAvst26017 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 21:58:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id A06A817690 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:56:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A223D69.909935F6@comarch.pl> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:54:33 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A223062.62F68227@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort a écrit : > > "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > > > From: "Jesper Dybdal > > > > > If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we > > > must penalize the question itself. That is, > > > (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake > > > (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not > > > interested in right now) > > > > Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille Interpretation > > (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: > > > > "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware > > of the answer." > > > > A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC > > this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for > > partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls > > mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and > > they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. > > That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. There > > seems to be a need for some educational measures. > > > > Marv > > mlfrench@writeme.com > > At Birmingham, AL NABC 'til Nov 26 > > > > quoted from birmingham bulletin n°4: (maybe the same prominent player?) > > “Edgar always made sure I got full information,” > said Kay. “ He often knew more about the opponents’ > systems than they did. He protected me from those I > needed protection from.” > > JP Rocafort We have been here before. It was legal at that time. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Nov 27 23:48:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARClnx26294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:47:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARClgt26290 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:47:43 +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 NAA27701; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:43:16 +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 NAA29645; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:47:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001127135846.007f5500@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:58:46 +0100 To: "Michael S. Dennis" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:24 27/11/00 -0500, Michael S. Dennis wrote: >At 08:10 PM 11/26/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: >>A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC >>this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for >>partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls >>mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and >>they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. >>That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. > >Yes, that would be interesting. A reliable mind-reading machine. And it >would have so many applications beyond our little universe as well. Do keep >me posted. Please allow me to repeat what stated some months ago : 1) If you ask questions at every possible opportunity, you cannot be penalized, since it will never be UI. 2) How on earth could somebody decide you asked only for the purpose of helping partner ? One example : pairs / none KQxx xx xx Q10xxx I'm playing against some relay system. (call me a masochist, I like it) The bidding goes : 1H - p - 2D* I ask about 2D because I think it might be NF as it is often the case playing relays. In this case, following my OBAR style, I'd double. No, they only alerted to say this guarantees a 5-card suit, but F1 as usual. Now they tell me I've asked only to let my partner know they had 5 diamonds, so he shouldn't lead them ? Not very fair, is it ? 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 Nov 28 00:09:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARD8vH26328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:57 +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 eARD8it26310 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06763 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:08:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:57:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > If I understand this correctly, the position is that an opponent has > "explained" his partner's call with the words "it's ordinary benji". > Now David G. understands what that means, so it is illegal for him to > ask for further clarification. Have I got it right so far? > you have. > Assuming that I do, it seems to me that the explanation is an > infraction. If that's the case, is David now permitted to call the > Director, and say "opponent explained his partner's alerted call as > "ordinary benji", and I believe that is an infraction of law or > regulation", or words to that effect? If not, why not? What *can* he > do to ensure the opponents don't have an unfair and illegal advantage? > He should rely on partner to ask the relevant questions. If partner does not realise he needs to know the answer, then the opponents do not have an illegal advantage. Telling the partner the answer (in whatever form) IS an illegal advantage though. I am really getting tired of people clouding the issue. The pro question is not allowed. The fact that it is difficult to detect has no bearing on this. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 00:09:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARD96s26331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:09:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARD8pt26324 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06839 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:08:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A224E40.4030EF1A@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:06:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> <00112615274000.01117@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner wrote: > > > The problem with this type of explanation is that many players do not > know that the standard or official way to play a convention is not the > way they learned it. > > If South opens 1NT, West doubles, and East alerts and explains "Brozel", > North may think he knows what West means but not actually know. As > Brozel originally described the convention, the double shows a strong > single-suited hand, and partner is likely to pass for penalty, bidding > 2C only with a weak or distributional hand. Most players play the > double to show any hand that would like to overcall; partner almost > always bids 2C, and 1NT never gets doubled for penalty. > > Now, what do you do if E-W are playing penalty Brozel and N-S are > playing takeout Brozel and have never heard of the penalty version? > North passes, either because he expects the opponents to rescue or or > because he has no way to run to 2D over a takeout double. East passes > with a balanced 8-count, and 1NT goes for a number. > There you go again, David, clouding the issue. If there are 2 versions of Brozel (and I don't know even one of them) then it is of course a mistake to name them both "Brozel". This is the type of problem that directors are there to sort out. But there is only one explanation of many a convention. I am talking of those. -- 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 Nov 28 00:09:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARD8ws26329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:58 +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 eARD8it26311 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06803 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:08:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:00:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Hm. I had just posted a reply to DWS wondering if one shouldn't call > the TD in the situation David Grabiner posed - where he knew what > "benji" meant, but was sure his partner didn't. Seeing what you've > written here, I went hunting, as I thought as you did. I can't find > it either. The closest is an example in _Duplicate Decisions_ which > talks about giving just the name of a convention "in an intimidating > manner". The focus there is on the manner, though, not on the use of > the name. Perhaps it *isn't* an infraction in the ACBL. :-( > Of course it isn't. Not there, not here, not anywhere. If two sides know the meaning of a convention, then it is no infraction to merely reply with the name of the convention. Where would we end up if we were to agree to rule to someone who says to me "of course I know what Stayman means, but since he did not explain it to me, I claim that I was misinformed". Such a regulation would be silly. -- 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 Nov 28 00:09:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARD91h26330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:09:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARD8lt26313 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:08:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-243.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.243]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA06822 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:08:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:03:16 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch (and Marv too) wrote: > > > >From the ACBL Alert Chart: > > The bidding side has an obligation to disclose itsagreements according to > the procedures established by ACBL. > -- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the > agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not > sufficient. > Has no single BL ever tried this one ? "I know what Stayman means, but by ACBL regulation, that explanation is not sufficient". Silly regulation, if applied literally. Of course the explanation is not sufficient if the opponent does not know what it means. And of course it is sufficient if the opponent does ! > The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. > -- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only > indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosure should be > given automatically. > > -- > > http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alrtproc.htm > > Me, I rarely use the name of a convention when I'm explaining. (I have > trouble remembering some of the names anyway.) > > Best regards, > > Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net > Lawrence, Kansas, USA > Editing, writing, proofreading > > Only YOU can prevent narcissism. > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Nov 28 02:26:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARFQ1926449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:26:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARFPst26445 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 02:25:55 +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 KAA08523 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA11388 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:25:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:25:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011271525.KAA11388@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >If we want to get rid of the pro question... > From: David Stevenson > The advantage of using L72B1 is that we do not have to actually rule > that it was asked for partner's sake. The player could have known, etc. The problem with L72B1 is that it requires an irregularity. Asking a question in proper form at a proper time is specifically permitted by L20F. (Yes, we can debate the meaning of "proper form," but let's not do so in this thread.) If we want to get rid of the pro question, I don't see any alternative but to rule under L73B1 (and then L12A1 or L90A or both). If we aren't prepared to do that, then we should declare the pro question legal. To do otherwise is to disadvantage players who attempt to follow the laws. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 03:04:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARG4Hw26482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:04:18 +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 eARG47t26478 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:04:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d484.iae.nl [212.61.5.230]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 238BE20F0F for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:03:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00eb01c0588b$b0bdc8a0$a9053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <010f01c053b5$74276a20$9bd436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 17:03:20 +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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk East has promised certain values in the red suits. South has two red queens. East should have the ace of hearts and the king of diamonds or better. South has no aces; how can he stop east from making two tricks even when north has three aces? If a slow 4NT is UI and not Blackwood, is there a LA besides pass? Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 1:20 PM Subject: [BLML] Another Slow Pass whose meaning is unclear > Warning: the bidding is a bit complicated. > > A major Sydney teams championship 20/11/00 (imps) > Swiss (Table 1 - the two leading teams, all expert players) > > Dealer E, NS vul > > AK5 > 2 > K97 > AQ10954 > 97643 10 > 10754 AJ963 > 6 AJ542 > J76 82 > QJ82 > KQ8 > Q1083 > K3 > > W N E S > Pass 1S > Pass 2C 2NT Dbl > 3H 3S Pass 3NT > Pass 4C Pass 4S > Pass 4NT All Pass > > NS play a new bidding system which is gaining popularity > here following its stunning top-level success. The system > is 5 card majors with 2/1 GF, but with 11-14 balanced one > opens 4 card majors aggressively then passes the "forcing > 1NT response". After a 2/1 GF response, the 11-14 4M hand > rebids 2NT. The idea is to combine scientific bidding with an > attacking preemptive 4 card major approach. > > Thus South opened 1S. North's 2C was game-forcing, natural. > 2NT showed 5/5 in the unbid suits. NS were on undiscussed > territory now, South intending his double as simply looking for > penalties, but North being unsure whether South should pass > with the 11-14 balanced 4M hand and double with extra strength. > > North almost passed 3NT but decided to try a (hopefully natural) > 4C. South tried to sign off in 4S. North thought for a long time > (2 minutes?) and decided to Blackwood (straight BW, not RKCB). > South passed 4NT like a shot, and explained to the opening leader's > questions that he wasn't sure what any of the bids meant from 4C > onwards, especially 4NT. A diamond was led and 4NT made five. > > The Director was called about South's pass after North's long tank. > South said that since he didn't know what his partner's bids meant, > he judged that East was likely to have HA and a top diamond for > the 2NT bid so South's values were a pile of rubbish, so he passed > since North could have Blackwooded earlier if he really wanted to > go slamming. He thought it sounded to him like North was just > prodding around beyond 3NT looking rather than insisting on > higher levels. On the bidding his HKQx looked like dud values > opposite a likely singleton. > > North said that he thought 4NT was Blackwood and he was > surprised South passed. He said that before he bid 4NT he > tried to work out his continuations and decided to bid 5H over 5D > in order to offer a choice of contracts (5S, 5NT, 6C or 6S). > NS have only played together four times (they were in a Team > of Five and were not a regular partnership). > > The Director ruled that South's Pass may have been affected > by the slow tempo of North's 4NT, and adjusted to NS minus 100. > > At the other table EW went for 1400 in 5H doubled. > > How would you rule? > > 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 Tue Nov 28 03:23:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARGNdl26523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:23:39 +1100 (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 eARGNWt26519 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:23:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive411.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.33]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA04948; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:23:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00d201c0588f$2c5c7bc0$2110f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:29:01 -0500 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 Look for another club? Perhaps there is a choice in a metropolitan area. But in most cases we are talking about the only game in town. Even the players who are discommoded by the slow play offenders don't want to see the game shrink any farther. They want Mitchell movements at least some of the time! If they can see that the director is warning (and occasionally penalizing) habitual slow players who make no effort to pick up their pace, they can be fairly tolerant. What they will not stand for is for THEM to be "penalized" by not being allowed to play boards they have "paid for". I agree it would be upsetting to play where there are no slow play standards. Three boards in 20 minutes is generally enforced with a little leeway. Slower players usually can be educated gently over time, especially when their slowness comes from inexperience. Just because they are weak players does not mean they are socially insensitive, being usually neither deliberately rude nor unaware of the disapprobation their slowness is producing. A little patience goes a long way. The perpetual offenders are the ones to work on though...not their innocent opponents. This is why I advocate the PPw and, as a last resort PPf, as superior techniques to artificial scores for unplayed boards. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" Craig Senior > writes > >At the club level, players attend to play bridge and resent not getting > >their money's worth if you take away a board. If you want to keep the paying > >customers reasonably happy, you had best allow one late play per > >customer...and on occasion give them some leeway if on another round slow > >opponents are the problem. Some pairs are continually slow despite all > >attempts to speed them up...but they are usually among the worst bridge > >players in the room as well. It is not fair to the opponent who gets them > >last to lose a putative 70-80% result on the unplayed hand...even if he > >caught a late earlier against another slow pair. > > This is a common argument, but I am never entirely convinced. If I > have to play in a club where there is no particular event to control > time, and I may have to wait at the end, then I am quite liable to look > for another club. > > i think you lose as many customers by allowing too much leeway as by > not allowing it. Better is to try to control it as you go along. On this, we agree. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 04:03:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARH3Bn26557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:03:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARH35t26553 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:03:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4r6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.102]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA32268; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:02:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004901c05894$9b0b7f80$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:08:02 -0500 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 played in a number of Swiss events wherein the reporting card to be handed in by the team captain requires you to circle win or loss and indicate the score. Both captains are expected to hand in such a card. How easy it could be for a team that just got blitzed to accidentally think they are saying the Opponents "won" and circle the wrong box. Combine that with a TD whose mind is equally elsewhere and you have the 25-25 result. Of course this is careless...but entirely likely at the end of a tiring day when everyone is trying to get on the road home at the end of the tourney (as many Swiss events are). Whyever would one suspect chicanery in such an easily detected matter? I would consider it somewhat more likely that the scores were altered by green scaly aliens, poltergeists, or as part of some vast international conspiracy! In any case, it would be well if the COC made allowance to correct obvious gross errors when discovered. There would seem to be no reason to override common sense and good sportsmanship by forcing a seriously flawed result to be locked in cement. But this should apply only to situations in which nearly all involved can agree as to the error...not to such partisan arguments as the self serving ones that attempt to settle the US presidential debacle. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >Last Thursday night my team played in a Swiss, > >scored with the WBF Victory Point scale. > >In the last round we won a maximum 25 VPs, thereby > >gaining first place. > >On Friday night I was gloating over the wallchart of the > >event when I noticed that our final round opponents > >had *also* been credited with 25 VPs in the last match, > >propelling them into fourth place. > > > >Question: Although the correction period under L79C > >had well and truly expired, can a *manifestly incorrect* > >score - two opposing teams both winning their match > >by a maximum - be adjusted? > > I think not. Unfortunately, some people do not learn from experience, > and the majority of SOs have not done so. I agree with Grattan's point > of getting an AC or even the SO's Tournament Committee to look at it. > > There have been situations where gross or manifest scoring errors have > been found and the advice is that the Correction period should be > extended for such things, perhaps to a week for the final of a > Championship event: if there are later rounds then for as long as > possible. I believe every SO should put such a rule into the General > CoC - not necessary in the Special CoC [the ones for the individual > event]. > > Some suspicion has been shown about how this could have happened: if > there is any suggestion that the other team have done something naughty > they can be investigated for a C&E violation- that does not need to be > in the Correction Period. However, I am surprised and saddened by the > amount of suspicion shown in quite ordinary situations recently on BLML. > Surely mistakes are far more frequent than anything else in all these > situations we discuss? I am amazed that anyone thinks this could be > deliberate - it seems such a strange and pointless way of getting banned > for life - do people really cheat to get fourth place? I don't think > so! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 04:44:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARHhuN26583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:43:56 +1100 (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 eARHhnt26579 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:43:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4r6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.102]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA11982; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:43:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006201c0589a$636efd80$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "John Probst" , References: <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be> <6nfaAcAbIrH6Ewdm@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:49:26 -0500 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 Isn't Benji that cute little dog in the movie? In other words, not everyone baffled by a system common elsewhere is brain dead. Regional differences are also an important factor in considering what is proper disclosure. Say multi and Benji over hear and even the good players are going to wonder if that's a sequel to 102 Dalmatians...if they have heard of either, they have never played them. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Friday, November 24, 2000 1:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > In article <3A1D013E.A805C902@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Tim West-meads wrote: > >> > >> In-Reply-To: <3A1A96F7.2B41FD5A@village.uunet.be> > >> HdW wrote: > >> > Which all equates to say that your opponents were doing > >> > nothing wrong, in as much as that they presumed giving full > >> > explanation. > >> > > > > >> Not strictly true. They *should* have had CCs and I believe EBU regs > >> state that naming a convention is not normally sufficient as an > >> explanation. Had she said "would you like to know more?" I would have > >> said yes. > >> > > > >No, sorry, Tim, not true. > > > >They should have CC's, but that does not alter their > >obligations. > >Maybe EBU regs state what you say, but I don't think they > >should, or that you are correct in assuming that they do. > >L40B contains "reasonably be expected to understand". > > A beginner cannot be reasonably expected to understand "Benji". Were I > playing with "she who must be obeyed" and that was the reply I would > still explain that partner is inexperienced and a fuller explanation > would be appreciated. I am of the view that this is not illegal > communication with partner. One thing is for certain, it won't make any > difference what explanation *is* given, it won't help partner who's > going to get it all wrong anyway. I think it absurd even to contemplate > how anyone who doesn't know what "benji" is could possibly have any UI. > > > > >Without going into the specifics, if you are "reasonably > >expected to understand" the explanation by just one word, > >then that is sufficient for the time being. > > > >> > The only person that needs to learn something > >> > from this is your partner, who must realise that it is up to > >> > her to ask, not up to you. > >> > >> Which she has learnt. Unfortunately learning what questions to ask, and > >> how to ask them without making UI available is considerably more complex. > >> It therefore seems reasonable to me that the opponents should learn to > >> give better explanations. > >> > > > >Explanations are always incomplete. > >For instance, when my partner opens 2He, I am allowed to > >answer "Muiderberg" if my opponents are Dutch (they all know > >that); or if they are Flemish and I know them (which also > >means they are good enough so that I can assume they know > >what it means); or if they are Walloons and I add a question > >mark showing that I want them to acknowledge that they know > >what that means (most of them do by now). But if I am > >playing against you, I will say "5-11, 5 hearts, 4 or more > >of a minor". I would assume that you now know enough. > >And still that explanation would be insufficient. It would > >not include that it is (almost) never done with 6 hearts (I > >am assuming the "or more" with the minor suggests the > >omitted "exactly" with the 5 hearts). It would not include > >that it is almost never done with 7 of a minor. > >It would not include that we do have ways of showing which > >minor (I can assume that you assume that we are that > >clever). It would not include that we do have ways of > >showing a six card suit in the minor, but not a five card > >suit. And so on. > > > >All those things are available to you. But you need to ask. > > > > -- > John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb > London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 04:53:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARHrig26596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:53:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARHrct26592 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:53:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:52:46 -0800 Message-ID: <01d901c0589a$b055e140$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011271525.KAA11388@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 09:49:03 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > >If we want to get rid of the pro question... > > > From: David Stevenson > > The advantage of using L72B1 is that we do not have to actually rule > > that it was asked for partner's sake. The player could have known, etc. > > The problem with L72B1 is that it requires an irregularity. Asking a > question in proper form at a proper time is specifically permitted by > L20F. (Yes, we can debate the meaning of "proper form," but let's not > do so in this thread.) But doing so solely for partner's benefit is illegal. L20F has a footnote reference to L16 (and should reference L73B1) > > If we want to get rid of the pro question, I don't see any alternative > but to rule under L73B1 (and then L12A1 or L90A or both). If we aren't > prepared to do that, then we should declare the pro question legal. To > do otherwise is to disadvantage players who attempt to follow the > laws. Well, there is L16A1, which includes inappropriate questions as extraneous information, and L16C, which says a player must not use the information gained from such questioning to hir side's advantage, but how could such an infraction ever be detected? My main objection is to Pro Questions that are aimed at insuring that partner understands a normal (i.e., common, non-conventional, non-Alertable) call that everyone should understand. Take a fourth seat weak two bid. Everyone knows these are only made with max hands, but pro asks the Pro Question to make sure that partner knows. Marv 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 Nov 28 05:00:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARHxwR26608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:59:58 +1100 (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 eARHxst26604 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:59:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ga069088 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:50:34 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-214-51.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.51]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Feline-MailRouter V2.9c 5/2093592); 28 Nov 2000 03:50:33 Message-ID: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Split Score Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:47:30 +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 >From the just-completed US Nationals (Daily Bulletin #9): >"Appeals case #6 Subject: Misinformation >Open BAM Teams, 19 November, First Qualifying Session > >Bd: 4 >Dlr West S 9 7 4 >Vul: Both H Q 10 4 2 > D A Q 4 > C J 6 2 > S A 10 6 S K Q J 5 3 2 > H 9 8 6 5 H K > D 7 5 3 D J 9 8 > C A K C Q 8 4 > S 8 > H A J 7 > D K 10 6 2 > C 10 9 7 5 3 > > WEST NORTH EAST SOUTH > Pass Pass 1S Pass > 2C (1) Pass 2S All Pass > >(1) Not Alerted; Reverse Drury >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Facts: >2S made three, +140 for E/W. >The Director was called at the end of the auction because >the 2C bid had not been Alerted. When given a chance by >the Director to substitute another call for his final pass North >declined to do so. >South said he would have bid 2NT for the minors if the 2C bid >had been Alerted. >The Director decided that further bidding would have led to >a contract of 3S. The table result was therefore allowed to >stand (Law 40C). >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Appeal: >N/S appealed the Director's ruling. >South had suspected that 2C had been Drury but did not want >to ask or look at the convention card (both cards were on the >other side of the table) because it might have tipped off E/W. >Had he known that 2C was Drury he would have bid 2NT for the >minors and by agreement North had to bid 3C with equal length. > >North didn't intend to balance, but he suspected that the 2C bid >had been Drury and believed that his partner might want the >auction backed up, so he started to ask questions. >The Director ruled that North had already passed and gave >him the option of changing his call. >South had told the Director away from the table that he would >have bid 2NT had he been properly Alerted. >East said that he had forgotten their agreement to play Drury >(both convention cards had Drury marked on them). >West said that he would have bid 3S if N/S had competed to 3C. >E/W said that North had called the Director and that sometime >during the Director's trip to the table and the Director's comments, >North had said "I pass anyway" or he had put a Pass Card on the >table. >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >The Committee Decision: >The Committee decided that N/S were responsible for their poor >result. Surely North and South suspected that 2C was Drury. >Even though there is an Alert procedure, it was reasonable to >expect players of this experience level to glance at the opponents' >convention card to prevent this problem in such a basic situation. >South should have suspected that 2S was going to end the auction >so he could have found out what the E/W agreement was. North >tried to do so, but since the he had already passed, the auction >could no longer be backed up to his partner. >For N/S, the table result of 2S made three, +140 for E/W, was >allowed to stand. >Since E/W had given N/S misinformation, they were to be assigned >the most "unfavorable result that was at all probable" (Law 12C2). >The Committee decided that South would have bid 2NT had he >been properly Alerted and that E/W might not compete to 3S >since East wasn't entitled to know about the spade fit and West >couldn't automatically compete to the three-level, vulnerable, with >only three-card support, West might double 3C, pass or bid 3S. >The Committee decided that pass was quite possible. A 3C >contract might go down, but the Committee considered nine tricks >to be "at all probable." Therefore, for the E/W pair, the contract >was changed to 3C made three, +110 for N/S." -------------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Gill writes: I have two questions: (1) Yesterday, I was reading Marv French's comment (on either BLML or rgb) that a poll of American Directors revealed sound knowledge that asking a question for partner's benefit is not allowed. Under these circumstances, should the AC have made a remark about North's asking questions in case "his partner might want the auction backed up." (2) Does anyone else think that there's something curious about the process which led to a split score? Or is it normal? 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 Nov 28 05:09:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARI9QB26625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:09:26 +1100 (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 eARI9It26621 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:09:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARBIxI01979 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:18:59 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:13:01 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00112615274000.01117@psa836> <3A224E40.4030EF1A@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A224E40.4030EF1A@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112711185901.01928@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > David J Grabiner wrote: > > > Now, what do you do if E-W are playing penalty Brozel and N-S are > > playing takeout Brozel and have never heard of the penalty version? > > North passes, either because he expects the opponents to rescue or or > > because he has no way to run to 2D over a takeout double. East passes > > with a balanced 8-count, and 1NT goes for a number. > > > > There you go again, David, clouding the issue. > > If there are 2 versions of Brozel (and I don't know even one > of them) then it is of course a mistake to name them both > "Brozel". The problem is that most players don't know that there are two versions of Brozel. Players who explain a convention as "Brozel" think they are following the rules, and they should be discouraged from doing this. Players who explain as "Brozel, single-suited hand, penalty-oriented" are actually following the rules. ("Brozel" may not be needed here, but many other conventions such as Lebensohl are helped by having the name. I usually explain Lebensohl as "Lebensohl, artificial relay to 3C, shows any of a variety of hands, would you like more explanation?") This is a particularly significant problem in the USA, where West Coast and East Coast players rarely meet each other, and may not know that conventions are played differently in different areas. -- 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 Nov 28 05:11:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIBm026641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:11:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARIBct26637 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA05555 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:58:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <019b01c05842$9e7dbc20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <019b01c05842$9e7dbc20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:07:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marv French wrote: >Okay, make me work. I found the referenced rule on Page 1 of the ACBL >Alert Procedure: Heh. I looked at that, and didn't see it. I guess it *is* an infraction. Good. :-) 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/AwUBOiKj2b2UW3au93vOEQL6aACgp2XcY6oV8wmc2ZAMoWDmvK6Buf0AoO5x Ju95fCDyuLeGOfMgeSkRy3cS =BNBI -----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 Nov 28 05:15:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIFAT26653 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:15:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARIF0t26649 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:15:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARBOg001984 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:24:42 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:19:35 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112711244202.01928@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 27 Nov 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > > Of course David's case is not very serious in comparison, but the > >approach is the same: he is saying that because the oppos have done > >something wrong he feel justified in breaking the Law himself and > >applying his own form of justice. Well, he isn't. > > If I understand this correctly, the position is that an opponent has > "explained" his partner's call with the words "it's ordinary benji". > Now David G. understands what that means, so it is illegal for him to > ask for further clarification. Have I got it right so far? Actually, in my case, a call was not alerted, but I checked the convention card (since this alert is often forgotten) and found that it was alertable. I can call the director, ask the opponents, or just sit back and let partner probably remain misinformed. (Note that I am not asking for my own benefit here; I am fairsly sure that the infraction is the failure to alert rather then the incorrectly filled CC. If I didn't know, I could certainly ask to find out for myself.) -- 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 Nov 28 05:22:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIMBV26666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:22:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from umx-mail02.missouri.edu (umx-mail02.missouri.edu [128.206.10.