From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 00:10:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUD7rJ01867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:07:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUD7kt01863 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:07:47 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: BLML Subject: RE: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:05:46 +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 n y abhyankar wrote: >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 I think TD should have allowed North to change his double, per L21B1 (assuming TD was called before South passed). Knowing that EW erred, North would no doubt have passed, resulting in something like 4H-4. Which is the score I would give. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 00:33:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUDXX301888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:33:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUDXRt01884 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:33:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.10.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eAUDX4K50776 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:33:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from elandau@cais.com) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001130082059.00b70880@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, 30 Nov 2000 08:33:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles 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 12:04 AM 11/30/00, glen 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? Carefully. There was a clear break in tempo. W has LAs to pass. Did the huddle suggest passing? As a committee member, I'd want to suggest considerations of the following questions: Suppose E had doubled 3S in a flash and it had gone similarly after that. Might N-S then claim that the fast double suggested passing? Can an unusually fast double and an unusually slow double suggest the same action? Suppose E had takeout-double shape, had taken two minutes to double, and W had taken it out. Might N-S then claim that the slow double suggested the takeout? Can the same slow double suggest two different calls, depending on which is the winning one? It looks to me like E and W both knew that the double was undefined in their methods, E hoped his partner would work out that it was for penalties here, and his partner did. I see nothing that suggests that he was helped to do so by E's huddle. No infraction; no adjustment. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 01:01:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUDxxD01907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:59:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUDxst01903 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:59:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id za822561 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:56:49 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-235.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.235]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Trusting-MailRouter V2.9c 15/448077); 30 Nov 2000 23:56:49 Message-ID: <011101c05ad5$1dcecd40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:12:32 +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 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. NS >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? I know it is a self-serving statement, but I cannot help wondering what East replied when the AC asked him why he took 2 minutes to make what appears to be a routine double. I think NS have a reasonable case. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 01:28:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUES4701940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:28:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUERwt01936 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:27:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4re.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.110]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA14287; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 09:27:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000201c05ada$15fc4ac0$6e13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200011291820.KAA02508@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 16:32:20 -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 > > 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 That's a little strong, Adam. They are not allowed to revoke for example. But if there is no claim statement, there must be no rational line that fails. No rational line of play is NOT quite the same as no possible play. 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 Dec 1 02:51:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUFowU01988 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:50:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUFoqt01984 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:50:53 +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 HAA27898; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:50:47 -0800 Message-Id: <200011301550.HAA27898@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 30 Nov 2000 02:04:03 PST." Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:50:46 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > 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. Question 1: Is an SO permitted to outlaw an agreement that isn't a convention? Question 2: If an SO can use L40B to outlaw some agreements that aren't conventions (because, say, such an agreement can't be disclosed "in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization"), couldn't this idea be used to make an end run around the rule that an SO may not outlaw agreements that aren't conventions? -- 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 Dec 1 03:41:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUGfDE02052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:41:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUGf7t02048 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:41:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA00793 for ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:41:45 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001130104222.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 10:42:22 -0600 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001130082059.00b70880@127.0.0.1> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was getting ready to compose a reply, but Eric has said almost exactly what I intended to say: At 08:33 AM 11/30/2000 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:04 AM 11/30/00, glen 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? > >Carefully. There was a clear break in tempo. W has LAs to pass. Did >the huddle suggest passing? [snip] >Suppose E had takeout-double shape, had taken two minutes to double, >and W had taken it out. Might N-S then claim that the slow double >suggested the takeout? Can the same slow double suggest two different >calls, depending on which is the winning one? > >It looks to me like E and W both knew that the double was undefined in >their methods, E hoped his partner would work out that it was for >penalties here, and his partner did. I see nothing that suggests that >he was helped to do so by E's huddle. No infraction; no adjustment. If I was W, trying to figure out what the huddle suggested, I would almost certainly _not_ think that E had a clear penalty double. In fact, I would probably think that he had an off-shape takeout double. [After all, given the NS bidding, E _can't possibly have spades_.] Frankly, I might, as an ethical player, _think I was constrained to pass_! >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 Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 03:52:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUGqKm02065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:52:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUGqEt02061 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:52:15 +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 IAA29081; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:52:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200011301652.IAA29081@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 16:32:20 PST." <000201c05ada$15fc4ac0$6e13f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:52:10 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > > 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 > That's a little strong, Adam. They are not allowed to revoke for example. Sorry, I guess I should have specified any possible *legal* play. > But if there is no claim statement, there must be no rational line that > fails. > No rational line of play is NOT quite the same as no possible play. I still hold that the standards of "rational" or "irrational" or "normal" or "careless" or "inferior" or whatever apply only to the claiming side. These standards shouldn't be used to evaluate possible plays by the other side. If a player claims without a statement, and there's an irrational line of play that the claimer could take that would cost him a trick, we don't consider that line when adjudicating the claim. I think we're all agreed to that (except maybe DB). But if a player claims, and there's a way for the defense to defeat the claim with a brilliant discard of an ace, for example, then we don't allow the claim. It doesn't matter whether the opponents are capable of finding such a play, or even if they're LOLs who would consider discarding an ace under any circumstances to be "irrational". We still don't allow the claim, as I see it. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 05:14:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUIDZF02118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:13:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUIDSt02114 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:13:29 +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 141YCv-0005cz-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:13:22 +0000 Message-ID: <$3JFfDAAFkJ6Ew8N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:00:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles 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 Glen Ashton writes >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? Committee? Let's start with the man [*] who makes the ruling! My instinct is that nothing has gone wrong. Suppose the two hands were: Expert partnership, team match, partnership often plays doubles for takeout. West East S A2 S J97 H KQJ5 H T764 D AKQ3 D J642 C J95 C A3 Would not North-South be asking for a ruling when West pulls a slow double? Saying that because it was slow it cannot be a real penalty double with [say] J9764 of trumps? I do not believe that a slow double shows that a pass would be more successful. However, as far as the approach for the Director, there was UI [two minute think shows doubt] so the main decision he has to make is whether the UI suggests passing over bidding, and whether bidding is an LA. [*] Homo not vir -- 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 Fri Dec 1 05:15:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUIDSV02113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:13:28 +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-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 eAUIDLt02108 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:13:22 +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 141YCq-0005d0-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:13:17 +0000 Message-ID: <03yHvFAsPkJ6Ew88@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:11:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <3A2637B9.9D4543DB@pn2.vsnl.net.in> In-Reply-To: <3A2637B9.9D4543DB@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 >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. When a hand does not match an explanation then you consider UI and MI. What explanation, do I hear? The failure to alert 3H. Admittedly Yogesh has not said that but I am assuming it. If in fact there is no alerting in this championship it is difficult to see anything to rule on unless there was also a wrong explanation and so the result certainly stands. So let us assume there was no alert, no explanation. West has UI that his partner has forgotten the system - and he passed 4H. He is one of the good guys! His pass of 4S once 4H was doubled is automatic. East has no UI, so no adjustment based on UI. How about MI? After the double, East told the opponents that he had got it wrong. At that moment a Director call would allow North to take his double back. That double must stand - L21B3 only allows an adjustment for calls that may not be changed. So the only way either North or South can be damaged is South's pass over 4H - and he is not going to want to change that. So, no adjustment. The only possible reason for an adjustment is if North-South called the TD at the right time, ie when they found that they were misinformed, and the TD did not allow North to take his double back. Then I rule under TD error, perhaps For N/S: 4H-4 by East For E/W: 4S= by East -- 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 Fri Dec 1 05:32:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUIVx402148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:31:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUIVrt02144 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:31:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUBfUg04491 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:41:30 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:37:00 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200011301652.IAA29081@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200011301652.IAA29081@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00113011413001.04411@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Adam Beneschan wrote: \ > I still hold that the standards of "rational" or "irrational" or > "normal" or "careless" or "inferior" or whatever apply only to the > claiming side. These standards shouldn't be used to evaluate possible > plays by the other side. > > If a player claims without a statement, and there's an irrational line > of play that the claimer could take that would cost him a trick, we > don't consider that line when adjudicating the claim. I think we're > all agreed to that (except maybe DB). > > But if a player claims, and there's a way for the defense to defeat > the claim with a brilliant discard of an ace, for example, then we > don't allow the claim. It doesn't matter whether the opponents are > capable of finding such a play, or even if they're LOLs who would > consider discarding an ace under any circumstances to be "irrational". > We still don't allow the claim, as I see it. The ACBL has an interpretation which confirms this: I quoted it on BLML before. http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks for their side, the director should award them those tricks." There is nothing about rationality here. (I had raised a case in which a defender found a line for his partner which would cost a trick on an alternative layout but which might gain a trick if declarer made a normal misplay on the actual layout. The defender gets the extra trick even if it would be irrational to risk letting the contract make for an extra undertrick.) -- 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 Fri Dec 1 06:14:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUJDtq02180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:13:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUJDmt02176 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:13:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis89.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.89]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4U0017XQQS9B@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:13:43 +0100 (MET) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:13:39 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles In-reply-to: <$3JFfDAAFkJ6Ew8N@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001130201212.00a293b0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote: > My instinct is that nothing has gone wrong. Suppose the two hands >were: > >Expert partnership, team match, partnership often plays doubles for >takeout. >West East >S A2 S J97 >H KQJ5 H T764 >D AKQ3 D J642 >C J95 C A3 > > Would not North-South be asking for a ruling when West pulls a slow >double? Saying that because it was slow it cannot be a real penalty >double with [say] J9764 of trumps? Why didnt West double then, if they play "routinely" take-out doubles? Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 06:33:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUJWCY02195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:32:12 +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 eAUJW7t02191 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:32:07 +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; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:31:16 -0800 Message-ID: <010a01c05b04$2ed3c080$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200011301652.IAA29081@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:27:57 -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 From: "Adam Beneschan" > > But if a player claims, and there's a way for the defense to defeat > the claim with a brilliant discard of an ace, for example, then we > don't allow the claim. It doesn't matter whether the opponents are > capable of finding such a play, or even if they're LOLs who would > consider discarding an ace under any circumstances to be "irrational". > We still don't allow the claim, as I see it. > Yes. Otherwise the TD has to divine what defenders would have done based on their skill level (often unknown), which is a slippery slope down which the L12C3 enthusiasts have gone. I do not believe, however, that a brilliant defensive compound squeeze that NO ONE would find has to be assumed. So, the TD should ask himself, "Would *anyone* find such a line of defense?", not "Would this pair find such a line of defense?" in order to adjudicate the board "as equitably as possible to both sides." (L70A) 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 Fri Dec 1 06:46:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUJiti02216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:44:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUJipt02212 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:44:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id oa177178 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 05:36:47 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-157.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.157]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Toilet-Trained-MailRouter V2.9c 5/3576066); 01 Dec 2000 05:36:46 Message-ID: <038b01c05b04$91c0c3a0$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:06:21 +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 Grant Sterling wrote: > I was getting ready to compose a reply, but