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARIM3t26662 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:22:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [128.206.98.1] (mu-098001.dhcp.missouri.edu [128.206.98.1]) by umx-mail02.missouri.edu with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id XA981VNG; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:21:57 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00d201c0588f$2c5c7bc0$2110f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:27:19 -0600 To: "Craig Senior" , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: >Look for another club? Perhaps there is a choice in a metropolitan area. But >in most cases we are talking about the only game in town. Even the players >who are discommoded by the slow play offenders don't want to see the game >shrink any farther. They want Mitchell movements at least some of the time! >If they can see that the director is warning (and occasionally penalizing) >habitual slow players who make no effort to pick up their pace, they can be >fairly tolerant. What they will not stand for is for THEM to be "penalized" >by not being allowed to play boards they have "paid for". > > I agree it would be upsetting to play where there are no slow play >standards. Three boards in 20 minutes is generally enforced with a little >leeway. Slower players usually can be educated gently over time, especially >when their slowness comes from inexperience. Just because they are weak >players does not mean they are socially insensitive, being usually neither >deliberately rude nor unaware of the disapprobation their slowness is >producing. A little patience goes a long way. The perpetual offenders are >the ones to work on though...not their innocent opponents. This is why I >advocate the PPw and, as a last resort PPf, as superior techniques to >artificial scores for unplayed boards. > >Craig Well, good luck for you. Three boards in 22+ minutes is pretty fast around here. REH Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 05:25:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIPaE26678 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:25:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARIPUt26674 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:25:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:24:39 -0800 Message-ID: <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004901c05894$9b0b7f80$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 10:17:14 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > I have played in a number of Swiss events wherein the reporting card to be > handed in by the team captain requires you to circle win or loss and > indicate the score. Both captains are expected to hand in such a card. All the Swiss teams I have played in require only the captain of the winning team to turn in the result, with the losing team captain initializing the card to show concurrence. I can't imagine why it would be done any other way. Marv 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 Nov 28 05:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIehG26692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:40:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARIeat26688 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:40:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12446 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:28:37 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:31:43 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:57 PM +0100 11/27/00, Herman De Wael wrote, in reply to me: > > Assuming that I do, it seems to me that the explanation is an >> infraction. If that's the case, is David now permitted to call the >> Director, and say "opponent explained his partner's alerted call as >> "ordinary benji", and I believe that is an infraction of law or >> regulation", or words to that effect? If not, why not? What *can* he >> do to ensure the opponents don't have an unfair and illegal advantage? >> > >He should rely on partner to ask the relevant questions. > >If partner does not realise he needs to know the answer, >then the opponents do not have an illegal advantage. I asked if replying to a question by giving just the name of the convention is an infraction. You didn't address that question. Since Marv took the trouble to find, in the ACBL alert regs, the statement that just the name is insufficient, I guess it *is* an infraction. If partner doesn't understand what opponents' bids mean, they have an advantage. If partner doesn't understand because their explanation was an infraction of regulation, then their advantage is illegal. How can it not be? >Telling the partner the answer (in whatever form) IS an >illegal advantage though. > >I am really getting tired of people clouding the issue. I am *trying* to understand the issue. You're not helping. :-( >The pro question is not allowed. > >The fact that it is difficult to detect has no bearing on >this. I did not address, and am not interested in, whether the pro question is difficult to detect. I am trying to determine what the best recourse is when I *know* there has been an infraction, and I *know* that partner is not fully aware of the meaning of an opponent's call because of that infraction. 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/AwUBOiKqob2UW3au93vOEQL8bQCgykk5jQ+zxdLphPnXdPtxFWpk8GUAoL6U uSYHVXbP2Uru+REUh2034rh6 =UjZW -----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 Nov 28 05:50:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARIoa626709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:50:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARIoTt26705 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 05:50:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA13470 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:45:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:42:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Herman De Wael wrote: > >Of course it isn't. Not there, not here, not anywhere. Recently posted excerpts from the ACBL Alert Regulations notwithstanding, eh? >If two sides know the meaning of a convention, then it is no >infraction to merely reply with the name of the convention. If one member of a side doesn't know the meaning, then the side does not know it. >Where would we end up if we were to agree to rule to someone >who says to me "of course I know what Stayman means, but >since he did not explain it to me, I claim that I was >misinformed". > >Such a regulation would be silly. Your example is silly. Nobody in his right mind would rule that way, and no player in his right mind would expect it. I suppose I'm being a pain in the ass here, but that's not my intent - - I'm just trying to understand the right and wrong of this thing. 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/AwUBOiKs8r2UW3au93vOEQJJJACg9aeLMu+n52UcF+1bvPssWBSgF1kAoNaz 0X9Y8wMxtcpdEgXgSAuHatq7 =Sc2i -----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 Nov 28 06:49:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARJnCP26746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:49:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARJn6t26742 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 06:49:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4r6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.102]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA20949; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:49:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006e01c058ab$e99b60e0$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:54:52 -0500 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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > Suppose a man walks into the next door house and rapes their seven > year old daughter. You have a gun legally in your possession: should > you kill the man? > Of course. But it would be better if you could do so before he traumatizes the child. Once again analogies to criminal and moral justice are inperfect applied to bridge. 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 Nov 28 07:05:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARK4jL26764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:04:45 +1100 (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 eARK4Yt26760 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:04:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4r6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.102]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08457; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:04:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007601c058ae$11e5cac0$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:10:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk HDW Wrote: > I am really getting tired of people clouding the issue. > The pro question is not allowed. That may well be so...but there are a considerable number of us who believe that this is unfortunate, especially when players of lesser skill can be misled and taken advantage of by those who play what are to them arcane systems. Perhaps the real issue is what is full and fair disclosure, not what is UI. And the degree of blatancy of either would appear to be a factor that should be considered. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of UI paranoia and common sense fairness is being given short shrift. If you ask what do current law and regulation demand this may be "clouding the issue". But I think there is room in this debate for what the intent of the Law should be, and whether that is adequately met by its current interpretation. > > The fact that it is difficult to detect has no bearing on > this. When one imposes the duty of accurate mind reading upon the director, it is incumbent on us to ask if this is absolutely necessary. It may well be that we better can accomplish our purpose via a different approach. When it is obvious to one and all that explanations are less than forthright, one can at least call into question the ethics of the non responsive players I should think, albeit not in an accusatory manner. I do not want to win by twisting the Law regarding disclosure of partnership agreements in such a fashion that I make sure at least one of my opponents is in the dark. I should hope NO ethical player would wish to do so. Of course I believe the "pro question" should be allowed, so long as the only information is conveys relates to opponents methods. When this is abused to convey UI about the pro's own holdings, then and only then should it be restricted. And this, unlike intent, can be adjudicated upon the bridge evidence. When Edgar knows Norman does not realize that a bid comes out of the wild Blue yonder and insists on a full explanation, I see nothing wrong with that...so long as he would do so no matter what hand he holds. 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 Nov 28 07:36:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARKZl626782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:35:47 +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 eARKZWt26778 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:35:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA22612 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:35:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: DWS wrote: > OK, well, if I were a lawmaker I would be insane. > > What you are doing is putting yourself above the Law because of one > perceived injustice and ignoring the bigger picture. > > Are the Lawmakers right to ban communication between partners in the > specific case where an opponent has done something wrong? The lawmakers > think yes, I think yes, and you think no. No. I think yes too. Communication between partners should be by legal calls and plays. > But I doubt that it makes the > lawmakers insane - I think allowing communication between partners > through questioning is far too serious a breach to allow even in such a > specific situation. I agree. I said it would be insane to regard a question like "My wife doesn't know Benji could you give a more complete explanation please" as communication between partners. The total information content, as far as my partner is concerned, is zero. The communication is with opponents. I know this question would not be regarded as an offence at either of my local clubs - just as I know that if the question carried any suggestive content then JP would (quite rightly) be down on me like a ton of bricks. > As for as your wife's learning [as you referred to earlier] you are in > fact taking action to stop her learning rather than the reverse. Not true. When it happened I used the opportunity to tell her to ask her own questions, but only at her turn to call and to do so in such a way as not to give away information about her hand. In future (and it won't happen often) she will learn how to ask neutral questions from my examples. > Her enjoyment is a different matter, but when I play with lesser players > I try to teach them that following the rules leads to long-term > enjoyment. What a novel idea, it has obviously never occurred to me to try and teach her the rules:-) Actually she is pretty firm on the principles of UI, she has pointed out that since she often can't remember what my bids mean she can't imagine how she is supposed to work out the implications of tempo variations etc. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 07:40:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARKehT26794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:40:43 +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 eARKebt26790 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:40:37 +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 PAA26876 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:40:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA11905 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:40:32 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:40:32 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011272040.PAA11905@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Craig Senior" > When this is > abused to convey UI about the pro's own holdings, then and only then should > it be restricted. This is the "informatory question," which all of us agree is blatantly illegal. I don't think anyone has any trouble invoking L73B1 and 16A here. A bit of terminology: 1. Informatory question: see above 2. Pro question: asked to make sure partner knows opponents' agreements 3. Kaplan question: as the pro question, but asked only _after_ the opponents have already given MI in response to partner's question. (The key point is that partner has already indicated a need to know and has been misinformed.) On thinking about this, there's a gap between 2 and 3. What if an opponent gives MI in response to my question, not partner's? This was precisely Tim's "Benji" example. I think asking further is still a "pro question" if the initial answer suffices for Tim but not his partner, but (in the ACBL at least) I could be convinced it's a Kaplan question. The incomplete answer is surely MI and illegal; why not clear it up right away, before it can do damage? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 07:57:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARKvMn26815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:57:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARKvGt26811 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:57:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.74.54] (helo=D457300) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 140VKn-0006DO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:57:11 +0000 Message-ID: <001c01c058b4$aabdd8e0$364a7ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:57:30 -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 Ed wrote: > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Of course it isn't. Not there, not here, not anywhere. > > Recently posted excerpts from the ACBL Alert Regulations notwithstanding, eh? > > >If two sides know the meaning of a convention, then it is no > >infraction to merely reply with the name of the convention. > > If one member of a side doesn't know the meaning, then the side does > not know it. > > >Where would we end up if we were to agree to rule to someone > >who says to me "of course I know what Stayman means, but > >since he did not explain it to me, I claim that I was > >misinformed". > > > >Such a regulation would be silly. > > Your example is silly. Nobody in his right mind would rule that way, > and no player in his right mind would expect it. > > I suppose I'm being a pain in the ass here, but that's not my intent > - - I'm just trying to understand the right and wrong of this thing. Simply put, the rights and wrongs of the situation are these: It is right that, when asked to explain a method, a player gives as full an explanation as may be required by his opponents. Uttering only the name of a convention may or may not constitute a sufficiently full explanation - this depends entirely on the individuals involved and the environment in which they are playing. If there is a regulation requiring a player to explain, rather than merely to name, a convention used by his side, it is right that players should follow this regulation. It is wrong for a player to attempt to communicate with his partner other than by means of calls or plays. In particular, it is wrong for a player to attempt to alert his partner to the meaning of an opponent's call by asking a question to which the player himself knows the answer. If the partner does not know the answer, then it is open to him to attempt to discover it for himself - but if he fails to do this, it is not for the player to rectify his partner's deficiencies by means of illegal communication. Now, there is a possible conflict here: if my RHO opens 2D, and I ask what it means, and he says "Wilkosz", then I - to whom this explanation is sufficient - may be aware that to my partner, it may not be. However, the way in which I should proceed is not by asking for more information (even though the explanation "Wilkosz" may be an infraction against the regulations in force concerning disclosure). Rather, I should make whatever call is appropriate given my systemic defence to Wilkosz - and if my partner does not know what is happening, he will ask for further information at his turn to call. This may give rise to a complication: if my call over 2D is conventional, then my partner needs to alert it; however, until he knows what "Wilkosz" means, he may not be in a position to do this. In my view, his correct course of action after I have made my call is to alert. If asked for an explanation, he may then say: "That call may be conventional, but I cannot explain it until I know what 2D meant". At this point, one would expect a fuller explanation of Wilkosz to be forthcoming. While this may strictly speaking not be correct procedure in terms of the regulations in force, I cannot imagine that anyone could raise any kind of serious objection to it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 08:31:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARLV4p26845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:31:04 +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 eARLUwt26841 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:30:58 +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 NAA16186; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:30:53 -0800 Message-Id: <200011272130.NAA16186@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 27 Nov 2000 12:08:02 PST." <004901c05894$9b0b7f80$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 13:30:52 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > But this should apply only > to situations in which nearly all involved can agree as to the error...not > to such partisan arguments as the self serving ones that attempt to settle > the US presidential debacle. "Debacle" is an accurate term for what's going on . . . On the other hand, since we've just celebrated Thanksgiving, I'm thankful that we have the system we have for selecting a new president, and not the one being used in Peru, Haiti, or Yugoslavia . . . -- 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 Nov 28 09:23:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARMMHr26896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:22:17 +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 (f50.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARMMBt26892 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:22:01 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:22:01 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:22:01 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Nov 2000 22:22:01.0271 (UTC) FILETIME=[76936470:01C058C0] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.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 Nov 28 10:21:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARNLXG26949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:21:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ganymede.or.intel.com (ganymede.or.intel.com [134.134.248.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eARNLRt26945 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:21:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from SMTP (orsmsxvs01-1.jf.intel.com [192.168.65.200]) by ganymede.or.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.33 2000/11/21 19:27:27 smothers Exp $) with SMTP id PAA16981 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:21:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from orsmsx28.jf.intel.com ([192.168.70.28]) by 192.168.70.200 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:21:23 0000 (GMT) Received: by orsmsx28.jf.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:21:22 -0800 Message-ID: <11652883D8DDD311AC42009027C67FF60875E8@orsmsx58.jf.intel.com> From: "Zimnoch, ToddX" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 15:21:20 -0800 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 Ugh, that was cute. Steve Willner said: ----Sorry about the reformatting---- This is the "informatory question," which all of us agree is blatantly illegal. I don't think anyone has any trouble invoking L73B1 and 16A here. A bit of terminology: 1. Informatory question: see above 2. Pro question: asked to make sure partner knows opponents' agreements 3. Kaplan question: as the pro question, but asked only _after_ the opponents have already given MI in response to partner's question. (The key point is that partner has already indicated a need to know and has been misinformed.) On thinking about this, there's a gap between 2 and 3. What if an opponent gives MI in response to my question, not partner's? This was precisely Tim's "Benji" example. I think asking further is still a "pro question" if the initial answer suffices for Tim but not his partner, but (in the ACBL at least) I could be convinced it's a Kaplan question. The incomplete answer is surely MI and illegal; why not clear it up right away, before it can do damage? ---- I don't understand how this is MI. The answer may be incomprehensible to the asker's partner, but it's not incorrect nor incomplete. In general, must you answer a question to the satisfaction of both your opponents or just the one who asked? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the player who didn't understand to ask for clarification? As far as the Kaplan question, is this done to avoid having to get the director to adjust at the end of the hand? Is it something like reminding your opponents that they forgot some facet in their explanation, like a bid showed a singleton? -Todd -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 10:47:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARNi3U26990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:44:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eARNhrt26983 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:43:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140Xw3-000J4K-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:43:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:15:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] To the Nth Degree References: <200011181610.LAA14288@freenet10.carleton.ca> <00111914502502.03733@psa836> <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >In article <004201c052f8$aeae4f00$2ac188d1@kay>, Nelson/Kay Ford > writes > >>The director has said that both pairs were at fault, yet he ususally gives >>a late play. The ACBL's rules on slow play state that "Bridge is a timed >>event" and that aside from inconveniencing everyone else, slow play is >>unfair because the offenders get more time to play the hands, giving them >>at advantage over everyone else. As I recall, in school if we took a test, >>we had a specific amount of time and we didn't get to stay late to finish >>if we were too slow. Since ACBL specifically says that offenders should >>be penalized, why do we not penalize them rather than allowing late play? >> >>One reason for my asking this is that Saturday, one pair had not started >>bidding the last board when everyone else was already finished. At their >>pace of play, everyone interested in the final results would have had to >>sit around another 10 minutes waiting, so I gave both pairs an Average >>(in the spirit of compromise since most directors let them get away with >>late plays). But I got a lot of grief from one of the players, so I would >>like >>some more guidance in what the rules expect of the TD in this situation. > At the YC I allow one late play per pair, and tell them that the result will be input provided I get it before I've finished the score entry. Since I'm entering travellers for two sections, about 25 tables, this gives them about 10 minutes to get the score to me. I pick up all the travellers at the end and just ask one of the players to report me the score which I then write on the traveller. This seems to work, and happens once every four or five sessions. At the Acol I don't allow late plays as it's a single section game and all the travellers are entered as they're played in the last round. The players bring the final traveller to the desk. We announce the result within 15 seconds of receiving the last traveller. > I am quite sure you made a good decision. Late plays are a pain when >you score at the end of the evening as more and more clubs are doing. >You should never let a table start a board once you have called the >move, or the equivalent time at the end of the last round. It does not >matter that a player has given you grief: he is out of line, and you >have made a good decision, good for the majority of players and >perfectly fair for the two pairs unable to play the board. > > The only time you might say this approach is wrong is if you have a >policy in a club you do well to follow that policy. If late plays are >always permitted, you should probably allow a late play. > > One advantage of not allowing a late play is that players take a littl >more trouble to play boards within the allotted time. > > --------- > >In article <003701c053e2$8b369ba0$a710f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior > writes >>At the club level, players attend to play bridge and resent not getting >>their money's worth if you take away a board. If you want to keep the paying >>customers reasonably happy, you had best allow one late play per >>customer...and on occasion give them some leeway if on another round slow >>opponents are the problem. Some pairs are continually slow despite all >>attempts to speed them up...but they are usually among the worst bridge >>players in the room as well. It is not fair to the opponent who gets them >>last to lose a putative 70-80% result on the unplayed hand...even if he >>caught a late earlier against another slow pair. > > This is a common argument, but I am never entirely convinced. If I >have to play in a club where there is no particular event to control >time, and I may have to wait at the end, then I am quite liable to look >for another club. > > i think you lose as many customers by allowing too much leeway as by >not allowing it. Better is to try to control it as you go along. > -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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 Nov 28 10:47:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eARNi3U26991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:44:04 +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 eARNhqt26982 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:43:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140Xw3-000J4L-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:43:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:01:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> 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 >In article <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs > writes >>This week, I have had to rule several cases in which declarer, having >>to play from dummy, had named a card and subsequently announced that >>he had been mistaken and wanted to play a different card from the one >>named. I have ruled these cases all against these declarers, and I >>have now started wondering whether there might be a case at all in >>which a card named by declarer can be replaced under L45C4(b). >>Of course, the card named by declarer might constitute a revoke, but I >>would rule such a case under L62A, and not under L45C4(b). >> >>Can somebody construct an example for me in which L45C4(b) is >>correctly used to allow declarer to change a designation of a card >>that is in dummy while it is dummy's turn to play, please ? > > Sure. > > "Play the top spade oh damn I mean diamond." > > I ask him why he said spade. > > "I was wondering why my partner bid 3S but I meant to play a diamond." > > I have no reason to doubt that he meant to ask for a diamond and would >allow the change. > > Actually, when someone asks to change a card I think it is normal to >allow a change in about 60% of cases. This remark is based on >experience not logic just before people hit me with logical arguments to >prove me wrong!! > I probably allow about 40% of such cases to change their card. The AQ finesse is not *ever* one of them. I've taken a lot of time over the years to explain to players that there are three levels of playing a card, depending on who you are - and that they need to call me on this point as there is no simple rule. I tend to explain as follows: "Defenders plays are the most punitive and dummy the most relaxed. Declarer is in between" "Defenders have played the card if partner could have seen its face (even if they're looking at Wendy)" "Declarer plays a card by putting it on or near the table (even if you've pulled the wrong one)" "A card played from dummy can be changed in the same breath provided it's not a change of mind" These explanations seem to satisfy the players, and give them the sense under which the ruling is made. When I get such a ruling I ask the player to replay the scene (I keep a joker in my pocket if there are no quitted cards on the table for the purpose), and check with opponents if this is about right. The ruling is usually easy thereafter. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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 Nov 28 11:17:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS0H7e27024 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:17:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS0H2t27020 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:17:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:16:10 -0800 Message-ID: <025501c058d0$3a8c77e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200011272130.NAA16186@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 16:07:01 -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 From: "Adam Beneschan" > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > But this should apply only > > to situations in which nearly all involved can agree as to the error...not > > to such partisan arguments as the self serving ones that attempt to settle > > the US presidential debacle. > > "Debacle" is an accurate term for what's going on . . . On the other > hand, since we've just celebrated Thanksgiving, I'm thankful that we > have the system we have for selecting a new president, and not the one > being used in Peru, Haiti, or Yugoslavia . . . > And some countries don't even have a president, or the ability to have a chief executive who is not a member of the majority party in the legislature(s), which some consider a good idea (avoids the "tyranny of the majority" problem that democracies have). I have heard that Florida is now spelled floriDUH. Marv 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 Nov 28 11:42:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS0gDi27053 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAS0g5t27044 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:06 +1100 (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 140YqP-000AL3-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:42:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:41:01 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: <004901c05894$9b0b7f80$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@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 In article <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >Craig Senior wrote: > > >> I have played in a number of Swiss events wherein the reporting card >to be >> handed in by the team captain requires you to circle win or loss and >> indicate the score. Both captains are expected to hand in such a card. > >All the Swiss teams I have played in require only the captain of the >winning team to turn in the result, with the losing team captain >initializing the card to show concurrence. I can't imagine why it would >be done any other way. > EBU events require the winning captain to return both cards. We won't accept a single card at the scoring desk. This problem doesn't arise as the score is entered against the table as eg 22 17 3 (Table 22, lower numbered team 17, higher numbered team 3, where the match is being held at Red 22 and White 22) and requires significant numbers of keystrokes to over-ride a total which is not 20 (usual scale for an EBU event). >Marv >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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 Nov 28 11:42:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS0gHw27054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:17 +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 eAS0g8t27046 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:09 +1100 (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 140YqS-000ALA-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:42:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:28:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011272040.PAA11905@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011272040.PAA11905@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 <200011272040.PAA11905@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Craig Senior" >> When this is >> abused to convey UI about the pro's own holdings, then and only then should >> it be restricted. > >This is the "informatory question," which all of us agree is blatantly >illegal. I don't think anyone has any trouble invoking L73B1 and 16A >here. > >A bit of terminology: > >1. Informatory question: see above >2. Pro question: asked to make sure partner knows opponents' agreements >3. Kaplan question: as the pro question, but asked only _after_ the > opponents have already given MI in response to partner's question. > (The key point is that partner has already indicated a need to know > and has been misinformed.) > >On thinking about this, there's a gap between 2 and 3. What if an >opponent gives MI in response to my question, not partner's? This was >precisely Tim's "Benji" example. I think asking further is still a >"pro question" if the initial answer suffices for Tim but not his >partner, but (in the ACBL at least) I could be convinced it's a Kaplan >question. The incomplete answer is surely MI and illegal; why not >clear it up right away, before it can do damage? Those who play in my games know I am very harsh on MI. I am of the opinion that per Law 9A1 a player may call attention to the irregularity of failure adequately to explain the meaning of a call without necessarily being in contravention of Law 72B1. As Tim says I'd drop a load of bricks on his head if I felt he "... could have known ... might damage ..." but the requirement to avoid MI (even by the opponents) is IMO a far greater requirement that that of avoiding creating UI. The various levels of asking questions for partner's benefit outlined above are useful, but the TD probably has to evaluate the quotient of damage as a result of asking a question (in some form) that may be for partner's benefit. As someone who plays a lot of pick-up games to make up a table, I am severely at a disadvantage as I have to have a working knowledge of just about every system and convention in common use, and will know (say when playing with a French visitor) that "Asptro" will mean nothing to him, whereas I have even been known to play the stupid thing with DWS. So I call attention to the infraction (since I'm playing), rule that the explanation is insufficient (as TD), ask the opponents to explain further per OB regulation (as TD), explain to the visitor that my actions (as a player) are UI (as TD) and will he please cope with that, and then I (as TD) won't have to adjust the result, absent use of UI. It's all too f****g absurd for my taste. "Please explain further, my partner will not know the meaning of this convention" is not communication with my partner, any more than "Hey Frog! Do you want a Eurofizz?" is, although it's considerably more polite. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead 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 Nov 28 12:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS0xxm27102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:59:59 +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 eAS0xot27098 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:59:52 +1100 (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 140Z7Z-000D4H-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: <1XvH3GAeOkI6EwWi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:21:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> 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 , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >> Of course David's case is not very serious in comparison, but the >>approach is the same: he is saying that because the oppos have done >>something wrong he feel justified in breaking the Law himself and >>applying his own form of justice. Well, he isn't. > >If I understand this correctly, the position is that an opponent has >"explained" his partner's call with the words "it's ordinary benji". >Now David G. understands what that means, so it is illegal for him to >ask for further clarification. Have I got it right so far? So long as for him it is a full explanation, fine. >Assuming that I do, it seems to me that the explanation is an >infraction. If that's the case, is David now permitted to call the >Director, and say "opponent explained his partner's alerted call as >"ordinary benji", and I believe that is an infraction of law or >regulation", or words to that effect? If not, why not? What *can* he >do to ensure the opponents don't have an unfair and illegal advantage? Call the TD at the end of the hand. If he calls the TD then when he does not believe he is disadvantaged in any way, but is calling the TD so as to provide information to partner because he is afraid partner has not got it, then he is communicating information to partner via the TD call. After the hand is over he has a perfect right to talk to pd. Now if he discovers that partner is disadvantaged then he can call the TD. But he is not allowed to call the TD during the hand for the sole purpose of supplying information to partner. Of course, if "ordinary Benji" is not enough for his purposes then he has a perfect right to ask for a better explanation and/or to call the TD. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 12:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS105627111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:00:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAS0xot27097 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:59:52 +1100 (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 140Z7Z-000D4G-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 00:59:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 11:16:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com>, Michael S. Dennis writes >At 08:10 PM 11/26/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: >>A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC >>this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for >>partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls >>mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and >>they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. >>That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. > >Yes, that would be interesting. A reliable mind-reading machine. And it >would have so many applications beyond our little universe as well. Do keep >me posted. Actually, they invented one a few years ago. It is called "speech". All computers in this day and age are, of course, linked together. Human minds [a fairly early form of computer] are linked by "talking" and thus know what is in each other's mind. Strangely this rather old- fashioned method works quite well. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 12:34:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS1YXO27170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:34:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS1YRt27166 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:34:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from ramrod (206.180.132.240.dial-ip.hal-pc.org [206.180.132.240]) by mail.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id TAA27826; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:34:03 -0559 (CST) Message-ID: <3A230B4B.3D04@hal-pc.org> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:32:59 -0600 From: Georgiana Gates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Marvin L. French" CC: Jesper Dybdal , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: "Jesper Dybdal > > > If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we > > must penalize the question itself. That is, > > (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake > > (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not > > interested in right now) > > Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille Interpretation > (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: > > "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware > of the answer." > At the Birmingham Nationals I played against a pair that I have played against in the past. Two-board rounds. They did not have a convention card on the table, although they were North-South (it "cluttered" the table). I knew from prior experience that they played the Meckwell system, but partner had never played against them before. Before we took our cards from the board, I asked them if they played a strong club system. I knew the answer; partner did not. Was I being unethical? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 14:26:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS3PO627271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:25:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS3PJt27267 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:25:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:24:27 -0800 Message-ID: <026f01c058ea$877a3aa0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A230B4B.3D04@hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 19:23:04 -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 From: "Georgiana Gates" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: "Jesper Dybdal" ; "Bridge Laws" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > From: "Jesper Dybdal > > > > > If we want to get rid of the pro question, it seems to me that we > > > must penalize the question itself. That is, > > > (a) make it clear that it is illegal to ask for partner's sake > > > (assuming that it _is_ illegal - a discussion that I am not > > > interested in right now) > > > > Others might be interested, so I'll quote the 1998 Lille Interpretation > > (under "Sundries") of the WBFLC: > > > > "It is held illegal to ask a question in order that partner may be aware > > of the answer." > > > At the Birmingham Nationals I played against a pair that I have played > against in the past. Two-board rounds. They did not have a convention > card on the table, although they were North-South (it "cluttered" the > table). I knew from prior experience that they played the Meckwell > system, but partner had never played against them before. Before we > took our cards from the board, I asked them if they played a strong > club system. I knew the answer; partner did not. Was I being unethical? First, you should have called the TD to get the CC regulations enforced. I had to do that several times in the Birmingham NABC LM and Blue Ribbon pairs, and the TDs handled the matter very well. In non-NABC+ events, I seldom bother, but would certainly call the TD in any game if I were in your position. Before hands are removed from the board, you can ethically and legally ask all the questions you want. The Laws do not treat questions at this time as extraneous information. Marv 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 Nov 28 15:07:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS477U27298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:07:07 +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 eAS45ht27294 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:05:44 +1100 (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 140bxr-000J5E-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:01:55 +0000 Message-ID: <$jOFqCJYVyI6EwVG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:24:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A224C28.16DF6E76@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 <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >The pro question is not allowed. > >The fact that it is difficult to detect has no bearing on >this. Actually, there are a number of posts in this and other threads that fail to realise this, so let me stress it. If something is difficult to detect that does not make it legal. Furthermore, a lot of people police themselves very well - if they know what is legal and what is not. So let us find out what is not allowed, promulgate it, and get a more pleasant and fairer game. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 15:09:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS48x027308 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:08:59 +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 eAS42Jt27293 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:06:42 +1100 (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 140bxr-000Eka-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:44:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@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 <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >From the just-completed US Nationals (Daily Bulletin #9): >>The Committee Decision: >>The Committee decided that N/S were responsible for their poor >>result. Surely North and South suspected that 2C was Drury. >>Even though there is an Alert procedure, it was reasonable to >>expect players of this experience level to glance at the opponents' >>convention card to prevent this problem in such a basic situation. >>South should have suspected that 2S was going to end the auction >>so he could have found out what the E/W agreement was. North >>tried to do so, but since the he had already passed, the auction >>could no longer be backed up to his partner. >>For N/S, the table result of 2S made three, +140 for E/W, was >>allowed to stand. >>Since E/W had given N/S misinformation, they were to be assigned >>the most "unfavorable result that was at all probable" (Law 12C2). >>The Committee decided that South would have bid 2NT had he >>been properly Alerted and that E/W might not compete to 3S >>since East wasn't entitled to know about the spade fit and West >>couldn't automatically compete to the three-level, vulnerable, with >>only three-card support, West might double 3C, pass or bid 3S. >>The Committee decided that pass was quite possible. A 3C >>contract might go down, but the Committee considered nine tricks >>to be "at all probable." Therefore, for the E/W pair, the contract >>was changed to 3C made three, +110 for N/S." >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Peter Gill writes: >(2) Does anyone else think that there's something curious >about the process which led to a split score? Or is it normal? Unfortunately normal. While some of the world split scores for "irrational, wild or gambling action", and England/Wales the deliberately tighter "wild or gambling action", the ACBL still expect NOs to "play bridge" [they do not actually put it that way] or they may fail to get redress. They swung a long way towards giving the NOs nothing, and despite a swing back towards the rest of the world this looks a typical ACBL decision of five years ago to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 15:24:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS4NnV27325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:23:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAS4Ngt27321 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:23:43 +1100 (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 140bxr-0006ao-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: <3jNHaGJUcyI6Ew0e@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:31:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <200011271525.KAA11388@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200011271525.KAA11388@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 <200011271525.KAA11388@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> >If we want to get rid of the pro question... > >> From: David Stevenson >> The advantage of using L72B1 is that we do not have to actually rule >> that it was asked for partner's sake. The player could have known, etc. > >The problem with L72B1 is that it requires an irregularity. Asking a >question in proper form at a proper time is specifically permitted by >L20F. (Yes, we can debate the meaning of "proper form," but let's not >do so in this thread.) > >If we want to get rid of the pro question, I don't see any alternative >but to rule under L73B1 (and then L12A1 or L90A or both). If we aren't >prepared to do that, then we should declare the pro question legal. To >do otherwise is to disadvantage players who attempt to follow the >laws. OK. I accept that. The advantage of using L73B1 is that we do not have to actually rule that it was asked for partner's sake. It is illegal to communicate with partner - so it says - but there is nothing about intent in the Law. So if we decide the player has illegally communicated with partner we can adjust without needing to say he did it deliberately. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 18:05:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS74JD27410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:04:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS74Dt27406 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:04:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:03:23 -0800 Message-ID: <029801c05909$1a1f23c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 22:53:04 -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 From: "David Stevenson" <, Peter Gill writes > >From the just-completed US Nationals (Daily Bulletin #9): > > >>The Committee Decision: > >>The Committee decided that N/S were responsible for their poor > >>result. Surely North and South suspected that 2C was Drury. > >>Even though there is an Alert procedure, it was reasonable to > >>expect players of this experience level to glance at the opponents' > >>convention card to prevent this problem in such a basic situation. > >>South should have suspected that 2S was going to end the auction > >>so he could have found out what the E/W agreement was. North > >>tried to do so, but since the he had already passed, the auction > >>could no longer be backed up to his partner. > >>For N/S, the table result of 2S made three, +140 for E/W, was > >>allowed to stand. > >>Since E/W had given N/S misinformation, they were to be assigned > >>the most "unfavorable result that was at all probable" (Law 12C2). > >>The Committee decided that South would have bid 2NT had he > >>been properly Alerted and that E/W might not compete to 3S > >>since East wasn't entitled to know about the spade fit and West > >>couldn't automatically compete to the three-level, vulnerable, with > >>only three-card support, West might double 3C, pass or bid 3S. > >>The Committee decided that pass was quite possible. A 3C > >>contract might go down, but the Committee considered nine tricks > >>to be "at all probable." Therefore, for the E/W pair, the contract > >>was changed to 3C made three, +110 for N/S." > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Peter Gill writes: > > >(2) Does anyone else think that there's something curious > >about the process which led to a split score? Or is it normal? > > Unfortunately normal. While some of the world split scores for > "irrational, wild or gambling action", and England/Wales the > deliberately tighter "wild or gambling action", the ACBL still expect > NOs to "play bridge" [they do not actually put it that way] or they may > fail to get redress. They swung a long way towards giving the NOs > nothing, and despite a swing back towards the rest of the world this > looks a typical ACBL decision of five years ago to me. > It looks like the failure to assign a reciprocal score was in accordance with L12C2, the AC believing that a 3C contract for N/S, absent the infraction, was not the most favorable result that was likely (i.e., it had less than a 1/3 chance of being the final contract). That's a reasonable judgment, and I see no reason to question it. The discussion of what N/S should have done was indeed out of line, but the second paragraph got around to the right reasoning, perhaps in the hope of making the "play bridge" point moot. We will have to look for another case in order to cite an example of the mistaken "play bridge" philosophy. Probably won't take long. Marv 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 Nov 28 18:25:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS7P3v27428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:25:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS7Ovt27424 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:24:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:24:04 -0800 Message-ID: <02c001c0590b$fd6152a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:22:34 -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 Peter Gill wrote: (snip of the long presentation of the case, which be viewed on the ACBL web site if Peter's mailing is unavailable) > >From the just-completed US Nationals (Daily Bulletin #9): [Saturday, Nov 25 issue] > > >"Appeals case #6 Subject: Misinformation > >Open BAM Teams, 19 November, First Qualifying Session > > > > I have two questions: > > (1) Yesterday, I was reading Marv French's comment (on either > BLML or rgb) that a poll of American Directors revealed sound > knowledge that asking a question for partner's benefit is not > allowed. Under these circumstances, should the AC have > made a remark about North's asking questions in case "his > partner might want the auction backed up." This is a typical ACBL "calling away from the table" practice, opposed by many of us on BLML and by at least some of the NABC casebook commentators (e.g., David Stevenson, Ron Gerard). Evidently both opposing convention cards were on North's side of the table, where he could see them. If he saw Drury checked on a CC (the report doesn't say), he had every right to call the TD in order to report the Alert Procedure infraction. Let's (charitably) assume that he looked at their CC and saw Drury checked. North can change his pass to another call if he wants to, provided an opening lead has not been faced (L21B1). Only, however, when it is probable that he made the call [pass] as a result of the MI. I suppose the right procedure is this: TD asks, "Do you want to change your pass to another call because of the failure to Alert?" The question is asked at the table, as there is no reason to have North answer the question privately (as most ACBL TDs require). If the answer is no, that is the end of it for the time being, play the hand. No discussion of what South "might have done," and no taking of South away from the table to find out. The bidding cannot be backed up to South, so it's a waste of time. I've been trying for years to find out what I should do when asked to leave the table for an inquisition. Meekly submitting to a dubious procedure is not my cup of tea, but I did so in Birmingham last week because I wasn't in the mood for a battle over nothing (no change of call to be considered). If the answer is yes, the pass is changed by North to a bid or double, and the auction proceeds. In either case, if the TD cannot quickly assess the likelihood of damage and make a ruling when play is over, then at break time, or after the last round of the playing session, the TD determines whether the MI caused damage and if so, what redress is due. My preference (but I'm not a TD) would be to to decide the matter with minimum questioning, make a ruling, and then listen to a dissent from the losing side. Two ACBL regulations cloud the issue here. One is of course the obligation to have two CCs on the table, and I wish the ACBL would make clear that the CCs should be placed where both opponents can see them. Whatever, E/W did not obey the regulation's obvious intent. PPw for that. The other is in the ACBL Alert Procedure: "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." [themselves, not partner--mlf] For an Alertable call, I would think this just means consulting the opposing convention card, not asking a question about the 2C bid. I don't see how South could be "expected to glance at the convention card" if it was on the other side of the table, and asking about an unAlerted bid that is supposed to be natural doesn't seem right (UI to partner). "The Committee decided that South would have bid 2NT had he been properly Alerted," so it seems reasonable to give N/S that bid, which would indeed have ended in a 3S contract E/W with a probability of at least 2/3. For N/S a 3C contract E/W is an AC judgment that I won't question either. So, the score adjustments look right to me, despite the poor procedures that were followed. Marv Does anyone else think that there's something curious > about the process which led to a split score? Or is it normal? > > 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 Tue Nov 28 18:55:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS7sn427465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:54:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS7sgt27461 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:54:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.83.50] (helo=D457300) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 140fb4-0005jc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:54:38 +0000 Message-ID: <002101c05910$81bbef20$325301d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:54:57 -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 Committee Decision: > >>The Committee decided that N/S were responsible for their poor > >>result. Surely North and South suspected that 2C was Drury. > >>Even though there is an Alert procedure, it was reasonable to > >>expect players of this experience level to glance at the opponents' > >>convention card to prevent this problem in such a basic situation. [snip] > >Peter Gill writes: > > >(2) Does anyone else think that there's something curious > >about the process which led to a split score? Or is it normal? > > Unfortunately normal. While some of the world split scores for > "irrational, wild or gambling action", and England/Wales the > deliberately tighter "wild or gambling action", the ACBL still expect > NOs to "play bridge" [they do not actually put it that way] or they may > fail to get redress. They swung a long way towards giving the NOs > nothing, and despite a swing back towards the rest of the world this > looks a typical ACBL decision of five years ago to me. But this isn't a question of expecting the NOs to continue playing bridge. It is a question of expecting the NOs to protect themselves against damage from misinformation by looking at the opponents' CC, or asking a question, or whatever they ought to have done. Whereas in England I would find it difficult to rule that a pair should have protected itself against a non-alerted Drury, I imagine that in the USA, such a ruling would not be regarded as at all extraordinary. However, I am not sure that a split score ought to be the consequence - this strikes me as a novel way of interpreting the difference between "likely" results and "at all probable" results. What the AC has said is, in effect, that in a case where the NOS ought to have protected itself, the most favourable of likely results for the NOS is the one it got at the table because it didn't protect itself, while the least favourable of at all probable results for the OS is the one it would have got had it alerted properly (or had the NOS actually protected itself). Now, whereas I am in principle entirely in favour of giving both sides a rotten score if both sides have done something they ought not to have done, this seems to me a little odd. Either the NOS should have protected itself, or it should not. If the former, then the table result should stand (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention); if the latter, then the result should be adjusted (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention). When performing the adjustment, it would be possible to award a weighted score - that is, some probability that the NOS would play in 3C, some probability that the OS would compete to 3S. Or, it would be possible to award the OS the score for 3C making (since it is at all probable that they would fail to compete to 3S) and the NOS the score for 3S making (because it is not likely that the OS would fail to compete to 3S). But I do not think it normal - and I do think it curious - that the NOS should be given the score that it got when it didn't protect itself, while the OS got the worst score it could have got had the NOS protected itself. This seems to leave unresolved the question of whether the NOS ought to have protected itself against an unalerted Drury, and since this question is fundamental, one would like to have seen it addressed. 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 Nov 28 18:55:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS7t9327477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:55:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS7t1t27467 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:55:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:54:12 -0800 Message-ID: <02cc01c05910$321bb7c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] The "Play Bridge" req't Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 23:47:57 -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 In case anyone is wondering, the ACBL NABC ACs, or at least one of them recently, believes that the NOS requirement for getting redress is that they "continue to play bridge." Appeals Case 2 at the Birmingham NABC, printed in the Wednesday Nov 22 Daily Bulletin, viewable on the ACBL web site at: http://www.acbl.org/nabc/Birmingham/Bulletins.htm ends with these words: "The Committee then considered whether East had "failed to continue to play bridge" when he did not bid 5C over 4S. They decided that his action did not constitute such a failure." The ACBLLC, reacting to the "wild, gambling, or irrational" wording of the Lille 1998 WBFLC interpretation, merely stated at its Orlando meeting (Nov 1998) that "actions subsequent to the infraction may be relevant for the non-offenders." Whatever that means, it doesn't contradict the Lille interpretation, and certainly doesn't translate into the words of this AC. Marv 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 Nov 28 18:59:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS7xex27489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAS7xXt27485 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:59:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-145.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.145]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA10476 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:59:27 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A226391.CEB433C6@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2000 14:37:21 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.6.32.20001127135846.007f5500@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: > > > 1) If you ask questions at every possible opportunity, you cannot be > penalized, since it will never be UI. So you always ask about Stayman ? > 2) How on earth could somebody decide you asked only for the purpose of > helping partner ? > We are not talking about rulings here, but about principles. It is not because something is difficult to rule that the principle must be wrong. > One example : pairs / none > > KQxx > xx > xx > Q10xxx > > I'm playing against some relay system. (call me a masochist, I like it) > The bidding goes : 1H - p - 2D* > > I ask about 2D because I think it might be NF as it is often the case > playing relays. In this case, following my OBAR style, I'd double. > > No, they only alerted to say this guarantees a 5-card suit, but F1 as usual. > Now they tell me I've asked only to let my partner know they had 5 > diamonds, so he shouldn't lead them ? > > Not very fair, is it ? > No, because it would not be true. If you provide a reason why you ask, you cannot be blamed for asking. Indeed this is a principle which will often be difficult to detect. I suspect many pros get away with pro questions. But that does not mean that the pro question is legal. Only that it frequently goes undetected. -- 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 Nov 28 19:42:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAS8dnN27514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:39:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eAS8dgt27510 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:39:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis85.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.85]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4Q006437XQNZ@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:37:03 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:36:24 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score In-reply-to: <002101c05910$81bbef20$325301d5@D457300> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128093513.00a32a70@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: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Now, whereas I am in principle entirely in favour of giving both sides a >rotten score if both sides have done something they ought not to have >done, this seems to me a little odd. Either the NOS should have >protected itself, or it should not. If the former, then the table result >should stand (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic >convention); if the latter, then the result should be adjusted (and the >OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention). It is standard practise to split score in cases, where sth irrational, wild or gambling happened. In fact, this is part of the WBF-CoP. 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 Nov 28 21:32:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASAVxE27584 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:31:59 +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 eASAVot27575 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:31:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.90] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 140i38-000OVW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:31:47 +0000 Message-ID: <004001c05926$7d74a680$e05908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <02cc01c05910$321bb7c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] The "Play Bridge" req't Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:31:25 -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 " Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank, The army of the unalterable law." - Meredith. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 7:47 AM Subject: [BLML] The "Play Bridge" req't > In case anyone is wondering, the ACBL NABC ACs, or at least one of them > recently, believes that the NOS requirement for getting redress is that > they "continue to play bridge." > > Appeals Case 2 at the Birmingham NABC, printed in the Wednesday Nov 22 > Daily Bulletin, viewable on the ACBL web site at: > > http://www.acbl.org/nabc/Birmingham/Bulletins.htm > > ends with these words: > > "The Committee then considered whether East had > "failed to continue to play bridge" when he did not > bid 5C over 4S. They decided that his > action did not constitute such a failure." > > The ACBLLC, reacting to the "wild, gambling, or > irrational" wording of the Lille 1998 WBFLC > interpretation, merely stated at its Orlando > meeting (Nov 1998) that "actions subsequent to > the infraction may be relevant for the non-offenders." > > Whatever that means, it doesn't contradict the Lille > interpretation, and certainly doesn't translate into > the words of this AC. > +=+ I would read this as meaning that they did not engage in 'irrational, wild or gambling' action! The phrase 'wild or gambling' was one used regularly by Edgar Kaplan. He brought to the WBFLC his concerns that in the ACBL a word 'egregious' had been introduced - no bad thing in itself, but it had become debased and things were being regarded as 'egregious' which were no more than inferior or careless. The addition of 'irrational' to Edgar's 'wild or gambling' was the eventual attempt to substitute for 'egregious' a description that would inhibit the downward drift of the level at which the actions of the NOS should go against them. 'Wild' would seem to include the irrational, and at the lower end of its range probably overlaps with 'gambling'. One objective was to bring home to strong players on appeals committees the fact that the bridge of weaker players should not be too readily condemned as 'egregious' and their rights to redress denied. The game should not be tilted in favour of the experts, and weaker players should not be refused their legitimate successes (even when 'accidental'). I imagine that it must be extremely difficult to establish common standards for ACs in the ACBL, because of its territorial distension. More compact bodies have shorter lines of communication. ~ 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 Nov 28 21:32:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASAW1127585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:32:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASAVrt27577 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:31:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.90] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 140i36-000OVW-00; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:31:44 +0000 Message-ID: <003f01c05926$7c0c8b00$e05908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Georgiana Gates" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <00eb01c05829$549db920$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A230B4B.3D04@hal-pc.org> Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:17:33 -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 " Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank, The army of the unalterable law." - Meredith. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Georgiana Gates To: Marvin L. French Cc: Jesper Dybdal ; Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 1:32 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question > > > At the Birmingham Nationals I played against a pair that > I have played against in the past. Two-board rounds. They > did not have a convention card on the table, although > they were North-South (it "cluttered" the table). I knew > from prior experience that they played the Meckwell > system, but partner had never played against them > before. Before we took our cards from the board, I > asked them if they played a strong > club system. I knew the answer; partner did not. Was I > being unethical? > -- +=+ Oh, I think not. This was part of the preliminaries - cards still in the board, opponents have not told you what they are playing. Why should you assume they are playing the same system as before? Perhaps the first request should be to see their CC*, no reason why you should not ensure partner has it too, or if they only provide one that you should not pass it across for partner to see. You are entitled to discuss any special defensive requirements too, or review what you have previously discussed. Any application to the Director concerning the absence of convention cards should (a) not be made until you have asked opponents for them, and (b) be made in civil, not aggressive manner (as I am sure you know - this is said 'pour encourager les autres'). I have no doubt that the WBFLC ruling applies to questions asked after the auction has begun. I do not have any problem about your discussing (in 'English' - or the language of the tournament, if not English!) opponents' methods, and how you are to deal with them, if the discussion is before or between boards. ~ Grattan ~ [* CC = convention card] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Nov 28 22:24:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASBOZL27690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:24:35 +1100 (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 eASBOQt27686 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:24:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.19.1]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001128112421.UOPE5359.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:24:21 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:29:57 -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: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:01 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > > "Declarer plays a card by putting it on or near the table (even if > you've pulled the wrong one)" > > "A card played from dummy can be changed in the same breath provided > it's not a change of mind" > > These explanations seem to satisfy the players, and give them the sense > under which the ruling is made. When I get such a ruling I ask the > player to replay the scene (I keep a joker in my pocket if there are no > quitted cards on the table for the purpose), and check with opponents if > this is about right. The ruling is usually easy thereafter.> > > If your joker is a card from declarer's hand, it is held in a vertical position facing declarer, with it's bottom edge touching the table - is it a played card? Law 45 C2 2. Declarer’s Card Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. > I have in the past interpreted this first comma to indicate that one of two conditions must be met.i) that the card must be face up and must be touching or nearly touching or ii) that is is held so that it looks as though it is played. > 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 Nov 28 22:42:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASBfVC27707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:41:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASBfLt27703 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 22:41:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d162.iae.nl [212.61.3.162]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B9CA520F3C for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:41:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000701c05930$2f8dd360$a2033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:22:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > Has no single BL ever tried this one ? > "I know what Stayman means, but by ACBL regulation, that > explanation is not sufficient". > > Silly regulation, if applied literally. > Of course the explanation is not sufficient if the opponent > does not know what it means. > And of course it is sufficient if the opponent does ! > Please try this one: I bid 2 C; partner alerts LHO asks for explanation; partner answers "Benji. I see that LHO takes a pass-chart but I know he does not understand benji. So I say to my partner: "Please explain." Question 1: Is that correct and full explanation? Next table against best pair of town: I bid 2 D; partner alerts. LHO asks for explanation; partner answers 4 of the 5 situations. The forgotten situation is not in my hand. So I say to my partner: "Complete please." Question 2: Is that nonsense? The same as last one, but now I have the forgotton situation in my hand. Question 3: UI? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 00:09:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASD7sW28154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:07:54 +1100 (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 eASD7lt28150 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:07:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 28699 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2000 13:19:08 -0000 Received: from ip-014-202.gw.total-web.net (HELO Bickford1) (209.186.14.202) by server03.gw.total-web.net with SMTP; 28 Nov 2000 13:19:08 -0000 Message-ID: <02c801c0593c$6646ce00$ca0ebad1@gw.total.web.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:09:11 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > Brian Baresch (and Marv too) wrote: > > > > > > >From the ACBL Alert Chart: > > > > The bidding side has an obligation to disclose itsagreements according to > > the procedures established by ACBL. > > -- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the > > agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not > > sufficient. > > > > Has no single BL ever tried this one ? > "I know what Stayman means, but by ACBL regulation, that > explanation is not sufficient". > > Silly regulation, if applied literally. > Of course the explanation is not sufficient if the opponent > does not know what it means. > And of course it is sufficient if the opponent does ! I would doubt there is any convention for which the simple name would be sufficient. To use the one you cite (Stayman) consider: 1. Forcing or non-forcing? 2. Does it guarantee a 4 card major? 3. If holding both majors, should the initial response be hearts or spades? Cheers.........../Bill Bickford > > > The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. > > -- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only > > indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosure should be > > given automatically. > > > > -- > > > > http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alrtproc.htm > > > > Me, I rarely use the name of a convention when I'm explaining. (I have > > trouble remembering some of the names anyway.) > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net > > Lawrence, Kansas, USA > > Editing, writing, proofreading > > > > Only YOU can prevent narcissism. > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 00:32:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASDW1028172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:32:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASDVqt28168 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:31:55 +1100 (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 140krJ-0007eT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:31:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:50:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> These explanations seem to satisfy the players, and give them the >sense >> under which the ruling is made. When I get such a ruling I ask the >> player to replay the scene (I keep a joker in my pocket if there are >no >> quitted cards on the table for the purpose), and check with opponents >if >> this is about right. The ruling is usually easy thereafter. >If your joker is a card from declarer's hand, it is held in a vertical >position facing declarer, with it's bottom edge touching the table - is >it a played card? >Law 45 C2 >2. Declarers Card >Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or >nearly touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to >indicate that it has been played. > >I have in the past interpreted this first comma to indicate that one of >two conditions must be met.i) that the card must be face up and must be >touching or nearly touching or ii) that is is held so that it looks as >though it is played. That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 00:45:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASDj2R28194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:45:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eASDint28185 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis131.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.131]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4Q00ASAM5VMW@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:44:21 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:44:17 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@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: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway >to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? 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 Wed Nov 29 00:45:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASDj0b28193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:45:00 +1100 (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 eASDipt28186 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:44:52 +1100 (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 OAA07833; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:42:35 +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 OAA10180; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:44:38 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:55:51 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] schmoints Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I recently encountered twice in the same tournament the same problem : the opponent asked me (case 1) or my partner (case 2) about the range for my partner's auction. Since we believe 'points, schmoints' is a bridge truth, we had some difficulties answering them. What should we have done ? The two cases : 1) 1D 1NTa - What's that ? - Shows spades and clubs, usually 5C/4S at least. - How many points ? - ... er, the same kind of hand as for a suit overcall at the present vulnerability. - And this makes how many ? - ... 2) 2Ha - Yes ? - Under opening. 5 hearts and at least 4 cards in a minor. - How many points ? - Hmm... Depends of the pattern. Could be virtually nought with 5-6. With 5-4 ... well, I know him : he's wild ; so don't ask me ! Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough ? 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 Nov 29 01:31:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASEU2L28257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:30:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASETtt28253 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 01:29:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.33.) id 7.a8.d944347 (4155); Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:29:46 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:29:45 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: WSFlory@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a8.d944347.27551b59_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_a8.d944347.27551b59_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters. If this is unusual, I was unaware of it. Walt Flory _____ --part1_a8.d944347.27551b59_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring
table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing
captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters.
If this is unusual, I was unaware of it.

Walt Flory
_____
--part1_a8.d944347.27551b59_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 02:03:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASF3AD28310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:03:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASF33t28306 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:03:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in ([202.54.82.190]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA04812 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:31:23 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3A23C71D.55D13CE7@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:24:22 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] information from 2 sources Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk match point pairs 1st elimination N-S : good players of plenty experience, Playing for first time as pds, N player is adv/exp, S player is 80 years, but still in perfect shape of health mentally and physically. E-W : exp and exp+ bidding as follows : N E S W P 1C (1) P 1D (2) X (3) P (4) P (5) P (6) (1) = 1C strong 18+ (2) = 1D 0-7 hcp (3) = dbl was for both Majors (4) = E enquires with S the meaning of North's dbl, South fumbles and tells not discussed but I take it as opening hand. (5) = passed as has some hcps, D Kxxx and may be in hope may be opps will bid something. (6) = makes detail enquiries with South about North's dbl, same answer is given , during interogation word take out dbl also came ,then he asks can I ask now North himself since you are not giving clearcut exact meaning , and then asks North (taking him aside so South is not able to hear what has been said) , North tells him, it is for both Majors. ( Sometimes it is the style of experts to ask variety of questions to opps like taking cross examination in court , new / inexperienced opps get nervous (or made nervous) ) Now the West as declarer has information about opp's hands from 2 sources 1. from South's reply of opening hand and then his Pass tells him that South has D suit. 2. from North's reply he knows that North has both Majors. QUESTION : Can he ask like this to both opps, tournament was being conducted without screens and no bidding boxes were in use, and there was no self alert procedure and player was expected to tell the meaning of partner's bid. Can North player refuse to tell him meaning since in this tournament we are not following self alert procedure and South has given him what he understands of North's bid and South's defence is going to be based on his understanding. thx n best regards yogesh -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 03:31:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGUhH28395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:30:43 +1100 (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 eASGUZt28388 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:30:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id pa079341 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:27:46 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.234]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Self-Aware-MailRouter V2.9c 9/2860299); 29 Nov 2000 02:27:46 Message-ID: <000301c05957$f78fd800$eae136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:24:02 +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 Alain Gottcheiner wrote: >I recently encountered twice in the same tournament the >same problem : the opponent asked me (case 1) or my >partner (case 2) about the range for my partner's auction. >Since we believe 'points, schmoints' is a bridge truth, >we had some difficulties answering them. What should >we have done ? > >The two cases : > >1) 1D 1NTa > >- What's that ? >- Shows spades and clubs, usually 5C/4S at least. >- How many points ? >- ... er, the same kind of hand as for a suit overcall at the present >vulnerability. >- And this makes how many ? >- ... > >2) 2Ha > >- Yes ? >- Under opening. 5 hearts and at least 4 cards in a minor. >- How many points ? >- Hmm... Depends of the pattern. Could be virtually nought with >5-6. With 5-4 ... well, I know him : he's wild ; so don't ask me ! > >Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough? They could have been more complete. For example, an overcall at the two level usually shows a better hand than an overcall at the one level, so your "as for a suit overcall" description is not totally clear. A couple of suggestions that you might say: "perhaps 6 to 15 points, but possibly even less with extreme distribution", or "we don't assign point counts to our competitive bids, but partner will usually have between 7 and 14 points" I don't particularly like the words "don't ask me" because some of your opponents might misunderstand and think these words are a bit contemptuous. However the rest of the second explanation seems quite good to me; it succinctly describes your partner's style, but might not satisfy some opponents whose minds process quantified explanations more easily than general explanations, even if the quantifying has to be approximate. 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 Nov 29 03:31:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGUhV28396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:30:43 +1100 (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 eASGUZt28387 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:30:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa079340 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:27:45 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.234]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Unconscious-MailRouter V2.9c 9/2860299); 29 Nov 2000 02:27:44 Message-ID: <000201c05957$f6e7ff40$eae136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:11:05 +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 Ben Schelen asked: >Please try this one: >I bid 2 C; partner alerts >LHO asks for explanation; partner answers "Benji. >I see that LHO takes a pass-chart but I know he does >not understand benji. >So I say to my partner: "Please explain." >Question 1: Is that correct and full explanation? I think Law 75D2 doesn't allow you to correct partner's explanation until after the final pass (or end of play for a defender), "nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made", to quote Law 75D2. Thus your partner's explanation is not full but you shouldn't be correcting it at this stage, even if your intention is good. >Next table against best pair in town: >I bid 2 D; partner alerts. >LHO asks for explanation; partner answers 4 of the 5 situations. >The forgotten situation is not in my hand. >So I say to my partner: "Complete please." >Question 2: Is that nonsense? Ditto - Law 75D2 says that you should wait until later. >The same as last one, but now I have the forgotten situation >in my hand. >Question 3: UI? Ditto. Don't say anything at this stage. 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 Nov 29 03:36:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGa6l28414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:36:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASGa0t28410 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:36:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eASGaa615729 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:36:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011281636.eASGaa615729@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:36:36 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> from "alain gottcheiner" at Nov 28, 2000 02:55:51 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes: > > Dear blmlists, > > I recently encountered twice in the same tournament the same problem : the > opponent asked me (case 1) or my partner (case 2) about the range for my > partner's auction. Since we believe 'points, schmoints' is a bridge truth, > we had some difficulties answering them. What should we have done ? You have an obligation to explain your agreements fully. Start by explaining that you don't use points in evaluating your hand. The ACBL had a regulation at one point that required you to give HCP ranges even if you didn't use them in the evaluation process. I can recall an unkind Bridge World editorial. No idea if it's still in force and wouldn't matter to you in any case. > > The two cases : > > 1) 1D 1NTa > > - What's that ? > - Shows spades and clubs, usually 5C/4S at least. > - How many points ? > - ... er, the same kind of hand as for a suit overcall at the present > vulnerability. Not close to acceptable. For one thing, are we talking enough for (say) Norman Kay (generally pretty sound) or Eric Rodwell (shows 13 cards) > - And this makes how many ? > - ... Well does it show any 13 cards with at least 5C/4S? I'm skeptical. If it describes a range of trick taking power then let them know. If it's X winners, Y controls and Z suit quality (where each is a range), let them know. You might decide to make a rough conversion to points. I'm unsure of the wisdom of doing this. Even with the disclaimer that you don't use points, you could easily create confusion and/or hard feelings if partner's hand is well away from the range described. > > 2) 2Ha > > - Yes ? > - Under opening. 5 hearts and at least 4 cards in a minor. > - How many points ? > - Hmm... Depends of the pattern. Could be virtually nought with 5-6. With > 5-4 ... well, I know him : he's wild ; so don't ask me ! > > Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough ? Nope. THey have a right to understand the general range of hands that you would expect. If it's tough for you to explain, too bad. Figure out a way to meet your obligations. This type of explanation (from an experienced) player is the type of thing that procedural penalties are meant for IMO. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 03:42:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGg2V28431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:42:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASGfut28427 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:41:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4o9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.9]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA06728; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:41:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00cc01c0595a$e75f8720$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:47:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And is Stayman forcing or non-forcing? Do you respond four card majors up the line or spades first? Do you play any check back? Do you promise 8 hcp (opposite 15-17). Can it be xxxx xxxx xxxx x with 0-4 hcp? Et cetera. And that's just Stayman which "everyone knows". The name of a convention may indeed be a good Starting Point for explaining a bid...but you must take care that your opponents are given Enough information...and that often means more that just a name. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 7:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? > Brian Baresch (and Marv too) wrote: > > > > > > >From the ACBL Alert Chart: > > > > The bidding side has an obligation to disclose itsagreements according to > > the procedures established by ACBL. > > -- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the > > agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not > > sufficient. > > > > Has no single BL ever tried this one ? > "I know what Stayman means, but by ACBL regulation, that > explanation is not sufficient". > > Silly regulation, if applied literally. > Of course the explanation is not sufficient if the opponent > does not know what it means. > And of course it is sufficient if the opponent does ! > > > The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question. > > -- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only > > indicate the desire for information -- all relevant disclosure should be > > given automatically. > > > > -- > > > > http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alrtproc.htm > > > > Me, I rarely use the name of a convention when I'm explaining. (I have > > trouble remembering some of the names anyway.) > > > > Best regards, > > > > Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net > > Lawrence, Kansas, USA > > Editing, writing, proofreading > > > > Only YOU can prevent narcissism. > > > > -- > > ======================================================================== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 03:49:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGnK328444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:49:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thalia.fm.intel.com (thalia.fm.intel.com [132.233.247.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASGnDt28440 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:49:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from SMTP (fmsmsxvs01-1.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.201]) by thalia.fm.intel.com (8.9.1a+p1/8.9.1/d: relay.m4,v 1.33 2000/11/21 19:27:27 smothers Exp $) with SMTP id QAA01701 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:50:18 GMT Received: from fmsmsx27.FM.INTEL.COM ([132.233.48.27]) by 132.233.48.201 (Norton AntiVirus for Internet Email Gateways 1.0) ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:48:59 0000 (GMT) Received: by fmsmsx27.fm.intel.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:48:58 -0800 Message-ID: <11652883D8DDD311AC42009027C67FF60875E9@orsmsx58.jf.intel.com> From: "Zimnoch, ToddX" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 08:48:56 -0800 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 In districts 19 and 20 (or at least B.C., Washington, and Oregon), only one card is returned by the winning captain. This has three benefits that I see -- there's only one result per match so you shouldn't have conflicting results, the teams compare the IMP swing catching a lot of mistakes before they hit the scorer, and it requires that at least one member of each team meet again after the match to say "nice game", "well done", or "good luck." -Todd (and well done Canada for showing us how an election is done!) >From: WSFlory@aol.com >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >CC: WSFlory@aol.com >Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:29:45 EST > >It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina, >Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring >table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing >captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters. >If this is unusual, I was unaware of it. > >Walt Flory >_____ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 03:51:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASGpiH28456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:51:44 +1100 (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 eASGpct28452 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:51:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4o9.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.9]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA03560; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:51:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , Cc: References: <200011272130.NAA16186@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501c058d0$3a8c77e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:57:25 -0500 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 heard that Florida is now spelled floriDUH. > > Marv > San Diego, CA, USA Don't say that in Palm Beach...they'll either punch you out or get you pregnant! Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 04:01:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASH18i28482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:01:08 +1100 (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 eASH10t28473 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:01:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa079357 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:40:37 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-234.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.234]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Peppy-MailRouter V2.9c 9/2862327); 29 Nov 2000 02:40:36 Message-ID: <005c01c05959$c2e19920$eae136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] can he pass Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:39:21 +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 Yogesh Abhyankar (from India?) wrote: >Local club tournament > K9x > Ax > KT9x > Qxxxx > >QTxxxx AJx >87x T9xxx >76x AJx >x Tx > > x > KQJ > Q86 > AKJxxx > >North Dealer > >Bidding as follows: > >N E S W >1D 1H 3C P >3NT P 4NT P >5D x 5NT P >P P > > >both pairs playing Strong Club system >1D = prepared 12-17 hcp >1H = normal overcall >3C = natural good 6 card C suit >4NT = simple BW asking for aces >5NT = asking for kings > >5NT was bid after very very long pause. > >QUESTION : >Opps Object >Can North Pass this 5NT bid of asking Kings ? what should >be the ruling I don't think North's Pass should be allowed. Assuming that your statement that "5NT = asking for kings" is correct, then the hesitation is Unauthorised Info which suggests that North pass. I would adjust the contract to 6NT. If 5NT made, then a ruling of 6NT down one is easy, and I would not expect an appeal because the ruling is so obvious to me. If 5NT was defeated, then I would probably still rule 6NT down one (as cashing both aces is very tempting against a slam). Peter Gill Australia. Sorry about the delay replying; only one response in four days is a bit unusual but there are a lot of threads on BLML at present. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 04:34:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASHXV928509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:33:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASHXLt28501 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:33:22 +1100 (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 140od3-000Gp0-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:33:18 +0000 Message-ID: <9AI+xhCcq+I6Ew3s@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:25:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] information from 2 sources References: <3A23C71D.55D13CE7@pn2.vsnl.net.in> In-Reply-To: <3A23C71D.55D13CE7@pn2.vsnl.net.in> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk n y abhyankar writes >match point pairs 1st elimination >N-S : good players of plenty experience, Playing for first time as pds, >N player is > adv/exp, S player is 80 years, but still in perfect shape of >health mentally and > physically. >E-W : exp and exp+ > >bidding as follows : > >N E S W >P 1C (1) P 1D (2) >X (3) P (4) P (5) P (6) > >(1) = 1C strong 18+ >(2) = 1D 0-7 hcp >(3) = dbl was for both Majors >(4) = E enquires with S the meaning of North's dbl, South fumbles and >tells not discussed > but I take it as opening hand. >(5) = passed as has some hcps, D Kxxx and may be in hope may be opps >will bid > something. >(6) = makes detail enquiries with South about North's dbl, same answer >is given , during interogation word take out dbl > also came ,then he asks can I ask now North himself since you >are not giving clearcut exact > meaning , and then asks North (taking him aside so South is >not able to hear what > has been said) , North tells him, it is for both Majors. > ( Sometimes it is the style of experts to ask variety of >questions to opps like taking cross examination in court , new / > inexperienced opps get nervous (or made nervous) ) > >Now the West as declarer has information about opp's hands from 2 >sources >1. from South's reply of opening hand and then his Pass tells him that >South has D suit. >2. from North's reply he knows that North has both Majors. > It is important that misinformation is cleared up as much as possible. But there is a danger - if N/S do not have an agreement then the oppos have no right to know. >QUESTION : >Can he ask like this to both opps, tournament was being conducted >without screens and no bidding boxes were in use, and there was no self >alert procedure and player was expected to tell the meaning of partner's >bid. I certainly do not believe he should ask this sort of question without the TD. He should call the TD and explain his difficulty. >Can North player refuse to tell him meaning since in this tournament we >are not following self alert procedure and South has given him what he >understands of North's bid and South's defence is going to be based on >his understanding. No, the oppos have a right to know the agreement, so if the TD sanctions it [and he should] North can be asked. if there is no agreement then North need not answer, but if it does show the majors, North must say so. Furthermore, it will help North to answer, it is *better* for him to do so. If he does, then E/W will have to get it right at the table. If he did not answer, then the TD would adjust at the end and E/W would get the benefit of any doubt. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 04:34:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASHXUO28508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:33:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASHXLt28500 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:33:22 +1100 (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 140od2-000Goz-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:33:17 +0000 Message-ID: <7wn$NeCjj+I6EwV7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:18:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@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 writes > >> >> That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway >>to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. > >Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? No, I said I agreed with Anne. Of course there are different rules in different situations - you can certainly have a call made from a bidding box that no-one else can see - but I believe the played card for declarer gives him considerable leeway to change it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 04:37:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASHb9m28527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:37:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASHb3t28523 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:37:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:36:12 -0800 Message-ID: <031e01c05961$7b0fb2a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 09:31:41 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:29 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race > It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina, > Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring > table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing > captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters. > If this is unusual, I was unaware of it. > > Walt Flory > _____ The second procedure (used hereabouts) seems quite adequate, why clutter up the scoring table with two cards for every match? Marv 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 Nov 29 04:51:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASHpCm28553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:51:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eASHp6t28549 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:51:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eASHpic18924 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:51:44 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011281751.eASHpic18924@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:51:44 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <11652883D8DDD311AC42009027C67FF60875E8@orsmsx58.jf.intel.com> from "Zimnoch, ToddX" at Nov 27, 2000 03:21:20 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Zimnoch, ToddX writes: > > I don't understand how this is MI. The answer may be > incomprehensible to the asker's partner, but it's not incorrect nor > incomplete. In general, must you answer a question to the satisfaction > of both your opponents or just the one who asked? You have to specifically answer the question. > Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the player who didn't understand > to ask for clarification? And if the player doesn't know that the information provided was incomplete or incorrect? I see this all the time. > > As far as the Kaplan question, is this done to avoid having to get > the director to adjust at the end of the hand? Yes. Kaplan's concerns were a) it can be difficult to show damage and b) even if he could, it will look to some ACs like he was trying a double shot (and a lot of ACs have very strong feelings on the subject). That he was angling for either a good table result or a successful protest. I think both are valid conerns and that the game's admistrators are being remiss in failing to adress these concerns. Especially in a zone like the ACBL where "play bridge" rulings are so common. > Is it something like reminding your opponents that they forgot some > facet in their explanation, like a bid showed a singleton? In Kaplan's example, Belladonna accurately described their nominal agreements but failed to mention that there was no good rebid for a particular hand pattern. And from the tempo and the fact (and Avarelli's final pass) both Kaplan and Belladonna knew which "unbiddable" hand pattern Avarelli had. (There's no suggestion of Belladonna using the UI by the way.) -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 05:10:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASI9Ur28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:09:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASI9Nt28566 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:09:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05685; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:04:57 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <02c001c0590b$fd6152a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <02c001c0590b$fd6152a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:01:20 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I wish the ACBL would make >clear that the CCs should be placed where both opponents can see them. I would go further. I think the regulation ought to read: "At the beginning of each round, each player shall present his convention card to his right hand opponent, who will retain the card for the duration of the round." This would require players to find some other place than the inside of their CC to keep private scores, but I think that space ought to be available for CC purposes anyway. 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/AwUBOiP0zL2UW3au93vOEQLMCwCgvWPQWvejPlX48zKoUbxyooAvM9wAoOD7 rquPfpFttpkV3nqj5rv3y6wQ =D46l -----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 Nov 29 05:29:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASITBw28589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:29:11 +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 eASIT5t28585 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 05:29:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25750 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:24:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:26:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina, >Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring >table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing >captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters. >If this is unusual, I was unaware of it. I believe that's also the rule around here (Unit 112, Western NY/PA). The first time I played in an ACBL Swiss Teams, I got elected captain. (three women and me on the team, and none of them wanted the job. :) We won our second match, but the captain of the other team said to me "I'll take the cards up," and I let her (I don't know at the time that the winning captain was supposed to do it.) I didn't realize until we were halfway home (when one of my teammates questioned it) that the losing team had been credited with our win. I called the TD the next day, but he was out of town at another tournament. "He'll get back to you," his wife said. He didn't. I called again. He had the flu. A while later I called again. He was at a NABC. He finally called back, and said there was nothing he could do, as he no longer had the records. I chalked it up to experience, and resolved never again to leave a tournament without verifying the scores on every match. And never to let the losing captain deliver the scores to the desk. 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/AwUBOiP5bb2UW3au93vOEQIFzwCfSyb/BjvPx24mX9d5aTqpB1HnXZsAnRWZ 4q0T8E1OO0VUr0xpDfMKnVZ9 =rRxJ -----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 Nov 29 08:56:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASLtsL28761 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:55:54 +1100 (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 eASLtmt28757 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:55:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASF5R703138 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:05:27 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 14:57:09 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> <000701c05930$2f8dd360$a2033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <000701c05930$2f8dd360$a2033dd4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112815052701.03029@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Ben Schelen wrote: > Please try this one: > I bid 2 C; partner alerts > LHO asks for explanation; partner answers "Benji. > I see that LHO takes a pass-chart but I know he does not understand benji. > So I say to my partner: "Please explain." > Question 1: Is that correct and full explanation? This is technically a violation of procedure, but it's probably useful as a courtesy. Provided that it is clear that you know what "Benji" means, there is no teal problem with UI. > Next table against best pair of town: > I bid 2 D; partner alerts. > LHO asks for explanation; partner answers 4 of the 5 situations. > The forgotten situation is not in my hand. > So I say to my partner: "Complete please." > Question 2: Is that nonsense? > The same as last one, but now I have the forgotton situation in my hand. > Question 3: UI? In these two situations, partner has given an incorrect explanation, and you are specifically required by Law to wait until the end of the auction (or end of play if you become a defender) to correct the explanation. (In the first case, partner has given a correct explanation.) In case 2, you are probably still required to correct at the end of the auction, even though it doesn't give information about your hand. In case 3, you have UI that partner may have forgotten the case you hold, and if he has, you will certainly create UI by asking him to correct the explanation. -- 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 Wed Nov 29 09:03:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASM36O28778 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:03:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eASM2xt28774 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:03:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eASFCeG03143 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:12:40 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 15:10:15 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112815124002.03029@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: > In article <01ed01c0589f$22cd5420$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French > writes > >Craig Senior wrote: > > > > > >> I have played in a number of Swiss events wherein the reporting card > >to be > >> handed in by the team captain requires you to circle win or loss and > >> indicate the score. Both captains are expected to hand in such a card. > > > >All the Swiss teams I have played in require only the captain of the > >winning team to turn in the result, with the losing team captain > >initializing the card to show concurrence. I can't imagine why it would > >be done any other way. > > > EBU events require the winning captain to return both cards. We won't > accept a single card at the scoring desk. This problem doesn't arise as > the score is entered against the table as eg 22 17 3 (Table 22, lower > numbered team 17, higher numbered team 3, where the match is being held > at Red 22 and White 22) and requires significant numbers of keystrokes > to over-ride a total which is not 20 (usual scale for an EBU event). Some ACBL tournaments have tickets given to the captains at the beginning of each round; a ticket will say "Team 8, 45 VP's, N-S at C7, E-W at D7, play against 26", and a matching "Team 26, 43 VP's, N-S at D7, E-W at C7, play against 8". The winning captain is usually asked to turn in both slips. -- 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 Wed Nov 29 11:40:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT0b8B28853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:37:08 +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 eAT0b2t28849 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:37:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.72.131] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 140vF3-0004hA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:36:57 +0000 Message-ID: <003f01c0599c$80cf1880$83487ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128093513.00a32a70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 00:37:05 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard wrote: > >Now, whereas I am in principle entirely in favour of giving both sides a > >rotten score if both sides have done something they ought not to have > >done, this seems to me a little odd. Either the NOS should have > >protected itself, or it should not. If the former, then the table result > >should stand (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic > >convention); if the latter, then the result should be adjusted (and the > >OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention). > > It is standard practise to split score in cases, where sth irrational, wild > or gambling happened. > In fact, this is part of the WBF-CoP. Yes, I know. I suppose it might be asserted - and indeed, the AC in this case seems effectively to have asserted - that to fail to ask whether or not your opponents are playing Drury is "irrational, wild or gambling action". But I would have some difficulty in justifying this assertion. 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 Nov 29 12:00:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT0xOb28870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAT0xHt28866 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:59:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ives6s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.220]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA07046 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 19:59:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 18:05:35 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question In-Reply-To: <3A223D09.1C74A8AB@comarch.pl> References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAT0xKt28867 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:52 AM 11/27/2000 +0100, Konrad wrote: >"Michael S. Dennis" a écrit : >> >> At 08:10 PM 11/26/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: >> >A very prominent player argued the point with me at the Birmingham NABC >> >this week, insisting that it is perfectly proper to ask a question for >> >partner's benefit, since s/he has a right to know what opposing calls >> >mean. Out of curiosity, I asked a number of ACBL TDs about this, and >> >they unanimously replied in accordance with the WBFLC interpretation. >> >That's a relief. Now, if they will only find a way to enforce it. >> >> Yes, that would be interesting. A reliable mind-reading machine. And it >> would have so many applications beyond our little universe as well. Do keep >> me posted. >> >> Mike Dennis > > > You won't always need a mind-reading machine. >Here is a scene like this a couple of times in my life: > >PRO: What does this bid mean? >ME: Fourth suit. >PRO: Could you be more specific? >ME: You don't know what the fourth suit means? >PRO: I do, but I have to make sure my partner knows what's going on. > > Even if the pro doesn't openly admit to asking on partner's benefit >I don't think a TD can seriously believe that he asked further >questions because he needed them. Yes, he can ask for the meaning >of an alerted bid but clearly an explanation along the lines >"relay, GF", "splinter", "Landy" or "Lebensohl" should be quite >clear to him. Your example illustrates quite clearly what is wrong with your "test". Some play "fourth suit" as forcing to game, while others play it as forcing for only one round. And there are other nuances that could affect one's judgement of how to proceed as well. The fact is that "fourth suit" is a woefully inadequate explanation by any measure, and anyone, even a strong player, is fully entitled to a more detailed explanation. The same holds for the other "explanations" you have described. 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 Nov 29 12:50:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT1ntw28901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:49:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAT1nnt28897 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:49:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ives6s.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.220]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA24440 for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:49:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:48:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@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 02:55 PM 11/28/2000 +0100, Alain wrote: >Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough ? Well I really don' know the extent of your agreements. If you have no agreements (either explicit or derived from experience) beyond those described, then you have no obligation to invent such agreements to satisfy an opponent's query. And except as may be prescribed by your sponsoring jurisdiction, you have no legal obligation to describe your agreements with reference to any particular point-counting scheme. Note that the traditional point-count is not mandated in the Laws. Having said that, there is some risk of scoundrels taking refuge in ambiguity to effectively conceal their agreements from the opponents. The explanation "the same kind of hand as for a suit overcall at the present vulnerability" is not very satisfactory, to my mind. Whether you evaluate your hand based on losing-trick count, quick tricks, Culbertson's honor tricks, or some modified method of point-count, you at least have the obligation to qualify this explanation to make clear your tendencies. You presumably have some idea about the type of hand that would or would not make this call, and this is what must be communicated to the opponents. 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 Nov 29 13:26:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT2Q0F28929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:26:00 +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 eAT2Pot28921 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:25:52 +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 140wwK-0009IT-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:25:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:10:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: <200011272130.NAA16186@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501c058d0$3a8c77e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@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 writes >> I have heard that Florida is now spelled floriDUH. >> >> Marv >> San Diego, CA, USA > >Don't say that in Palm Beach...they'll either punch you out or get you >pregnant! Oh, Palm Beach. So nice they let you vote twice .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 13:26:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT2Q0t28930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:26:00 +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 eAT2Ppt28922 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:25:52 +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 140wwK-0009IU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:25:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:15:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128093513.00a32a70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <003f01c0599c$80cf1880$83487ad5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <003f01c0599c$80cf1880$83487ad5@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 writes >Richard wrote: > >> >Now, whereas I am in principle entirely in favour of giving both >sides a >> >rotten score if both sides have done something they ought not to have >> >done, this seems to me a little odd. Either the NOS should have >> >protected itself, or it should not. If the former, then the table >result >> >should stand (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic >> >convention); if the latter, then the result should be adjusted (and >the >> >OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention). >> >> It is standard practise to split score in cases, where sth irrational, >wild >> or gambling happened. >> In fact, this is part of the WBF-CoP. > >Yes, I know. I suppose it might be asserted - and indeed, the AC in this >case seems effectively to have asserted - that to fail to ask whether or >not your opponents are playing Drury is "irrational, wild or gambling >action". But I would have some difficulty in justifying this assertion. Whatever the WBFLC may have said, ACBL Committees are not using this as a standard. What the standard is has become somewhat blurred, but the AC has effectively asserted that failing to ask whether your oppos are playing Drury has failed the ACBL standard, variously described as 'you have to play bridge to get redress', 'you do not get redress if you make an egregious error' and so on. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 14:03:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT31OE29011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:24 +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-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 eAT315t28993 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140xUR-0003U8-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:01:00 +0000 Message-ID: <2rm82pBN8GJ6Ew9G@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:50:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>It is also true in District 7 of the ACBL (North Carolina, South Carolina, >>Georgia, and East Tennessee) that both cards are returned to the scoring >>table by the winning captain. If a second card cannot be found, the losing >>captain normally initials the card of the winning team to expedite matters. >>If this is unusual, I was unaware of it. > I've seen the ACBL system in use - let me explain the EBU method, which is of some interest. At the beginning of the tournament each team captain draws a numbered 8 x 5 1/2 inch (210x148) card which is the team's permanent record for the tournament. We fill in our names at the top and it has space for assignments for about 14 matches (a 2-day event). At the end of 2 rounds it looks like this Team No: 13 Names: Quango, nanki-poo, DWS, Maddog Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... Vs 14 41 Table R7 W5 /// <-- coffee stain Imps +7 -4 VPs 13 8 Total 13 21 The winning captain takes both to the scorers table where it is recorded (either on a PC or by hand). The cards (if manually scored) are sorted as they arrive into descending score order, and when all results are in the new assignments are written by the TD onto the card starting with highest scores at table 1 - ie the TD would enter vs Team 66, Table R9 and then the team captain returns and collects it. (using a PC is similar, but not relevant). The TDs check your running score against their running score as the card is handed in. We have a convention in the UK that the lowest numbered team is called first, so if I'm receiving and collating I'd just say (for match 2) 5 8 12 (Table 5 Team 13 get 8, team 41 get 12) and this is recorded on line 5 of a transfer sheet where the team numbers have already been written as we assigned. Once the players are playing we write this up onto a recap sheet by team. As we're assigning one TD says 16 31 (16 plays 31), the other says 3 (Table 3) and writes 16 31 on the transfer sheet while the first TD writes the assignments and tables on the cards. 2 experienced TD's turn 50 table 7-board Swiss matches round in 5 minutes from the end of play. I reckon on 62 minutes per round as normal. The big advantage is that there are no small pieces of paper handed out each round. The disadvantage is that the card is a bit big, but I just dump it in the bag with the Star bars, Coke bottles and Coffee flasks during the round. By the end of the tourney they're pretty dog-eared. Thus you always know your own score is correct, and by multiplying the table number by 2, you always know what position you are in the competition. (I always dump my bags by table 1 before the tourney starts, but that's another story) :)) >I believe that's also the rule around here (Unit 112, Western NY/PA). >The first time I played in an ACBL Swiss Teams, I got elected >captain. (three women and me on the team, and none of them wanted the >job. :) We won our second match, but the captain of the other team >said to me "I'll take the cards up," and I let her (I don't know at >the time that the winning captain was supposed to do it.) I didn't >realize until we were halfway home (when one of my teammates >questioned it) that the losing team had been credited with our win. I >called the TD the next day, but he was out of town at another >tournament. "He'll get back to you," his wife said. He didn't. I >called again. He had the flu. A while later I called again. He was >at a NABC. He finally called back, and said there was nothing he >could do, as he no longer had the records. I chalked it up to >experience, and resolved never again to leave a tournament without >verifying the scores on every match. And never to let the losing >captain deliver the scores to the desk. > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 14:03:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT31KO29009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:20 +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-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 eAT317t28994 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140xUV-0003UQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:15:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid>, Anne Jones writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >To: >Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 2:01 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) >> >> "Declarer plays a card by putting it on or near the table (even if >> you've pulled the wrong one)" >> >> "A card played from dummy can be changed in the same breath provided >> it's not a change of mind" >> >> These explanations seem to satisfy the players, and give them the >sense >> under which the ruling is made. When I get such a ruling I ask the >> player to replay the scene (I keep a joker in my pocket if there are >no >> quitted cards on the table for the purpose), and check with opponents >if >> this is about right. The ruling is usually easy thereafter.> >> >> >If your joker is a card from declarer's hand, it is held in a vertical >position facing declarer, with it's bottom edge touching the table - is >it a played card? >Law 45 C2 No. It is not held in such a way as to indicate that it has been played. I explain to players that declarer can hold a card in his hand and wave it around so everyone can see it but it is still not played until he puts it down or makes it clear that it is played. >2. Declarers Card >Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly >touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that >it has been played. >> >I have in the past interpreted this first comma to indicate that one of >two conditions must be met.i) that the card must be face up and must be >touching or nearly touching or ii) that is is held so that it looks as >though it is played. >> >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 14:03:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT31J229008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:19 +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 eAT315t28992 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140xUR-0003U9-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:01:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:21:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: <200011272130.NAA16186@mailhub.irvine.com> <025501c058d0$3a8c77e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00ef01c0595c$49cb56e0$0913f7a5@oemcomputer>, Craig Senior writes >> I have heard that Florida is now spelled floriDUH. >> >> Marv >> San Diego, CA, USA > >Don't say that in Palm Beach...they'll either punch you out or get you >pregnant! > >Craig > I had a player hold up the duplicate at the Acol tonight. He stood up, held up a small card and addressing the room in general said "Where's the dimple in this card?". It took me three minutes to stop the riot. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 14:03:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT31LF29010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAT318t28996 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:01:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 140xUR-0003U7-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:01:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 02:17:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes > >> >> That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway >>to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. > >Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? > This is not the test we use in the UK. Face it on the table, or near the table, or indicate that it clearly has been played. Until that happens it is not played. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 15:38:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT4bj029095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:37:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAT4bdt29091 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:37:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:36:48 -0800 Message-ID: <03aa01c059bd$bbb3fd00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <017a01c0589a$35d91180$43e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128093513.00a32a70@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <003f01c0599c$80cf1880$83487ad5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 20:32:56 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 6:15 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Split Score > David Burn writes > >Richard wrote: > > > >> >Now, whereas I am in principle entirely in favour of giving both > >sides a > >> >rotten score if both sides have done something they ought not to have > >> >done, this seems to me a little odd. Either the NOS should have > >> >protected itself, or it should not. If the former, then the table > >result > >> >should stand (and the OS be penalised for not alerting a basic > >> >convention); if the latter, then the result should be adjusted (and > >the > >> >OS be penalised for not alerting a basic convention). > >> > >> It is standard practise to split score in cases, where sth irrational, > >wild > >> or gambling happened. > >> In fact, this is part of the WBF-CoP. > > > >Yes, I know. I suppose it might be asserted - and indeed, the AC in this > >case seems effectively to have asserted - that to fail to ask whether or > >not your opponents are playing Drury is "irrational, wild or gambling > >action". But I would have some difficulty in justifying this assertion. > > Whatever the WBFLC may have said, ACBL Committees are not using this > as a standard. What the standard is has become somewhat blurred, but > the AC has effectively asserted that failing to ask whether your oppos > are playing Drury has failed the ACBL standard, variously described as > 'you have to play bridge to get redress', 'you do not get redress if you > make an egregious error' and so on. > This is only true for "Players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement..." (ACBL Alert Procedure) They just don't want BLs claiming damage from an Alert failure when they knew damn well what was going on. Marv 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 Nov 29 17:49:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT6mod29148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:48:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eAT6mht29144 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:48:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis66.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.66]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4R009AEXKX8I@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:48:37 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:48:32 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: John Probst , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@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 References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eAT6mkt29145 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:17 29.11.2000 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >In article <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni- >duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes > > > >> > >> That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway > >>to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. > > > >Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? > > >This is not the test we use in the UK. Face it on the table, or near the >table, or indicate that it clearly has been played. Until that happens >it is not played. I c. But do you think that itīs possible to play a card as a declarer without a look from the defenders on the card? e.g. Pick the card, lay it upside-down on the table then turn it (making this every time). When exactly is the point reached that this a played card? (I had an argument with my colleague about this last weekend at the german championships) 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 Wed Nov 29 20:27:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAT9QeU29204 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:26:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAT9QIt29200 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:26:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE851766E for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:25:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A24CB40.3F119612@comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:24:16 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Michael S. Dennis" a écrit : > > > > You won't always need a mind-reading machine. > >Here is a scene like this a couple of times in my life: > > > >PRO: What does this bid mean? > >ME: Fourth suit. > >PRO: Could you be more specific? > >ME: You don't know what the fourth suit means? > >PRO: I do, but I have to make sure my partner knows what's going on. > > > > Even if the pro doesn't openly admit to asking on partner's benefit > >I don't think a TD can seriously believe that he asked further > >questions because he needed them. Yes, he can ask for the meaning > >of an alerted bid but clearly an explanation along the lines > >"relay, GF", "splinter", "Landy" or "Lebensohl" should be quite > >clear to him. > > Your example illustrates quite clearly what is wrong with your "test". Some > play "fourth suit" as forcing to game, while others play it as forcing for > only one round. Some play JTB over 1NT showing 4+card suit, not 5+. However if I hear an explanation: "JTB" I assume this shows 5+cards. If it turns out systemically to show 4+ I'd claim MI. Am I wrong? Some goes for "fourth suit", "splinters" and the rest. There are (at least locally: in the club/region/country) stadard versions of these conventions and if someone plays some off-the wall stuff (like fourth suit GF [almost unheard of here], Landy starting with 4-3 etc.) this it is *his* responsibility to inform properly his opponents. Therefore an explanation "splinter" is not "woefully inadequate", it simply means: +----------------------------------------------------------------+ We play this version of the splinter convention that everybody here does. You know what it is and all its nuances as well as I do (or even better than I do - you are a pro, I'm not). If it turns out that we have some bells and whistles of our own then you will get a ruling based on MI. +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ Suppose you meet Hamman-Guggenheim pair at the table. Hamman asks about the meaning of your partner's 4D bid. You reply: "splinter". Hamman asks: "please explain this further". You reply "we play the standard version and have no further agreements". He continues: "Can you be more specific?". Do you think we need a mind-reading machine to be sure that Hamman is asking "a pro question"? I don't. Same thing if Hamman's second question is: "do you play that it always shows a void or can it be singleton?" Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Nov 29 21:27:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATARMv29241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:27:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATARGt29237 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:27:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.65.108] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 1414SG-0005dn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:27:12 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:27:13 -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 John Probst wrote: > No. It is not held in such a way as to indicate that it has been played. > > I explain to players that declarer can hold a card in his hand and wave > it around so everyone can see it but it is still not played until he > puts it down or makes it clear that it is played. There is a difficulty with this: > >2. Declarers Card > >Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or nearly > >touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate that > >it has been played. This means: declarer must play a card from his hand held face up; and declarer must play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the table; and declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Of course, it is not intended to mean that, otherwise whenever declarer put his hand face down on the table, he would have to play the bottom card in it (and the card above that as well, since it nearly touches the table). It is intended to mean: declarer must play a card from his hand that is held face up, and touches or nearly touches the table; and declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one else wants the job. 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 Nov 29 22:14:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATBE6Q29314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:14:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATBDxt29310 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:13:59 +1100 (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 MAA19077; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:11:46 +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 MAA27296; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:13:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001129122503.007ff100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:25:03 +0100 To: Konrad Ciborowski , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question In-Reply-To: <3A24CB40.3F119612@comarch.pl> References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@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 10:24 29/11/00 +0100, you wrote: >> >> Your example illustrates quite clearly what is wrong with your "test". Some >> play "fourth suit" as forcing to game, while others play it as forcing for >> only one round. > >Some play JTB over 1NT showing 4+card suit, not 5+. However if I hear >an explanation: "JTB" I assume this shows 5+cards. If it turns out >systemically to show 4+ I'd claim MI. Am I wrong? You're right. The deviation id full of meaning and inferences, they should explain it without any need to be forced. >Some goes for "fourth suit", "splinters" and the rest. >There are (at least locally: in the club/region/country) stadard >versions of these conventions and if someone plays some off-the wall >stuff (like fourth suit GF [almost unheard of here], Landy starting >with 4-3 etc.) this it is *his* responsibility to inform properly his >opponents. Therefore an explanation "splinter" is not "woefully >inadequate", it simply means: >+----------------------------------------------------------------+ >We play this version of the splinter >convention that everybody here does. You know what it is and all >its nuances as well as I do (or even better than I do - you are a pro, >I'm not). If it turns out that we have some bells and whistles of >our own then you will get a ruling based on MI. >+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ AG : that's true, but really there will be few cases where the MI will be of such importance in constructive auctions (like the splinter being based on a slam-try hand, or simply a game-going one, or 4SF being GF vs 1RF but still strong). >Suppose you meet Hamman-Guggenheim pair at the table. >Hamman asks about the meaning of your partner's 4D bid. >You reply: "splinter". Hamman asks: "please explain this >further". You reply "we play the standard version and have >no further agreements". He continues: "Can you be more specific?". > Do you think we need a mind-reading machine to be sure >that Hamman is asking "a pro question"? I don't. >Same thing if Hamman's second question is: "do you >play that it always shows a void or can it be singleton?" AG : not that obvious. Some people play it as void-showing and don't explain. So Hamman could be wary of it. Such questions are occasionally a detector on insufficient information, and that's why I don't like very much to see them penalized. 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 Nov 29 22:46:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATBjjt29372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:45:45 +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 eATBjZt29363 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:45:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-207.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA02919 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:45:31 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:16:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Of course it isn't. Not there, not here, not anywhere. > > Recently posted excerpts from the ACBL Alert Regulations notwithstanding, eh? > To which I also replied. > >If two sides know the meaning of a convention, then it is no > >infraction to merely reply with the name of the convention. > > If one member of a side doesn't know the meaning, then the side does > not know it. > I am talking of a "side". If I know my two opponents know the meaning of "Muiderberg", then my explanation should be sufficient. > >Where would we end up if we were to agree to rule to someone > >who says to me "of course I know what Stayman means, but > >since he did not explain it to me, I claim that I was > >misinformed". > > > >Such a regulation would be silly. > > Your example is silly. Nobody in his right mind would rule that way, > and no player in his right mind would expect it. > Well, according to your interpretation of the regulation, the correct ruing would be the one I describe. I agree that no-one would rule this way, ergo, your interpretation is flawed. > I suppose I'm being a pain in the ass here, but that's not my intent > - - I'm just trying to understand the right and wrong of this thing. > I agree, and I don't believe you are a .. The point is that an explanation by one word can be sufficient. I don't believe it is a pro question when an experienced player tells his opponents that his partner is inexperienced. The "pro question" is something else though. By naming this informing of opponents "pro question" and then saying it is allowed, and therefor the pro question is allowed, you are jumping to conclusions that are not correct. OK ? -- 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 Nov 29 22:46:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATBjiE29371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:45:44 +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 eATBjYt29362 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:45:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-207.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.207]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA02905 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:45:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A23763E.7C76D73F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:09:18 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> <007601c058ae$11e5cac0$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > HDW Wrote: > > I am really getting tired of people clouding the issue. > > The pro question is not allowed. > > That may well be so...but there are a considerable number of us who believe > that this is unfortunate, Well, it seems to me that the reasons for this are correct, but the solution to allow the pro question to counter those reasons is not the correct one. Let me explain. > especially when players of lesser skill can be > misled and taken advantage of by those who play what are to them arcane > systems. When those players are misled, the arcane system players have not fulfilled their duty as to full disclosure. While I applaude the actions of a better player who informs their opponents that partner may not be of the same ability, thus allowing them to escape MI charges and explain more completely, I do not applaude the pro who asks merely for partner's benefit. > Perhaps the real issue is what is full and fair disclosure, not > what is UI. And the degree of blatancy of either would appear to be a factor > that should be considered. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the > direction of UI paranoia and common sense fairness is being given short > shrift. Yes, as long as you do it to help your opponents, I agree. Once you start helping partner, you have gone too far. I for one believe Kaplan went too far. An obscure part of the system should either be disclosed or not. It should not be told partner. > If you ask what do current law and regulation demand this may be > "clouding the issue". But I think there is room in this debate for what the > intent of the Law should be, and whether that is adequately met by its > current interpretation. Well, I believe the intent of the current Law to be quite clear. The pro question is clearly UI. I don't think there is room in the current bodies to change this. > > > > The fact that it is difficult to detect has no bearing on > > this. > > When one imposes the duty of accurate mind reading upon the director, it is > incumbent on us to ask if this is absolutely necessary. As David often points out, when you ask them, they usually tell the truth. I often see people do things that they shouldn't. I always tell them that it is not allowed. I never punish them. Gradually they learn. Allowing them to do it because you can't seriously punish them is no solution. > It may well be that > we better can accomplish our purpose via a different approach. When it is > obvious to one and all that explanations are less than forthright, one can > at least call into question the ethics of the non responsive players I > should think, albeit not in an accusatory manner. I do not want to win by > twisting the Law regarding disclosure of partnership agreements in such a > fashion that I make sure at least one of my opponents is in the dark. I > should hope NO ethical player would wish to do so. > I agree with you. Helping opponents is fine. Helping partner is not. > Of course I believe the "pro question" should be allowed, so long as > the only information is conveys relates to opponents methods. When this is > abused to convey UI about the pro's own holdings, then and only then should > it be restricted. And this, unlike intent, can be adjudicated upon the > bridge evidence. When Edgar knows Norman does not realize that a bid comes > out of the wild Blue yonder and insists on a full explanation, I see nothing > wrong with that...so long as he would do so no matter what hand he holds. > Well, there are three reasons why you can ask a question for partners' benefit : - to show you own hand (obviously disallowed) - to help opponent avoid giving MI (probably allowable) - to tell partner something that may be important, because he is not good enough to realise there is a question that may well put him on the right track. I believe this third one is equally disallowed. > Craig -- 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 Nov 29 23:00:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATC0aJ29397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:00:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATC0Jt29393 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:00:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B2751767E for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:59:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A24EF4B.602B7276@comarch.pl> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:58:03 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20001129122503.007ff100@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 : > > >Suppose you meet Hamman-Guggenheim pair at the table. > >Hamman asks about the meaning of your partner's 4D bid. > >You reply: "splinter". Hamman asks: "please explain this > >further". You reply "we play the standard version and have > >no further agreements". He continues: "Can you be more specific?". > > Do you think we need a mind-reading machine to be sure > >that Hamman is asking "a pro question"? I don't. > >Same thing if Hamman's second question is: "do you > >play that it always shows a void or can it be singleton?" > > AG : not that obvious. Some people play it as void-showing and don't > explain. So Hamman could be wary of it. If these particular oppoents play it as void showing that Hamman will get a ruling based on MI. Under your "some people play it differently" approach when I go to the tournament today I will be perfectly allowed to ask for the meaning of a non-alerted 2C response to the 1NT opening. "It's Stayman, why did you ask?". "Well, some people play it as Puppet Stayman and don't alert". [Regular stayman is non-alertable in Poland]. Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 01:16:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATEFdv29475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:15:39 +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.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATEFWt29471 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:15:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from tsvecfob (dialup-002.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.194]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA10449 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:15:02 GMT Message-ID: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Subject: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:16:18 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E5_01C05A06.8F7FE0C0" 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_00E5_01C05A06.8F7FE0C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Team of Four (All Vul) All 4 players are competent but not internationals. 107 A53 AKQJ109 A8 AJ9864 K J9 KQ1064 5 763 KJ95 7643 Q532 872 842 Q102 I hope this is readable! West has opened 1S and South is Declarer in 3NT. He gets a Spade lead = to the King and the King of Hearts switch. Declarer wins the third = round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the Diamonds. To save time, West claims the King of Clubs and the Ace of Spades. = Declarer agrees 3NT -1. However, Declarer's partner (a stronger player) points out that West is = endplayed if Declarer exits on a Spade after cashing the Diamonds. =20 Declarer says he would not have missed this endplay if the hand had been = played out. Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? Or has declarer's partner = prevented acquiescence? If there has been acquiescence should the Director consider it 'normal' = play to miss the endplay? Regards, Fearghal. ------=_NextPart_000_00E5_01C05A06.8F7FE0C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Team of Four (All Vul)
All 4 players are competent but not=20 internationals.
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 107
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 A53
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 AKQJ109
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 A8
 
AJ9864    =    =20             =    =20             =    =20 K
J9        =             =    =20             =    =20         KQ1064
5          &nb= sp;           &nbs= p;            = ;            =    763
KJ95    =    =20             =    =20             =    =20     7643
 
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 Q532
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 872
          &nbs= p;            = ;    =20 842
       =20             =    =20     Q102
 
I hope this is readable!
 
West has opened 1S and South is = Declarer in=20 3NT.  He gets a Spade lead to the King and the King of Hearts = switch. =20 Declarer wins the third round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the=20 Diamonds.
 
To save time, West claims the King of = Clubs and the=20 Ace of Spades. Declarer agrees 3NT -1.
However, Declarer's partner (a stronger = player)=20 points out that West is endplayed if Declarer exits on a Spade = after=20 cashing the Diamonds. 
 
Declarer says he would not have missed = this endplay=20 if the hand had been played out.
 
Has there been acquiescence as per 69 = A?  Or=20 has declarer's partner prevented acquiescence?
If there has been acquiescence should = the Director=20 consider it 'normal' play to miss the endplay?
 
Regards,
Fearghal.
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_00E5_01C05A06.8F7FE0C0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 01:43:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATEgrS29503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:42:53 +1100 (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 eATEgkt29499 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:42:47 +1100 (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 OAA04574 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:42:36 GMT Message-ID: <3A2515F0.8F5FF770@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:42:56 +0100 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] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Fearghal O'Boyle a écrit : > > Team of Four (All Vul) > All 4 players are competent but not internationals. > > 107 > A53 > AKQJ109 > A8 > > AJ9864 K > J9 KQ1064 > 5 763 > KJ95 7643 > > Q532 > 872 > 842 > Q102 > > I hope this is readable! fine > > West has opened 1S and South is Declarer in 3NT. He gets a Spade lead > to the King and the King of Hearts switch. Declarer wins the third > round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the Diamonds. > > To save time, West claims the King of Clubs and the Ace of Spades. > Declarer agrees 3NT -1. > However, Declarer's partner (a stronger player) points out that > West is endplayed if Declarer exits on a Spade after cashing the > Diamonds. > > Declarer says he would not have missed this endplay if the hand had > been played out. irrelevant > > Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? no: NS didn't start to call on the next board. > Or has declarer's partner prevented acquiescence? yes, and right he was. > If there has been acquiescence should the Director consider it > 'normal' play to miss the endplay? irrelevant. 9 tricks, unless South declines to follow N's refutation and insists on agreeing 8 tricks. JP Rocafort > > Regards, > Fearghal. > > -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Nov 30 02:06:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATF6ZX29532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:06:35 +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 eATF6Tt29526 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:06:30 +1100 (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 1418oN-0007Lu-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:06:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:44:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@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 writes >But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is >finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English >puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one ^^^^^^^^^^^ >else wants the job. Excellent idea. Now all we need is a volunteer to look at the spelling .... No, David, no, it was just a joke, no, please, .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 02:06:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATF6i529536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:06:44 +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 eATF6Yt29531 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:06:35 +1100 (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 1418oN-0002rE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:06:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:37:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eATF6et29533 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Bley writes >At 02:17 29.11.2000 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>In article <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni- >>duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >> > >> >> >> >> That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway >> >>to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. >> > >> >Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? >> > >>This is not the test we use in the UK. Face it on the table, or near the >>table, or indicate that it clearly has been played. Until that happens >>it is not played. > >I c. >But do you think that itīs possible to play a card as a declarer without a >look from the defenders on the card? > > >e.g. >Pick the card, lay it upside-down on the table then turn it (making this >every time). When exactly is the point reached that this a played card? >(I had an argument with my colleague about this last weekend at the german >championships) Clever. I reckon it is played when it is placed on the table. Another one for the EBU Panel weekend .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 02:07:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATF7WH29552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:07:32 +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 eATF6Ut29527 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:06:31 +1100 (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 1418oN-0007Lt-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:06:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:34:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: <2rm82pBN8GJ6Ew9G@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2rm82pBN8GJ6Ew9G@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 writes >I've seen the ACBL system in use - let me explain the EBU method, which >is of some interest. > >At the beginning of the tournament each team captain draws a numbered > 8 x 5 1/2 inch (210x148) card which is the team's permanent record for >the tournament. We fill in our names at the top and it has space for >assignments for about 14 matches (a 2-day event). At the end of 2 rounds >it looks like this > >Team No: 13 Names: Quango, nanki-poo, DWS, Maddog > >Round 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... > >Vs 14 41 > >Table R7 W5 /// <-- coffee stain > >Imps +7 -4 > >VPs 13 8 > >Total 13 21 > >The winning captain takes both to the scorers table where it is recorded >(either on a PC or by hand). The cards (if manually scored) are sorted >as they arrive into descending score order, and when all results are in >the new assignments are written by the TD onto the card starting with >highest scores at table 1 - ie the TD would enter vs Team 66, Table R9 >and then the team captain returns and collects it. (using a PC is >similar, but not relevant). The TDs check your running score against >their running score as the card is handed in. > >We have a convention in the UK that the lowest numbered team is called >first, so if I'm receiving and collating I'd just say (for match 2) 5 >8 12 (Table 5 Team 13 get 8, team 41 get 12) and this is recorded on >line 5 of a transfer sheet where the team numbers have already been >written as we assigned. Once the players are playing we write this up >onto a recap sheet by team. As we're assigning one TD says 16 31 (16 >plays 31), the other says 3 (Table 3) and writes 16 31 on the transfer >sheet while the first TD writes the assignments and tables on the cards. Not that it matters, but for people's interest, we also have another convention in England/Wales [*not* the UK]. The tables are numbered with two colours, say Red and White. R1 plays W1, R2 plays W2 and so on. The lower numbered team is assigned to the first table in alphabetical order. While it may not matter very much it smooths over the running of events when things are done in a particular way by different TDs: you always know where you are. This convention is not followed by computer assigning. In Scotland they use one set of table numbers, and 1 plays 2, 3 plays 4. Now your position equals your table number, instead of double it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 02:37:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATFb1H29575 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:37:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f209.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.209]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATFatt29571 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:36:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:36:52 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:36:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 07:36:51 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Nov 2000 15:36:52.0190 (UTC) FILETIME=[320F7FE0:01C05A1A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is >finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English >puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one >else wants the job. I'd suggest that it be published here before it's printed as there are pedants abound to proofread it, though I wager you'll get more posts about content than grammar. -Todd _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.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 Nov 30 02:43:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATFhPE29591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:43:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATFhIt29587 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:43:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:19 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:35:06 +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 Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Team of Four (All Vul) >All 4 players are competent but not internationals. > > 107 > A53 > AKQJ109 > A8 > >AJ9864 K >J9 KQ1064 >5 763 >KJ95 7643 > > Q532 > 872 > 842 > Q102 > >I hope this is readable! > >West has opened 1S and South is Declarer in 3NT. He gets a Spade >lead to the King and the >King of Hearts switch. Declarer wins >the third round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the Diamonds. > >To save time, West claims the King of Clubs and the Ace of Spades. >Declarer agrees 3NT -1. However, Declarer's partner (a stronger >player) points out that West is endplayed if Declarer exits on a >Spade after cashing the Diamonds. > >Declarer says he would not have missed this endplay if the hand >had been played out. > >Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? Or has declarer's partner >prevented acquiescence? If there has been acquiescence should the >Director consider it 'normal' play to miss the endplay? > >Regards, >Fearghal. West claims two tricks, which is disputed by dummy North. L68D states that a claim is not acquiesced if *any* player, *including dummy*, objects. Therefore L69 does not apply and TD should apply L70. Now after the diamonds, West must bare his spade ace in order to guard the club king. He can then be thrown in to lead away from the club king. This is what North stated. Whether South would have found this or not is irrelevant. North has proven that West's claim is incorrect, therefore TD should adjust. -- 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 Nov 30 03:40:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATGdpC29676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:39:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATGdit29672 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:39:45 +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 IAA00526; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:39:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200011291639.IAA00526@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:27:13 PST." <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 08:39:40 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is > finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English > puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one > else wants the job. I believe, that I am qualified; for the, job so Il'l gladly: volunteer my talents/ -- Adam (sorry, couldn't resist] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 03:40:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATGeZG29682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:40:35 +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-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 eATGeQt29678 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:40:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 141AHN-0001du-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:40:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 03:17:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints References: <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com>, Michael S. Dennis writes >At 02:55 PM 11/28/2000 +0100, Alain wrote: >>Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough ? > >Well I really don' know the extent of your agreements. If you have no >agreements (either explicit or derived from experience) beyond those >described, then you have no obligation to invent such agreements to satisfy >an opponent's query. And except as may be prescribed by your sponsoring >jurisdiction, you have no legal obligation to describe your agreements with >reference to any particular point-counting scheme. Note that the >traditional point-count is not mandated in the Laws. > When asked about our weak 2-style both partner and I explain something like ... "We think KQ10 6th is about a minimum at game all - more with a poorer suit and we take account of vulnerability". This seems to be about sufficient in the tough London games. I think an example of the typical minimum for the vulnerability is the best way to answer these questions. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 04:10:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATH9lW29711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:09:47 +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 eATH9ft29707 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:09:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20642 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:04:46 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:02:56 -0500 To: From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:16 PM +0000 11/29/00, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? Or has declarer's partner >prevented acquiescence? >If there has been acquiescence should the Director consider it >'normal' play to miss the endplay? Law 68D: "if the claim or concession is acquiesced in, Law 69 applies; if it is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately to apply Law 70 or Law 71, and no action may be taken pending the Director's arrival." So the answer to your first question is no, which makes the second question moot. (It's moot anyway - if there's acquiescence, the Director has nothing on which to rule.) In ruling under Law 70 (71 doesn't apply here), "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer," so I think the TD has to rule 3NT makes. 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/AwUBOiU4T72UW3au93vOEQJC3ACgu14eF1seuDOIsCEd59MXaqykDF0AnRX2 JzZOUQyLZn6Ua6aLSsgr7+WN =KabI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 04:10:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATH9vP29717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:09:57 +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 (mailout4-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.166]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATH9ot29713 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:09:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA20659 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:04:53 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A2515F0.8F5FF770@meteo.fr> References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> <3A2515F0.8F5FF770@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:04:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: >9 tricks, unless South declines to follow N's refutation and >insists on agreeing 8 tricks. Not sure I agree. Why should South's stubborness matter? :-) 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/AwUBOiU4Vb2UW3au93vOEQITcwCfdMndMmkTEHSW/+CfAB3uETYIOMkAn1wn vaHTzmmMJVaEXZwRottiSzn2 =nR1c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 04:12:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATHC5u29739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATHBxt29735 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:12:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:11:09 -0800 Message-ID: <03e101c05a27$17ae57e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:07:42 -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 From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" ****** Team of Four (All Vul) All 4 players are competent but not internationals. 107 A53 AKQJ109 A8 AJ9864 K J9 KQ1064 5 763 KJ95 7643 Q532 872 842 Q102 I hope this is readable! West has opened 1S and South is Declarer in 3NT. He gets a Spade lead to the King and the King of Hearts switch. Declarer wins the third round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the Diamonds. To save time, West claims the King of Clubs and the Ace of Spades. Declarer agrees 3NT -1. However, Declarer's partner (a stronger player) points out that West is endplayed if Declarer exits on a Spade after cashing the Diamonds. Declarer says he would not have missed this endplay if the hand had been played out. Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? Or has declarer's partner prevented acquiescence? If there has been acquiescence should the Director consider it 'normal' play to miss the endplay? ****** Both members of a pair must acquiesce, not just one. Law 68D. Play ceases, and if the claim is disputed by any player (dummy included), the TD is summoned to apply L70. L70 seems to be written by someone who didn't realize that defenders can claim. How can a defender state a line of play? L70C. The TD hears the opponents' objections to the claim (in this case dummy's objection) L70D. Having heard, probably, the defender say that of course there are two losers in dummy, the TD does not accept that implied line of play and looks for an alternative line that would be less successful. That is the strip squeeze dummy suggests, so the claim is disallowed. This exact situation happened when I was dummy some years ago. My partner acquiesced, but I disputed the claim. The TD (an ACBL Associate Director) ruled that dummy could not suggest a line of play, and the AC upheld her ruling. That blunder was appealed to Memphis, and the TD was required to write a letter of apology to me. End of story? No. Rich Colker argues with me that L70A empowers a TD to take into account declarer's skill when deciding the matter. If the TD believes that the declarer would not have seen the endplay, the claim is allowed. He extends this principle to say that in any contested claim, the skill of the player(s) involved must be taken into account when deciding whether a particular line of play is to be assumed. If he is wrong, as I believe, then L70 should make it clear that "normal" includes play that would be unlikely for the class of player involved. Marv 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 Nov 30 04:21:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATHLCF29760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:21:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATHL4t29756 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:21:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:20:14 -0800 Message-ID: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:18:02 -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 Adam, I found the following about English in my drafts folder, and don't know if I sent it or not. In Birmingham I attended the LC and C&C meetings, as a silent spectator. Gary Blaiss arranged for my attendance, although these meeting may not be closed, I'm not sure. These meetings are poorly conducted, with too much informality. It takes a minimum of 1/2 hour to discuss any one item on the agenda. The Alert regs are due for revision in 2001. More Announcements (e.g., all jump raises, all jump overcalls). Another C&C topic was which Mid-Chart conventions should require written defenses at hand. Bob Hamman is now my hero, because he claimed that this sort of thing is killing bridge in the U. S. After a lot of discussion, with Colker ridiculing Hamman's position ("Bob would have takeout doubles eliminated"), Hamman got up and said, "I am against allowing any convention that requires written defenses," and walked out. I agree with him. Marv Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Marvin L. French writes > > > > > >Craig Senior wrote: > > > > > >> Like probably 80% of the folks on the list I have no idea what this post > > >> says. Could we all agree that this is an English language list, and limit > > >> posts in languages we do not share in common to email, translating to > > >> English if we wish to share with blml? Thanks > > >> > > >Would that be American English or English-English? > > > > I thought we had agreed that Broken English is the international > > language of bridge. > > I was under the impression that "Broken English" was just a synonym > for American English. After all, we've broken all the grammatical > rules, we've broken all the pronunication rules, we've broken the > spelling rules . . . > And English is broken Anglo-Saxon, which was broken West Germanic, which was broken Teutonic, which was broken Indo-European, which was... It is nearly time for American English to have its own name: American. There are no "rules" in the usual sense of that word. The pronunciation, grammar, and spelling of English or American can only be discovered, not prescribed. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com At Birmingham, AL NABC 'til Nov 26 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 04:39:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATHdBu29779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:39:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATHcxt29769 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:38:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eATHdX223781 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:39:33 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200011291739.eATHdX223781@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:39:32 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001129102607.007fd100@pop.ulb.ac.be> from "alain gottcheiner" at Nov 29, 2000 10:26:07 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain sent this to me rather than the list. I trust he will forgive my bringing it back to the list. alain gottcheiner writes: > > At 11:36 28/11/00 -0500, you wrote: > >alain gottcheiner writes: > > > >Well does it show any 13 cards with at least 5C/4S? I'm skeptical. > >If it describes a range of trick taking power then let them know. > > >If it's X winners, Y controls and Z suit quality (where each is a > >range), let them know. > > >You might decide to make a rough conversion to points. I'm unsure of > >the wisdom of doing this. > > AG : Okay, you basically state that, if they ask a question in points, > we're allowed to answer in winning tricks or losing tricks. Which I would > gladly do (5-8 LT NV). With the understanding that local regulations may require you to make a point count estimate. Personally I think this is unlikely to be helpful to the opposition and I'd make it clear that points play no part in the evaluation. > >> 2) 2Ha > >> > >> - Yes ? > >> - Under opening. 5 hearts and at least 4 cards in a minor. > >> - How many points ? > >> - Hmm... Depends of the pattern. Could be virtually nought with 5-6. With > >> 5-4 ... well, I know him : he's wild ; so don't ask me ! > >> > >> Assuming the explanations were true, were they complete enough ? > > > >Nope. THey have a right to understand the general range of hands that > >you would expect. If it's tough for you to explain, too bad. Figure > >out a way to meet your obligations. > > AG : perfect. I'll state the range as 0-12, which is right in itself. > Both Q / KJxxx / Jxx / AJ10x and x / J10xxx / xx / 109xxx are possible, > after all. You misunderstand. Well, it was my sloppy language. Range of hands in your case has zip to do with points because you don't use them. If the bid shows than an opening 1 bid, say so. And if you open some 11 counts with a 1 bid, then your explanation isn't accurate. Jeff Rubens wrote an editorial in the Bridge World decrying such explanations as you had above (which are all too common). Technically true but in no way descriptive of the actual partnership agreements. In fact, at best you're at minimum close to having a concealed partnership understanding unless *all* hands meeting both the pattern and the stated HCP range are opened 2H. > It doesn't help them, but I'm no more liable to penalties. Sure you are. You have an obligation to fully disclose your agreements. With an uncommon agreement such as the one you describe your explanations will neccessarily be more complex than is common. > > This is interesting, because another question from me elicited the strong > view by many blmlists that, when asked a question, you should interpret it > and answer what will help them in this case. Else, you could be penalized. Directors and ACs take a uniformly harsh view of people who seem to be trying to conceal their agreements. In practical terms if you can't explain your agreements you shouldn't be playing them. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 04:42:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATHfGW29803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:41:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATHfAt29799 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:41:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:40:21 -0800 Message-ID: <040201c05a2b$2b3597c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:31:19 -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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: "David Burn" > >But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is > >finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English > >punctuation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one > >else wants the job. > > I'd suggest that it be published here before it's printed as there > are pedants abound to proofread it, though I wager you'll get more posts > about content than grammar. > To avoid that, all the LC would have to do is say that the content has been decided, please merely comment on the grammar, including punctuation, and spelling. Perhaps they should indeed employ a wordsmith like David Burn to go over the drafts. The wordsmith could also ensure that the intent has been conveyed unambiguously, with simple language, and that no contradictions exist among the Laws. To date no LC has been able to do these things. Marv 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 Nov 30 04:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATHiuq29815 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:44:56 +1100 (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 eATHiqt29811 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:44:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa356008 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 03:43:30 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-59.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.59]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Interim-MailRouter V2.9c 11/58056); 30 Nov 2000 03:43:30 Message-ID: <00fb01c05a2b$9eddbf40$3be136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 04:14:56 +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 Martin Sinot wrote: >Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>Team of Four (All Vul) >>All 4 players are competent but not internationals. >> >> 107 >> A53 >> AKQJ109 >> A8 >> >>AJ9864 K >>J9 KQ1064 >>5 763 >>KJ95 7643 >> >> Q532 >> 872 >> 842 >> Q102 >> >>I hope this is readable! >> >>West has opened 1S and South is Declarer in 3NT. He gets a Spade >>lead to the King and the >King of Hearts switch. Declarer wins >>the third round of Hearts in Dummy and starts to run the Diamonds. >> >>To save time, West claims the King of Clubs and the Ace of Spades. >>Declarer agrees 3NT -1. However, Declarer's partner (a stronger >>player) points out that West is endplayed if Declarer exits on a >>Spade after cashing the Diamonds. >> >>Declarer says he would not have missed this endplay if the hand >>had been played out. >> >>Has there been acquiescence as per 69 A? Or has declarer's >>partner prevented acquiescence? If there has been acquiescence >>should the Director consider it 'normal' play to miss the endplay? >> >>Regards, >>Fearghal. > >West claims two tricks, which is disputed by dummy North. L68D >states that a claim is not acquiesced if *any* player, *including >dummy*, objects. Therefore L69 does not apply and TD should >apply L70. Now after the diamonds, West must bare his spade ace >in order to guard the club king. He can then be thrown in to lead >away from the club king. This is what North stated. Whether South >would have found this or not is irrelevant. North has proven that >West's claim is incorrect, therefore TD should adjust. While I agree with Martin, I just want to add that if the word "contestant" in Law 69 looks singular, then a quick reference to the Laws' Definitions section reveals that "contestant" is the pair, not the individual. A minor point is that the discard of SJ will make the endplay much easier to find than if East had held a few spades including the jack. 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 Nov 30 05:01:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATI19V29845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:01:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATI0wt29838 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:00:59 +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 141BXJ-0007i6-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:00:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:25:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> <3A224C28.16DF6E76@village.uunet.be> <007601c058ae$11e5cac0$6613f7a5@oemcomputer> <3A23763E.7C76D73F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A23763E.7C76D73F@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 writes >Well, there are three reasons why you can ask a question for >partners' benefit : > >- to show you own hand (obviously disallowed) >- to help opponent avoid giving MI (probably allowable) >- to tell partner something that may be important, because >he is not good enough to realise there is a question that >may well put him on the right track. > >I believe this third one is equally disallowed. Do you know why the idea has grown up in the USA that self-serving statements should be disallowed? No, not because the leading players a bunch of lying bastards, but because it is human nature to embellish and bend the truth somewhat in your favour. Thus when you ask North whether he hesitated he tells you that he did not, he took the normal time for the bid, and he was in perfect tempo and anyway his RHO hesitated first. When you ask East he tells you that North hesitated for at least thirty seconds, that he had time to decide what to have for dinner, that he nearly went to the toilet [we go in a toilet not a bath over here: seems cleaner somehow] and that it was really a minute. Neither is really lying: they delude themselves somewhat. It is the realisation that people do that that has led correctly to the idea of lending less weight to self-serving statements, and incorrectly to go further and discount them. When a player asks a question for his partner's benefit, no doubt he convinces himself that he does so with the best of motives. He is not showing pd his own hand, oh no, he is pure as driven snow, his motives are on a par with Mother Theresa, the Pope and Al Gore's legal advisers [whoops], and he is solely trying to make the game go better. That's what he tells himself. But people are not the best judge of their own actions, and they should not do this. They will eventually be asking at times that help pd and not asking when it does not, and not realising they are now bidding for pd. Even with the best of motives they will be transmitting info in larger quantities the more they do it. To ask a pro question is illegal, it should be illegal, and players should not do it. I do not care if it is Kaplan or the local pro in Arkansa: they should be stopped. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 05:01:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATI1A729846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:01:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATI0wt29837 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:00:59 +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 141BXJ-0007i5-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:00:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 15:14:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20001129122503.007ff100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3A24EF4B.602B7276@comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3A24EF4B.602B7276@comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eATI12t29839 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Konrad Ciborowski writes >alain gottcheiner a écrit : >> >> >Suppose you meet Hamman-Guggenheim pair at the table. >> >Hamman asks about the meaning of your partner's 4D bid. >> >You reply: "splinter". Hamman asks: "please explain this >> >further". You reply "we play the standard version and have >> >no further agreements". He continues: "Can you be more specific?". >> > Do you think we need a mind-reading machine to be sure >> >that Hamman is asking "a pro question"? I don't. >> >Same thing if Hamman's second question is: "do you >> >play that it always shows a void or can it be singleton?" >> >> AG : not that obvious. Some people play it as void-showing and don't >> explain. So Hamman could be wary of it. > > If these particular oppoents play it as void showing that >Hamman will get a ruling based on MI. > Under your "some people play it differently" approach >when I go to the tournament today I will be perfectly >allowed to ask for the meaning of a non-alerted 2C response >to the 1NT opening. >"It's Stayman, why did you ask?". "Well, some people play it >as Puppet Stayman and don't alert". [Regular stayman is >non-alertable in Poland]. I do not understand this. I assume from the way you put it that Puppet Stayman is alertable. So you do not need to ask, and if damaged by a non-alert of Puppet Stayman you will get an adjustment. While you have a right to ask questions under one Law to do so is not without consequences, and in fact may be illegal under other Laws. basically, your intent is what matters. Yes, Steve and others, you do not like that, but I am talking of the Laws as they are. If you ask for the purpose of telling partner something then that is illegal under L73B1. If you ask for the purpose of upsetting your oppo that is illegal under L72A2 [ok, I am guessing, I prob got the Law # wrong, so sue me. In Florida being within a million's ok [*], so I am allowed to be up to three Law numbers out]. And if you ask because you need to know that is legal, but your question is UI to partner. [*] Someone on RGB took a bet with his local bookie or whatever they have in Canada that he would know his next PM before the USA knew their next President. Guess who is buying the drinks? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 05:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATICSR29875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:12:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATICLt29871 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:12:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP121.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.185]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA10692 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:12:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011291212190460.008FF29C@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:12:19 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Another C&C topic was which Mid-Chart conventions should require >written defenses at hand. Bob Hamman is now my hero, because he >claimed that this sort of thing is killing bridge in the U. S. After >a lot of discussion, with Colker ridiculing Hamman's position ("Bob >would have takeout doubles eliminated"), Hamman got up and said, "I >am against allowing any convention that requires written defenses," >and walked out. I agree with him. Hm. IMHO, to take one obvious example, the Multi only requires a written defense in ACBL-land because 99% of players here have never or only rarely encountered it. If it were allowed in more events here, more people would use it (I surely would) and perhaps the common defenses to it would become better known, enough that written defenses would no longer be necessary. So Hamman's position would arguably result in ossifying the convention charts as they are now, in fact possibly more severely restricting MidChart events. I doubt that's a good thing. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Only YOU can prevent narcissism. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 05:20:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATIKJn29888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:20:19 +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 eATIKCt29884 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:20:13 +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 KAA02508; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:20:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200011291820.KAA02508@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 09:07:42 PST." <03e101c05a27$17ae57e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:20:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Both members of a pair must acquiesce, not just one. > > Law 68D. Play ceases, and if the claim is disputed by any player > (dummy included), the TD is summoned to apply L70. > > L70 seems to be written by someone who didn't realize that defenders > can claim. How can a defender state a line of play? Interesting point. Of course, defensive claims are much less common than claims by declarer, and normally only happen when the defender's cards are all high (or when he's down to two cards and holds A-Q of trumps over declarer's king or something like that). Those are situations in which, if declarer had the same kind of hand, nobody would expect him to state a line of play ("My hand is high" really isn't a line of play, literally speaking). Perhaps the law could be reworded, but for all practical purposes it doesn't cause a problem. > L70C. The TD hears the opponents' objections to the claim (in this > case dummy's objection) > > L70D. Having heard, probably, the defender say that of course there > are two losers in dummy, the TD does not accept that implied line of > play and looks for an alternative line that would be less > successful. That is the strip squeeze dummy suggests, so the claim > is disallowed. > > This exact situation happened when I was dummy some years ago. My > partner acquiesced, but I disputed the claim. The TD (an ACBL > Associate Director) ruled that dummy could not suggest a line of > play, and the AC upheld her ruling. That blunder was appealed to > Memphis, and the TD was required to write a letter of apology to me. > > End of story? No. > > Rich Colker argues with me that L70A empowers a TD to take into > account declarer's skill when deciding the matter. If the TD > believes that the declarer would not have seen the endplay, the > claim is allowed. He extends this principle to say that in any > contested claim, the skill of the player(s) involved must be taken > into account when deciding whether a particular line of play is to > be assumed. > > If he is wrong, as I believe, then L70 should make it clear that > "normal" includes play that would be unlikely for the class of > player involved. Colker's point of view doesn't make any sense at all. First of all, as I read the Laws, I don't believe the terms "normal", "inferior", and "irrational" apply to the claimer's opponents at all, only to the claimer. The skills of the claimer's opponents don't enter into the ruling. But even if I were wrong here, on the original hand, if declarer were forced to play it out, it would certainly not be "irrational" of him to run all the diamonds, then shrug his shoulders and lead a spade, and then on the forced club return, suddenly wake up and say, "Hey, maybe he's had to lead away from the king!" and make the contract. In other words, it's entirely possible that declarer could execute a strip squeeze even if he's never heard the term before and thinks a "strip squeeze" is something that goes on in one of those seedy clubs near Los Angeles International Airport. Didn't Mollo's Rueful Rabbit usually make his contracts that way? As I read the Laws, if the claimer can lose a trick because of *any* possible play by the opponents---whether the claimer is declarer or defense---the trick is awarded to the opponents. No other interpretation of the Laws makes 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 Thu Nov 30 05:39:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATIdeA29902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:39:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATIdXt29898 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:39:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA17233 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:34:31 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:36:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, according to your interpretation of the regulation, >the correct ruing would be the one I describe. I agree that >no-one would rule this way, ergo, your interpretation is >flawed. It's not a matter of my interpretation. In the ACBL, where I am, the regulation clearly states that giving just the name of a convention is not a sufficient explanation. No exceptions are stated. >The point is that an explanation by one word can be >sufficient. >I don't believe it is a pro question when an experienced >player tells his opponents that his partner is >inexperienced. >The "pro question" is something else though. >By naming this informing of opponents "pro question" and >then saying it is allowed, and therefor the pro question is >allowed, you are jumping to conclusions that are not >correct. I might be, if I had done that. I didn't. The "pro question" as I understand it, is a question asked by a more experienced (than his partner) player because he *knows* that his partner won't fully understand the answer already given. Telling opponents that one's partner is inexperienced isn't a pro question - it isn't a question at all. Oh, if you mean asking for amplification, giving the reason "my partner is inexperienced," well, I dunno. Sure sounds like a pro question, doesn't it? :-) Given that, if I were going to tell opponents that partner is inexperienced, and to please not explain calls just be convention name, I'd do it at the beginning of the round. Better yet, I'd talk it over with partner before the game, and get *him* to tell 'em. Yeah, that can be difficult, too. :-) ACBL regulations make an explanation by convention name an irregularity. Law 9A1 says "Unless prohibited by Law, any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction, whether or not it is his turn to call." 9B1(a) says "The Director must be summoned at once whenever attention is drawn to an irregularity." So the possible situations (in the ACBL where the regulation applies) are, as I see it, these: 1. When asked, an opponent "explains" a call by name, e.g., Stayman. An irregularity has occurred. If all players are happy that there is no problem, attention need not be drawn, and so the Director need not be called. 2. Same situation, but one player is convinced (or just "pretty sure") his partner won't know the nuances implied, even though he (the player) does know them (or thinks he does). Perhaps "Drury", or "New Minor Forcing", or "Fourth Suit". An irregularity has occurred. The player may draw attention to it, or not. If he does, the Director is called. If he does not, then if he later believes that his side has been damaged, he calls the Director *then*. This, as somebody pointed out, could lead to bad feeling, or an adverse ruling on the grounds "you should have called me earlier", or both. Note: IMO, the "pro question" is irrelevant here - the pro has a right under Law 9A1 to call attention to the irregularity, and if he does, an obligation under 9B1 to call the Director. I suppose the "later believes" part could be included in the previous example, but I find it unlikely, unless somthing come up to change the assumption that everybody knew what was going on (eg, partner says after the hand "if I had known that Stayman was asking for a 4 card major, I would have led something else." :) Absent that, it would look like a double shot, I think. If the player just asks more questions, *then* we get into "asking for partner's benefit" or the "pro question". In view of the adverse possibilities mentioned in 2 above, I'm inclined to think calling the TD when opps explain by convention name is the way to go - using common sense to eliminate situations like "Stayman" where the convention in one particular form is so common that anyone who has ever played bridge is expected to know it. (That is, if there are variants in local use, then at the least *which* variant is meant is important.) But if you do it too much, then you're "a Bridge Lawyer", "holding up the game", or even "interfering with opponents' (or partner's!) enjoyment of the game". Personally, I hate being accused of doing something bad when that was not my intent (especially when the accusation is made in such a way as to imply I did it deliberately). In other venues, where there is no regulation similar to the ACBL's, there is no obvious irregularity, so I guess the rest of the world just has to muddle through as best you can. :-) 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/AwUBOiVNYL2UW3au93vOEQLXTwCfTQdUvhorwyPZuwca1zu4bSl2cQIAnijX 3V6kwwhvlwN4ZX1EavVcYmnv =ACpJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 05:49:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATImU629922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:48:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATImLt29918 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 05:48:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATBw1x03667 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:58:01 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:46:41 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011291739.eATHdX223781@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200011291739.eATHdX223781@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00112911580100.03600@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Ron Johnson wrote: > alain gottcheiner writes: > > > > At 11:36 28/11/00 -0500, you wrote: > > >alain gottcheiner writes: > > > > > >Well does it show any 13 cards with at least 5C/4S? I'm skeptical. > > >If it describes a range of trick taking power then let them know. > > > > >If it's X winners, Y controls and Z suit quality (where each is a > > >range), let them know. > > > > >You might decide to make a rough conversion to points. I'm unsure of > > >the wisdom of doing this. > > > > AG : Okay, you basically state that, if they ask a question in points, > > we're allowed to answer in winning tricks or losing tricks. Which I would > > gladly do (5-8 LT NV). > > With the understanding that local regulations may require you to make a > point count estimate. Personally I think this is unlikely to be helpful > to the opposition and I'd make it clear that points play no part in > the evaluation. I do believe there is an obligation to give an explanation which would be understandable to the opponents. If a bid shows "3 controls", you may need to tell inexperienced opponents that this means "one ace and one king, or three kings". If 1H-2NT(Jacoby)-3H shows "5 or fewer losers, no singleton or void", you might explain this to inexperienced opponents as "about 17 or more HCP, or less with a long suit." This is really the same principle as another thread; explaining 2NT as "Jacoby" is not adequate unless the opponents know what that means. In fact, all players have non-point explanations; if partner opens 3C with both vulnerable, you might explain this as "long clubs, less than opening hand, seven playing tricks" or "six playing tricks" depending on your preempting style. Everyone understands that you could have 3 or 10 HCP and still have six playing tricks. That's how I would try to clarify the "5-8 losing tricks". -- 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 Nov 30 06:04:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATJ4DV29950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:04:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATJ3nt29946 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:03:49 +1100 (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 OAA18871 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:07:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011291907.OAA18871@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <00112014233804.00424@psa836> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:07:04 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 27 November 2000 at 0:40, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >> Of course David's case is not very serious in comparison, but the >>approach is the same: he is saying that because the oppos have done >>something wrong he feel justified in breaking the Law himself and >>applying his own form of justice. Well, he isn't. > >If I understand this correctly, the position is that an opponent has >"explained" his partner's call with the words "it's ordinary benji". >Now David G. understands what that means, so it is illegal for him to >ask for further clarification. Have I got it right so far? > >Assuming that I do, it seems to me that the explanation is an >infraction. If that's the case, is David now permitted to call the >Director, and say "opponent explained his partner's alerted call as >"ordinary benji", and I believe that is an infraction of law or >regulation", or words to that effect? If not, why not? What *can* he >do to ensure the opponents don't have an unfair and illegal advantage? Very simple. "Partner, if the opponents do anything you do not understand, ask. If their answer you also do not understand, continue to ask until you do. You have the right and the responsibility under the Laws to do this, and I cannot do it for you at the table." If you partner doesn't do anything after (possibly repeated) hearing this, then it's either time to get a new partner, or (if that is unfeasable), learn to live with it. The opponents may have committed an infraction by incomplete explanation, but they aren't also responsible for your partner's refusal to take an active role in unconfusing herself. Looks simple to me - even my novices have manages to learn this. Sorry to sound condescending, but IIRC the original comment was somewhere along the lines of "you knew I didn't understand the explanation, why didn't you ask?" to which my answer would have been "Because I am not allowed to. Why didn't you ask?" Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 06:18:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATJHpS29972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:17:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATJHjt29968 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:17:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:16:55 -0800 Message-ID: <002601c05a38$ffbe3da0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 11:16:17 -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 Accidental private message to Adam sent also to BLML. Damn. Please forget what it said. Marv > Adam, I found the following about English in my drafts folder, and > don't know if I sent it or not. > > In Birmingham I attended the LC and C&C meetings... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 06:58:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATJvsH29999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:57:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net (mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eATJvlt29995 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:57:48 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 3164 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 19:57:44 -0000 Received: from hdslppp247.mpls.uswest.net (HELO oemcomputer) (63.225.144.247) by mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 19:57:44 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:56:31 -0600 Message-ID: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Another disputed claim X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: xx x - x - - - - xxx - K xxx - - - AJTx Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have taken?) How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club games) Thanks, Chip (no cats, 1 Cocker Spaniel, 1 Rat Terrier) PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem right? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 07:35:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATKZ6e00027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:35:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net (mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net [204.147.80.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eATKZ0t00023 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:35:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 70157 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2000 20:34:58 -0000 Received: from hdslppp247.mpls.uswest.net (HELO oemcomputer) (63.225.144.247) by mplspop2.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 29 Nov 2000 20:34:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:33:42 -0600 Message-ID: <01aa01c05a43$aa153880$f790e13f@oemcomputer> From: "Chip" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Another disputed claim X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: xx x - x - - - - xxx - K xxx - - - AJTx Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have taken?) How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club games) Thanks, Chip (no cats, 1 Cocker Spaniel, 1 Rat Terrier) PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem right? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 07:48:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATKmRB00047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:48:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATKmLt00043 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:48:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:47:31 -0800 Message-ID: <003801c05a45$a8002940$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011291212190460.008FF29C@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:44:24 -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 I was hoping there would be no comments on this supposedly private e-mail. Oh, well. > >Another C&C topic was which Mid-Chart conventions should require > >written defenses at hand. Bob Hamman is now my hero, because he > >claimed that this sort of thing is killing bridge in the U. S. After > >a lot of discussion, with Colker ridiculing Hamman's position ("Bob > >would have takeout doubles eliminated"), Hamman got up and said, "I > >am against allowing any convention that requires written defenses," > >and walked out. I agree with him. > > Hm. IMHO, to take one obvious example, the Multi only requires a written > defense in ACBL-land because 99% of players here have never or only rarely > encountered it. If it were allowed in more events here, more people would > use it (I surely would) and perhaps the common defenses to it would become > better known, enough that written defenses would no longer be necessary. > > So Hamman's position would arguably result in ossifying the convention > charts as they are now, in fact possibly more severely restricting MidChart > events. I doubt that's a good thing. > The consulting of bidding or play aids, introduced in the 1997 Laws, is so foreign to the spirit of the game that it constitutes a new game. It reminds me of the "bidding wheels" used by novices. Conventions that require such aids ought to be restricted to higher levels of play, in which a new game might be appropriate. Perhaps more events could be designated as Super Chart, as a compromise. Call it Super Bridge, an exercise in cryptoanalysis masquerading as a card game. Inexperienced players don't use the bidding aids, because they can't understand them. I do not see how they can possibly be used without excessive UI and excessive time taken up in a pair game. Behind a screen, that's different. Hamman agrees with me that the three components of bridge--play of the hand, defense, and bidding--are now way out of balance, with bidding dominating the other two. Any game or sport should have a proper balance among its elements. Marv 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 Nov 30 08:01:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATL1Ip00065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:01:18 +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 eATL1Ct00061 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:01:13 +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 QAA17685 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:01:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA25293 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:01:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:01:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200011292101.QAA25293@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > The advantage of using L73B1 is that we do not have to actually rule > that it was asked for partner's sake. It is illegal to communicate with > partner - so it says - but there is nothing about intent in the Law. So > if we decide the player has illegally communicated with partner we can > adjust without needing to say he did it deliberately. Oh, David. We agree? Something must be wrong. :-) Yes, absolutely there is no mention of intent. The "elements" of a L73B1 infraction are not too well defined, but I suggest they include: 1) the question was improper, and 2) it communicated something to partner, and 3) the "something" was useful. Of course it's 1) that is the difficult part. In most cases, when the question was in proper form and at a proper time, the asker can simply claim he was asking for his own benefit. But perhaps someone else can offer a better description of when a question is an infraction. It's no good leaving out 1), of course. Any time I ask a normal and proper question (except behind screens), elements 2) and 3) are present. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 08:02:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATL2JX00077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:02:19 +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 eATL2Ct00073 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:02:13 +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 NAA06303; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:02:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200011292102.NAA06303@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:56:31 PST." <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:02:07 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chip wrote: > This came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: > > xx > x > - > x > - - > - - > xxx - > K xxx > - > - > - > AJTx > > Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. It's important to know what the x's are here; for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that all of East's x's are smaller than both of declarer's. Thus, declarer would have had a legitimate claim if not for that pesky king. > Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled > that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King > offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for > declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have > taken?) I don't understand what this last question means. What "point of law" are you referring to? > How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club > games) I'd rule the way the committee did (but see the cautionary note below). > Thanks, > Chip (no cats, 1 Cocker Spaniel, 1 Rat Terrier) > > PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are > handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem > right? No, IMHO this approach doesn't follow the Laws. This subject has been the topic of some long discussions on BLML in the past. Basically, the argument is whether, had declarer been forced to play the hand out, he would have necessarily played out clubs from the top. Some on BLML have argued "yes", saying that's the normal way to play a suit where all your cards are high. Others argue "no", saying that if declarer believes all his cards are high, then it wouldn't matter to him in which order they're played (except that, in this case, declarer's first club must be higher than dummy's club); and thus, since there is a line of play that declarer could have taken in which he would take zero tricks, we must assume that line is taken. I'm firmly in the latter camp (L70A: "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer"); the other approach appears contrary to the Laws. However, I've long felt that the claim Laws are too vague and need to be demurkified with some additional laws or SO regulations. One caution: The director needs to find out just what declarer meant by "my clubs are good". If I'm down to AKJTxx in a suit, and I know there are just two cards outstanding including the queen, I'll claim, but I can be sloppy in my wording, so I might say "These are all good" to mean that the suit will run, without implying that I think they're all high cards. The director needs to question the claimer to find out if this is the case. It doesn't seem likely in this example, but if declarer knew the exact distribution and "knew" from the auction or defense that West held the club king, then declarer could well have meant that clubs would run dropping the king. If the director can determine that this is what declarer intended, the claim should be allowed. One other point: I think everyone would agree that this claim is allowed: xx x - Q - - - - xxx - K 432 - - - AJT8 Declarer claims, saying his clubs are high. His statement is wrong, but since he clearly intends to take his clubs and can't do so without taking the ace on the first round, he *is* allowed to drop the king here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 08:14:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATLEek00098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:14:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATLEMt00094 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:14:23 +1100 (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 QAA21886 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:18:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011292118.QAA21886@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] The pro question Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3A179E3C.49DB7E93@village.uunet.be> <19qi1tssk20k4hlf74jhv6166javi3c9q2@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.1.32.20001127002430.0128405c@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.1.32.20001128180535.0128c23c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:18:29 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 11:52 AM 11/27/2000 +0100, Konrad wrote: >> >> You won't always need a mind-reading machine. >>Here is a scene like this a couple of times in my life: >> >>PRO: What does this bid mean? >>ME: Fourth suit. >>PRO: Could you be more specific? >>ME: You don't know what the fourth suit means? >>PRO: I do, but I have to make sure my partner knows what's going on. >> Ok. You, explain it fully. You know that "fourth suit" isn't full and complete, and you're trying to duck your responsibilities. And that last question of yours is not the sort of conduct we approve of here. Pro, that question is not allowed. You may not ask questions solely for your partner's benefit - that's his responsibility. Tenth-of-a-board PP to both of you. Now, please get on with the game. If the game got to the third statement with me at the table, it would either go ME: Artificial, [game-forcing | forcing 1R], says nothing about [suit], only forcing bid. (which is what "I" should have said the first time), or PRO: I know what it means in my partnerships, but I don't know what it means in yours. Please explain. (assuming I, in fact, wanted to know what kind of 4SF they were playing. If it was, truly, for partner's benefit, I wouldn't have started, of course). >> Even if the pro doesn't openly admit to asking on partner's benefit >>I don't think a TD can seriously believe that he asked further >>questions because he needed them. Yes, he can ask for the meaning >>of an alerted bid but clearly an explanation along the lines >>"relay, GF", "splinter", "Landy" or "Lebensohl" should be quite >>clear to him. > Um, no. There are too many different ways of playing each of those for me to accept a one-word answer. I will ask at least one more question on each of those (maybe not splinter - at least until the end of the auction). And I will expect an answer. And it will be for *my* benefit, whether or not I have a client. I have been known to say "my partner is inexperienced, would you mind being extra-careful with your explanations?" - before the round. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 08:15:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATLFZo00110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:15:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout.isi.com (karma.isi.com [192.73.222.42] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATLFPt00106 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:15:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from rwilleypc ([128.224.4.125]) by mailout.isi.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3/Mailout 991117 TroyC) with SMTP id NAA14680 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:03:01 -0800 (PST) From: "Richard Willey" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:15:33 -0500 Message-ID: <002201c05a49$82b227c0$7d04e080@isi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0 In-Reply-To: <003801c05a45$a8002940$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Hamman agrees with me that the three components of bridge--play of > the hand, defense, and bidding--are now way out of balance, with > bidding dominating the other two. Any game or sport should have a > proper balance among its elements. Of course this simply raises the question what "out of balance" means. I don't really understand how one can really assert what the appropriate balance is between different aspects of the game. I do recall learning early on that players bid on 100% of the hands, defend 50% of the time, and declare 25% of the time. To me, this would clearly suggest that bidding skill is of paramount consideration in the game. Furthermore, the simple observation that bridge is a multi-stage game where the bidding stage sets pre-conditions for later stages once again suggests the bidding should be more significant than card play or defence. Hamman has never been interested in bidding. His own biography states that the main reason he took up Orange Club to begin with was to be able to avoid the hassle of writing up his own set of system notes. The man is 1000 times the bridge player I am, however, I don't look to him to provide any unbiased insights regarding systems proliferation. Regardless, I might place a bit more weight on Hamman's opinions regarding bidding if he actually practiced what he preached. (I severely doubt that the inferences of a canape based strong club system are readily apparant to the average tournament player in the US) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOiVx9LFdMFbo8dHHEQL6DQCdHzq3DTgPuTWHngY3wLnZhXseakgAoIK8 nTg5PnJof6nXhw4k7CLBLMaM =Hpyl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 08:32:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATLWac00136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:32:36 +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 eATLWTt00132 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:32:30 +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 NAA07052; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:32:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200011292132.NAA07052@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:32:25 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (First attempt appears to have bounced. Apologies if you receive this twice.) Chip wrote: > This came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: > > xx > x > - > x > - - > - - > xxx - > K xxx > - > - > - > AJTx > > Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. It's important to know what the x's are here; for the sake of simplicity, let's assume that all of East's x's are smaller than both of declarer's. Thus, declarer would have had a legitimate claim if not for that pesky king. > Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled > that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King > offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for > declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have > taken?) I don't understand what this last question means. What "point of law" are you referring to? > How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club > games) I'd rule the way the committee did (but see the cautionary note below). > Thanks, > Chip (no cats, 1 Cocker Spaniel, 1 Rat Terrier) > > PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are > handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem > right? No, IMHO this approach doesn't follow the Laws. This subject has been the topic of some long discussions on BLML in the past. Basically, the argument is whether, had declarer been forced to play the hand out, he would have necessarily played out clubs from the top. Some on BLML have argued "yes", saying that's the normal way to play a suit where all your cards are high. Others argue "no", saying that if declarer believes all his cards are high, then it wouldn't matter to him in which order they're played (except that, in this case, declarer's first club must be higher than dummy's club); and thus, since there is a line of play that declarer could have taken in which he would take zero tricks, we must assume that line is taken. I'm firmly in the latter camp (L70A: "any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer"); the other approach appears contrary to the Laws. However, I've long felt that the claim Laws are too vague and need to be demurkified with some additional laws or SO regulations. One caution: The director needs to find out just what declarer meant by "my clubs are good". If I'm down to AKJTxx in a suit, and I know there are just two cards outstanding including the queen, I'll claim, but I can be sloppy in my wording, so I might say "These are all good" to mean that the suit will run, without implying that I think they're all high cards. The director needs to question the claimer to find out if this is the case. It doesn't seem likely in this example, but if declarer knew the exact distribution and "knew" from the auction or defense that West held the club king, then declarer could well have meant that clubs would run dropping the king. If the director can determine that this is what declarer intended, the claim should be allowed. One other point: I think everyone would agree that this claim is allowed: xx x - Q - - - - xxx - K 432 - - - AJT8 Declarer claims, saying his clubs are high. His statement is wrong, but since he clearly intends to take his clubs and can't do so without taking the ace on the first round, he *is* allowed to drop the king here. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 08:38:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATLcnq00148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:38:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATLcht00144 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:38:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:37:53 -0800 Message-ID: <004901c05a4c$b1518d20$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 13:29:05 -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 From: "Chip" > This came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: > > xx > x > - > x > - - > - - > xxx - > K xxx > - > - > - > AJTx > > Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. > > Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled > that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King > offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for > declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have > taken?) > > How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club > games) > When will this old wives' tale ever be expunged from all TD brains? The Laws (L70E) say that you can't take a successful finesse unless it was proven, or would inevitably be proven, but you *must* take an unsuccessful finesse unless not doing so would be irrational. There should be no consideration of declarer's "obvious intent" prior to the claim, as is the practice of many TDs. So the AC was right, although they lack the authority to overrule the TD on a point of law, but can only "suggest." I'll grab this opportunity to repeat my oft-repeated gripe about L70E (and others nearby). A successful finesse can be taken only if an opponent "failed to follow to the suit of that card before the claim was made, or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal line of play." KJ107 opposite A9865 in trumps, no losers outside. Claim 13 tricks. If a defender has a trump void, it would be revealed by a normal line of play, and L70E refers to *any* normal line of play. Of course that should be, "all normal lines of play." As with "either" and "or," "any" is an ambiguous word that is best avoided. It can mean a single one of many, or no matter which of many. For an interesting case involving L70E, look at case 40 in the Cincinnati NABC casebook, regarding an appeal at Bermuda 2000. > > PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are > handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem > right? > I believe this is correct, but don't have time right now to find the documentation of this policy. It seems right to me, but some literalists say that if you claim a suit is good, it must be run from the bottom. Marv 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 Nov 30 08:59:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATLxND00171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:59:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eATLxGt00167 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:59:17 +1100 (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 RAA23096 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:03:20 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200011292203.RAA23096@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <200011161505.KAA00749@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:03:19 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 17 November 2000 at 16:51, David Stevenson wrote: >In article <200011170453.XAA01392@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, Michael >Farebrother writes >> [DWS] >>> People who direct you to their CC when they do not wish to answer are >>>trying to avoid full disclosure *and* reduce UI. >>> >>I've been trying to reply politely to your previous messages. I >>couldn't get a message written, for many reasons. However, this, from >>you, just caused me to lose it. >> >>You have just made a personal attack on my ethics. You may not have >>meant it, but I am one of the strong proponents of "check the CC" if >>I believe it's complete, and ask if there's more information required - >>and if you've followed this thread, you know that. And you have said >>this in that knowledge. > > I am not attacking your ethics because [a] I express opinions about >methods generally not specifically and [b] you are only unethical if you >are doing something you know to be wrong and I am not suggesting that. >After all, we are arguing about whether it is wrong. > Further discussion on this argument will be taken privately by me, as it is likely to involve language I won't use on this list. I am, shall we say, displeased by this reply. Publicly, all I wish to say is "Don't take my silence for agreement on this response. I don't - often violently." And sorry for the delay. It has taken me a while to be able to say even this politely. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 09:30:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATMRLJ00196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:27:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATMRFt00192 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:27:16 +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 OAA08324; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:27:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200011292227.OAA08324@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:15:33 PST." <002201c05a49$82b227c0$7d04e080@isi.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:27:11 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Willey wrote: > > Hamman agrees with me that the three components of bridge--play of > > the hand, defense, and bidding--are now way out of balance, with > > bidding dominating the other two. Any game or sport should have a > > proper balance among its elements. > > Of course this simply raises the question what "out of balance" > means. It really depends on what the players think it should mean---or whoever is in charge who is (hopefully) attempting to provide a game the players want to play. > I don't really understand how one can really assert what the > appropriate balance is between different aspects of the game. > I do recall learning early on that players bid on 100% of the hands, > defend 50% of the time, and declare 25% of the time. To me, this > would clearly suggest that bidding skill is of paramount > consideration in the game. Following this logic, since baseball players are up at bat only 1/9th of the time their side is on offense, but are in the field the entire time their side is on defense, it follows that fielding skills are 9 times as important as hitting skills. Sorry---this logic makes no sense. > Furthermore, the simple observation that > bridge is a multi-stage game where the bidding stage sets > pre-conditions for later stages once again suggests the bidding > should be more significant than card play or defence. I don't see how one follows from the other. The game Spades, in which (roughly speaking) you simply bid the number of tricks you can take with spades as trump, is also a multi-stage game where the bidding stage sets preconditions for later stages, but it hardly follows that the bidding phase should be more significant than the card play phase. Again, this logic makes no sense. As hard as you try, the fact is that you cannot determine, simply from looking at the rules of the game, which facet of the game is the most important. It depends on what people want to be most important (whoever those people are). If everybody wanted bridge to be a contest to determine who has the best bidding system, then bidding would be more important than play or defense. If everybody wanted bridge to be a contest to determine who plays their cards best, then play and defense would be more important than bidding. The fact seems to be that what people want is in between the two, and that's where the "balance" aspect comes in. The majority of the bridge-playing public (at least in North America) don't seem to want one or the other aspect to dominate that much. When the ACBL has tried to hold games (other than novice games) with a limited set of allowed conventions, there has been a lack of interest. I'm less sure of this, but I believe that various SO's have tried to hold games where anything goes with regard to conventions, with similar lack of interest. In the Southern California districts, there hasn't been any push to allow Mid-Chart conventions at its regional events (other than defenses to 1NT), even though they're allowed to allow such conventions (I believe). I've often seen people try to come up with some objective notion of the correct balance between the different skills that is somehow "mathematically pure", divorced from the opinions of mere mortals regarding what the game should be about. (Usually their lovely logic ends up "proving" that the most important facet of the game is the one the arguers are most interested in. Surprise, surprise.) But no such objective standard exists. As with any other game, the game is about what people want it to be about. Period. > Hamman has never been interested in bidding. His own biography > states that the main reason he took up Orange Club to begin with was > to be able to avoid the hassle of writing up his own set of system > notes. The man is 1000 times the bridge player I am, however, I > don't look to him to provide any unbiased insights regarding systems > proliferation. A little unfair, perhaps. He's certainly not as interested in bidding theory as, say, Eric Rodwell. On the other hand, in his autobiography, he wished that Bobby Wolff would lighten up and let them use more conventions. (Wolff believed that "any convention invented after 1958 is no good.") My impression is that this was one reason for the breakup of their partnership. Paul Soloway is willing to play pretty much whatever system Hamman wants to play. > Regardless, I might place a bit more weight on Hamman's opinions > regarding bidding if he actually practiced what he preached. (I > severely doubt that the inferences of a canape based strong club > system are readily apparant to the average tournament player in the > US) Hamman's main objection is to "destructive" bids that opponents can't be expected to have adequate defenses for, not so much to bids that opponents won't always understand the inferences about. Not quite the same thing, although you do have a point. Mind you, I don't really agree with Hamman about the Multi. -- 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 Nov 30 10:54:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eATNrMI00236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:53:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eATNrEt00231 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:53:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2iveslh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.114.177]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA06972 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:53:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001129185154.0128a21c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:51:54 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001129103812.00800100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@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 10:38 AM 11/29/2000 +0100, you wrote: >At 20:48 28/11/00 -0500, you wrote: >>At 02:55 PM 11/28/2000 +0100, Alain wrote: >>Having said that, there is some risk of scoundrels taking refuge in >>ambiguity to effectively conceal their agreements from the opponents. The >>explanation "the same kind of hand as for a suit overcall at the present >>vulnerability" is not very satisfactory, to my mind. Whether you evaluate >>your hand based on losing-trick count, quick tricks, Culbertson's honor >>tricks, or some modified method of point-count, you at least have the >>obligation to qualify this explanation to make clear your tendencies. You >>presumably have some idea about the type of hand that would or would not >>make this call, and this is what must be communicated to the opponents. > >AG : you mean that, if they ask about a point range, I amy answer using >only the LTC ? I'd be glad to oblige. >Please allow me to mention your response if needed. > > Alain. First of all, I did qualify my response based on the requirements of your particular SO, and they may indeed require that you explain your methods with respect to a given evaluation scheme. They will not be impressed if you quote me to the effect that you are not bound to do so. But, it remains the case that 4-3-2-1 point count is _not_ specified within the Laws as the mandatory or even preferred method of hand evaluation or of communication with opponents. You are not required by the Laws to know about or to utilize that method of evaluation. If you and your partner rely instead on LTC or any other system to make your bidding decisions, then that is what must be communicated to the opponents. This could get complicated, of course, when your opponents are unfamiliar with LTC, so a rough translation to the more familiar standard would no doubt be more practical in many situations. However, I stand by my original assertion: _unless required to do so by your SO_ you are not required to frame your explanations to opponents in terms of the time-honored 4-3-2-1 hcp unless that is indeed the method you actually use in making bidding decisions. 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 Nov 30 12:00:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU0wjv00267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:45 +1100 (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 eAU0wct00263 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA14474 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:54:21 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.1.32.20001129185154.0128a21c@pop.mindspring.com> References: <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.1.32.20001129185154.0128a21c@pop.mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:57:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Michael Dennis wrote: >However, I stand by my original assertion: _unless required to do so by >your SO_ you are not required to frame your explanations to opponents in >terms of the time-honored 4-3-2-1 hcp unless that is indeed the method you >actually use in making bidding decisions. I agree. I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that you can explain in terms other than 4-3-2-1 count if you can explain the method fairly quickly and sufficiently so opponents can understand it. I dunno, though, whether it was ACBL reg, EBU Orange Book, something I read in an appeals book, or a suggestion somebody made in conversation. 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+AwUBOiWmN72UW3au93vOEQIQCgCg8k0gIG48LXSfTTL3DHJI6wBOmiUAmK+a lpHofYJARTHIkaEQ50hou9Q= =h5x4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:06:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU15mh00304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU15Xt00286 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:34 +1100 (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 141I99-000O6G-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:04:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:05:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> <200011291639.IAA00526@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200011291639.IAA00526@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200011291639.IAA00526@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >David Burn wrote: > >> But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is >> finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English >> puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one >> else wants the job. > >I believe, that I am qualified; for the, job so Il'l gladly: volunteer >my talents/ > > -- Adam > >(sorry, couldn't resist] > I'd like to nominate my son, Richard. -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:06:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU15oM00305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU15Xt00283 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:34 +1100 (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 141I99-000O6F-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:04:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:04:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002b01c059ee$f1cff480$6c41073e@D457300>, David Burn writes >John Probst wrote: > >> No. It is not held in such a way as to indicate that it has been >played. >> >> I explain to players that declarer can hold a card in his hand and >wave >> it around so everyone can see it but it is still not played until he >> puts it down or makes it clear that it is played. > >There is a difficulty with this: > >> >2. Declarers Card >> >Declarer must play a card from his hand held face up, touching or >nearly >> >touching the table, or maintained in such a position as to indicate >that >> >it has been played. > >This means: > >declarer must play a card from his hand held face up; and >declarer must play a card from his hand touching or nearly touching the >table; and >declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as >to indicate that it has been played. > >Of course, it is not intended to mean that, otherwise whenever declarer >put his hand face down on the table, he would have to play the bottom >card in it (and the card above that as well, since it nearly touches the >table). It is intended to mean: > >declarer must play a card from his hand that is held face up, and >touches or nearly touches the table; and >declarer must play a card from his hand maintained in such a position as >to indicate that it has been played. > >But that is not what it says. When the next edition of the Laws is >finalised, can someone who has a basic grasp of rudimentary English >puncutation look at it before it is published? I'll volunteer, if no one >else wants the job. > Thank God for that. I'm Churchillian about punctuation. >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 London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:06:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU15p300306 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU15Xt00284 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:34 +1100 (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 141I99-000O6E-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:04:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 17:02:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: 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 , David Stevenson writes >Richard Bley writes >>At 02:17 29.11.2000 +0000, John (MadDog) Probst wrote: >>>In article <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni- >>>duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >>> > >>> >> >>> >> That is my understanding. the Law seems to give considerable leeway >>> >>to declarer to take a card back unless it is obviously played. >>> > >>> >Is it a played card, if no one of the opps could not see it? >>> > >>>This is not the test we use in the UK. Face it on the table, or near the >>>table, or indicate that it clearly has been played. Until that happens >>>it is not played. >> >>I c. >>But do you think that itīs possible to play a card as a declarer without a >>look from the defenders on the card? >> >> >>e.g. >>Pick the card, lay it upside-down on the table then turn it (making this >>every time). When exactly is the point reached that this a played card? >>(I had an argument with my colleague about this last weekend at the german >>championships) > > Clever. I reckon it is played when it is placed on the table. > Can't be. The opponents can't see it. If it's played I'd just leave it there, not showing the oppo. L65A can't be complied with. It has to be face up. L45C2 first clause. > Another one for the EBU Panel weekend .... > -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:06:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU15p600307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU15Xt00285 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:05:36 +1100 (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 141I9E-000O6P-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:04:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:58:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> 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 <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes snip >> > >>This is not the test we use in the UK. Face it on the table, or near the >>table, or indicate that it clearly has been played. Until that happens >>it is not played. > >I c. >But do you think that itīs possible to play a card as a declarer without a >look from the defenders on the card? > > >e.g. >Pick the card, lay it upside-down on the table then turn it (making this >every time). When exactly is the point reached that this a played card? >(I had an argument with my colleague about this last weekend at the german >championships) I would make the player perform the action in front of me, and then I would rule. I think it's like the Cricket umpire and lbw, or the baseball referee and a strike. He knows what he thinks is the definition and he applies it consistently. But any umpire/referee may well have slightly different interpretations from any other, all of which are within the bounds of the doctrine. > >Cheers >Richard > -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road 2nd Probst & Butt 60% ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA 3rd DWS & Kunz 56% john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.26 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU1G2Z00348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:16:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU1Fpt00339 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:15:52 +1100 (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 141IKA-0000Zb-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:15:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:13:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> <03e101c05a27$17ae57e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <03e101c05a27$17ae57e0$fb981e18@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 writes >L70 seems to be written by someone who didn't realize that defenders >can claim. How can a defender state a line of play? A Kx -- -- x AQ Irrelevant -- -- Irrelevant 3NT by South, West on play. "I am leading my spade: I claim two tricks." -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 12:16:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU1G1O00347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:16:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU1Fqt00340 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:15:52 +1100 (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 141IKA-0000Zc-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:15:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:15:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@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 writes >And English is broken Anglo-Saxon, which was broken West Germanic, >which >was broken Teutonic, which was broken Indo-European, which was... It >is >nearly time for American English to have its own name: American. > >There are no "rules" in the usual sense of that word. The >pronunciation, >grammar, and spelling of English or American can only be discovered, >not >prescribed. Why? Sure there are rules - why not? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 13:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU2InY00396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU2Ibt00385 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:38 +1100 (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 141JIp-0004dk-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:18:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:10:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim References: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chip writes >This came up at the Minnesota State tourney last week: > > xx > x > - > x >- - >- - >xxx - >K xxx > - > - > - > AJTx > >Contract 3N in south, lead in dummy. > >Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. The law was summoned and ruled >that since no finesses could be taken, declarer could drop the stiff King >offside. (making the rest) The committee reversed and ruled no tricks for >declarer. (is this a point of law that the committee shouldn't even have >taken?) Possibly. But since the TD obviously hadn't opened his Law book he will be pushed to argue with an AC who at least got the Law right. >How should I be ruling this? (I wasn't the director but I often am in club >games) Other replies have explained correctly. Probably four tricks to the defence. Note that if South were on lead there would be a much greater feeling to give declarer the tricks since people play suits from the top - according to many authorites. >Thanks, >Chip (no cats, 1 Cocker Spaniel, 1 Rat Terrier) Nice to see you. We won't tell Quango about the cats. >PS. A retired national director told me that the ACBL says claims are >handled by trumping low and playing other suits from the top. Does this seem >right? These sort of rules are fair as a rule of thumb so long as you do not stick to them religiously. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 13:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU2IsB00397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:54 +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 eAU2Ibt00384 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:38 +1100 (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 141JIp-0004dj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:18:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:04:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints References: <3.0.1.32.20001128204826.01290cec@pop.mindspring.com> <3.0.6.32.20001128145551.007fcdc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.1.32.20001129185154.0128a21c@pop.mindspring.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 writes >Michael Dennis wrote: > >>However, I stand by my original assertion: _unless required to do so by >>your SO_ you are not required to frame your explanations to opponents in >>terms of the time-honored 4-3-2-1 hcp unless that is indeed the method you >>actually use in making bidding decisions. >I agree. I seem to remember reading or hearing somewhere that you can >explain in terms other than 4-3-2-1 count if you can explain the >method fairly quickly and sufficiently so opponents can understand >it. I dunno, though, whether it was ACBL reg, EBU Orange Book, >something I read in an appeals book, or a suggestion somebody made in >conversation. OB 98: 9 PERMITTED CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS 9.1 Basic 9.1.3 You may define the strength of your hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by your opponents (eg High Card Points, the number of Playing tricks, etc). Note that this has two effects. [1] If you play a bid to have a meaning that does not include HCP you are not required to describe it in HCP. [2] If you play a bid that has a meaning that is very difficult to describe because of its valuation method then it is illegal. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 13:19:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU2Ims00395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAU2Iat00383 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:36 +1100 (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 141JIo-000F8q-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:18:28 +0000 Message-ID: <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:51:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>Richard Bley writes >>>e.g. >>>Pick the card, lay it upside-down on the table then turn it (making this >>>every time). When exactly is the point reached that this a played card? >>>(I had an argument with my colleague about this last weekend at the german >>>championships) >> Clever. I reckon it is played when it is placed on the table. >Can't be. The opponents can't see it. If it's played I'd just leave it >there, not showing the oppo. L65A can't be complied with. > >It has to be face up. L45C2 first clause. No it does not. L45C2 last clause. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 16:06:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU55kd00541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:05:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [209.195.95.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAU55dt00537 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:05:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from etm1 (ip133.ts17-2.mn.dialup.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.66.133]) by cyberus.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3/Cyberus Online Inc.) with SMTP id AAA11343 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:05:36 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Glen Ashton" To: Subject: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:04:24 -0500 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 V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Expert partnership, team match, partnership often plays doubles for takeout. West East S A2 S J9764 H KQJ5 H T764 D AKQ3 D J2 C J95 C A3 Both vulnerable. West opens 2C, showing any GF or 20+ balanced. North doubles, alerted by South as "majors". East passes, South bids three spades, passed to East. East takes two minutes, then doubles three spades, all passed. When questioned by the committee both West and East are not sure what the double should be. North South expert pair argue that the two minutes then double seems to be designed to get the pass by partner. How should the committee approach this problem? Glen -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 16:27:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU5Re800559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:27:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAU5RYt00555 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:27:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP256.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.18]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20941 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:27:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200011292327260130.02FA1F92@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:27:26 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>There are no "rules" in the usual sense of that word. The >>pronunciation, >>grammar, and spelling of English or American can only be discovered, >>not >>prescribed. > > Why? > > Sure there are rules - why not? What "rules" there are are descriptive rather than prescriptive. (They can be useful.) Some attempts at prescriptive rules have been essayed through the years, and the language basically ignores them and goes its merry way. Best regards, Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading Only YOU can prevent narcissism. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 17:07:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU66p900586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:06:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAU66jt00582 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:06:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:05:54 -0800 Message-ID: <007f01c05a93$aaa05320$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 21:57:41 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes > > >And English is broken Anglo-Saxon, which was broken West Germanic, > >which > >was broken Teutonic, which was broken Indo-European, which was... It > >is > >nearly time for American English to have its own name: American. > > > >There are no "rules" in the usual sense of that word. The > >pronunciation, > >grammar, and spelling of English or American can only be discovered, > >not > >prescribed. > > Why? > > Sure there are rules - why not? > The usual sense of "rules" is that someone makes them explicitly and people follow them. That is what the grammarians want. Another sense is that people make them implicitly and someone discovers them. Isn't that how English Common Law came about? Marv 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 Nov 30 17:18:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU6IUG00604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:18:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAU6IPt00600 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:18:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.152.251]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:16:00 -0800 Message-ID: <008201c05a95$13f627e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000001c05a0f$6476f220$c2307dc2@tsvecfob> <03e101c05a27$17ae57e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:14:17 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes > > >L70 seems to be written by someone who didn't realize that defenders > >can claim. How can a defender state a line of play? > > A > Kx > -- > -- > x > AQ Irrelevant > -- > -- > Irrelevant > > 3NT by South, West on play. "I am leading my spade: I claim two > tricks." > Oh, very well. And if North has the lead, the stated line of play is "I am following suit." I have always thought that declarers have a line of play, while defenders have a line of defense. Maybe that's California language. Marv 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 Nov 30 19:59:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU8wEQ00656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:58:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.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 eAU8w7t00652 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:58:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis144.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.144]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4T007BOY884H@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:57:46 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:57:01 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles In-reply-to: X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001130094644.00a2ade0@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 eAU8wAt00653 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:04 30.11.2000 -0500, Glen Ashton wrote: >Expert partnership, team match, partnership often plays doubles for takeout. >West East >S A2 S J9764 >H KQJ5 H T764 >D AKQ3 D J2 >C J95 C A3 > >Both vulnerable. West opens 2C, showing any GF or 20+ balanced. North >doubles, alerted by South as "majors". East passes, South bids three >spades, passed to East. East takes two minutes, then doubles three spades, >all passed. When questioned by the committee both West and East are not >sure what the double should be. North South expert pair argue that the two >minutes then double seems to be designed to get the pass by partner. How >should the committee approach this problem? Really difficult. At first glance I see that West DID NOT double 3sp which should be Take-out as well if they are playing this way (I do play it this way, so I can say that). But obviously both E + W are not sure about there method. I think the uncertainty in their agreement is compensated by using some UI (not intended of course, but that is the way the world goes around). BTW: obviously NS had a disagreement about the bidding either. How else can they be in 3Sp with 6 trumps? That would make the case even more complicated, because there may be now a MI. Ew were uncertain about there agreement and are playing many TOX. In this cases there is always the danger that slow doubles are PEN and quick doubles are for Take-out After this brainstorming Iīm now fairly sure that West should have bid 3NT now (except there is case for misinformation (8 cards in hearts are unusual was well...) 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 Nov 30 20:06:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAU96C200673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:06:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAU966t00669 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:06:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.52.188] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 141Pck-0005RZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:03:26 +0000 Message-ID: <000f01c05aac$5b299360$bc34073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:03:05 -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: > Why? > > Sure there are rules - why not? To prevent people from using adjectives instead of adverbs, as for example in the phrase "Sure there are rules". 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 Nov 30 21:04:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUA3ZB00720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:03:35 +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 (f214.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.214]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUA3Ut00716 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:03:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:02:08 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:02:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:02:08 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Nov 2000 10:02:08.0746 (UTC) FILETIME=[99CEE4A0:01C05AB4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler >Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:03:05 -0000 > >DWS wrote: > > > Why? > > > > Sure there are rules - why not? > >To prevent people from using adjectives instead of adverbs, as for >example in the phrase "Sure there are rules". > >David Burn >London, England I was going to chastise David Stevenson for picking you up on a typographical error. I'm not going to, now... > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.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 Nov 30 21:23:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUANPv00743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:23:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUANGt00735 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:23:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-208.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.208]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07427 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:23:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2504EC.85C4551A@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:30:20 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] The Caucus Race References: <2rm82pBN8GJ6Ew9G@probst.demon.co.uk> 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've seen the ACBL system in use - let me explain the EBU method, which > is of some interest. > My system : At the start of every round, my computer prints out a pre-filled score cards, with the names of the teams. That way, they are always correct. Only one of them is handed out for every match, for the home team. That card has to come back. The home team that brings in the last result gets a penalty of one beer 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 Thu Nov 30 21:23:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUANOc00742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:23:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUANFt00734 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-208.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.208]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07401 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:23:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2503A6.CE23B688@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 14:24:54 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <200011270155160710.0322818B@mail.earthlink.net> <3A224D84.B57B5C3E@village.uunet.be> <00cc01c0595a$e75f8720$0913f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Come on guys, you know what I mean. Craig Senior wrote: > > And is Stayman forcing or non-forcing? Do you respond four card majors up > the line or spades first? Do you play any check back? Do you promise 8 hcp > (opposite 15-17). Can it be xxxx xxxx xxxx x with 0-4 hcp? Et cetera. And > that's just Stayman which "everyone knows". The name of a convention may > indeed be a good Starting Point for explaining a bid...but you must take > care that your opponents are given Enough information...and that often means > more that just a name. > We are not talking about insufficient information. We are talking about sufficient information. I know that all info must be given completely. I also know that this is not always done. My point is that when it goes "2He" - "alert" - "yes?" - "Muiderberg" - "OK", there has been complete information. The bidding pair have fulfilled their duties, unless they play a version that should not be called Muiderberg. And the asking pair have also fulfilled their duties. They are not obliged to ask more, in order to get a ruling when it was not in fact real Muiderberg. They are not obliged to ask what Muiderberg means. And so on. Your replies to my remarks have nothing to do with what I was trying to get accross. And since they were right, you seem to have the final word. I won't let you. -- 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 Nov 30 22:29:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUBSSH01468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:28:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in (pn2.vsnl.net.in [202.54.10.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUBSKt01461 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:28:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in ([202.54.82.2]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA24525 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:56:35 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3A2637B9.9D4543DB@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:49:21 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Teams Both Vul Dealer West A KQT9 KQ76 9843 QJ9872 T65 Void AJ8762 T984 2 T92 AQJ K43 543 AJ53 K76 There are bidding boxes but no screens Bidding : W N E S 3H (1) P 4H P P X 4S (2) P P P (1) Transfer pre empt , indicating 3 level pre empt in S. (2) After North's double of 4H, East player woke up and said oh sorry I forgot our convention , informs opps about their convention and bids 4S, opps called director and director asked to continue and finally allowed the result on board to stand. N-S went into appeal. North lead a C and after that also hand was misdefended and the 4S contract was allowed to make. What ruling appeal committee should give. Deal is important from the point that it decided the Championship. thx n best regards yogesh -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Nov 30 23:03:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUC3XX01810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:03:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUC3Tt01806 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:03:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot27.domain5.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id fa147139 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 21:59:38 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-167.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.167]) by mail5.bigpond.com (Claudes-Wiggly-MailRouter V2.9c 9/3834638); 30 Nov 2000 21:59:37 Message-ID: <002501c05ac4$d45676a0$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] To ask or not to ask Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 22:58:18 +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 West asked me to submit this hand to BLML: NSW Teams Championship, Sydney, 27 November 2000 Dealer S, nil vul 97432 A10 1083 986 J86 KQ10 K1096 8542 Q976 J4 52 J743 A5 QJ7 AK52 AKQ10 West North East South 2D* P 2H** P 2NT*** P 3H P 3NT P P P * Alerted - multi ** Alerted - correctable *** Alerted - 23-24 balanced No alert of 3H. West led D6 to the jack and ace. A diamond towards dummy's ten now produced declarer's ninth trick. EW called the Director at the end of the hand. West said that he didn't ask the meaning of 3H before his lead as 3H was obviously natural since it hadn't been alerted. To ask could give information to his partner (UI) and to declarer (AI) about his heart holding, so he didn't ask. Notes: 1. "3H transfer" is alertable in Sydney. "3H natural" is not alertable in Sydney. The 2NT bid didn't require an alert, by the way. 2. In this event roughly 75% of pairs would play transfers and about 25% natural in this situation. NS were a scratch pair but EW didn't know that until after the hand. The Director asked NS their understandings; North said he had intended his bid as a transfer but they didn't have specific partnership agreement as whether or not 3H was a transfer. The Director then let the table result stand on the basis of "no misinformation". EW point out that if South took 3H to be natural, she should have bid 4H, or a 4C cue bid. On the other hand, if she was unsure whether or not 3H was a transfer, they understand that you are supposed to alert the 3H bid anyway and say that you are unsure whether or not that is a transfer. Although this creates UI for NS, this approach at least gives a chance to EW. Also, EW think North should have done or said something before the opening lead. Had West thought that North had spades, he would have led H10. West wants to know what your ruling would be if he had asked on lead, dummy had really had hearts (A8xxx) and partner had found a crucial switch to HQ from Qx? And of course he wants to know what your ruling would be on the actual hand? Does he lose both times? Are both 'asking' and "not asking" losing options for him? Should he also ask if he hears the auction (1H) Pass (2H) Pass (3C) .... with no alerts, just in case 3C was an alertable short suit try? After West had turned his lead face up, North said to his partner as he put down dummy: "Aren't we playing transfers?" West again wondered about calling the Director with its possible UI disadvantages, but could see no point at that stage as he was sure that it was too late now for him to get his opening lead back. Opinions are sought. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. Note: West said to me: "This elementary type of situation comes up again and again, so surely there should be a standard procedure for dealing with 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 Nov 30 23:26:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUCPrK01829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:25:53 +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 eAUCPkt01825 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:25:47 +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 eAUCPfJ28831; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:41 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eAUCPem04037; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:40 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:39 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 MAA10428; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:38 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA25991; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:37 GMT Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:25:37 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200011301225.MAA25991@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, neel@pn2.vsnl.net.in Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Teams > Both Vul > Dealer West > > A > KQT9 > KQ76 > 9843 > QJ9872 T65 > Void AJ8762 > T984 2 > T92 AQJ > K43 > 543 > AJ53 > K76 > > There are bidding boxes but no screens > Bidding : > > W N E S > 3H (1) P 4H P > P X 4S (2) P > P P > > (1) Transfer pre empt , indicating 3 level pre empt in S. > (2) After North's double of 4H, East player woke up and said oh sorry I > forgot our > convention , informs opps about their convention and bids 4S, > opps called director and director asked to continue and finally > allowed the result on board to stand. > N-S went into appeal. > > North lead a C and after that also hand was misdefended and the 4S > contract was allowed to make. > > What ruling appeal committee should give. Deal is important from the > point that it decided the Championship. I assume 3H should have been alerted and wasn't. This is UI to West, but he has not "used"* the UI. NS have been misinformed, and given that the director was called when East bid 4S, he (the TD) should have allowed North to change his call. The result might then be that the hand was played in 4H, perhaps -4. Would NS have called differently on the first round? I don't think South would call over 4H, but North might double 3H (to show T/O of spades?). Its not clear that East would wake up at this point, but perhaps it is not at all probable that West will pass out 3S. There are lots of issues, such as whether the score for NS should take account of their bad defence to 4S, but I would try 4H-4. Robin * "use" = "choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by" -- 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 Thu Nov 30 23:52:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUCpTY01849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:51:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUCpLt01845 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:51:22 +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 eAUCpIJ01899 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:18 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eAUCpHS09545 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:17 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:17 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 MAA10464 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:15 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA26028 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:15 GMT Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:51:15 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200011301251.MAA26028@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > NSW Teams Championship, Sydney, 27 November 2000 > Dealer S, nil vul > > 97432 > A10 > 1083 > 986 > J86 KQ10 > K1096 8542 > Q976 J4 > 52 J743 > A5 > QJ7 > AK52 > AKQ10 > One of the H10s should be H3 in the diagram. > West North East South > 2D* > P 2H** P 2NT*** > P 3H P 3NT > P P P > > * Alerted - multi > ** Alerted - correctable > *** Alerted - 23-24 balanced > > No alert of 3H. [large snip] > After West had turned his lead face up, North said to his partner > as he put down dummy: "Aren't we playing transfers?" West > again wondered about calling the Director with its possible UI > disadvantages, but could see no point at that stage as he was > sure that it was too late now for him to get his opening lead back. This final paragraph is sufficient. North should tell EW that (in his opinion) 3H should be alerted. North's failure to do so means I will rule MI to EW and not say that EW should have protected them- selves. 3NT might go off on a heart lead, so I rule 3NT-1. (Perhaps I go for some 12C3 weighted adjustment, and fine North as well.) 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/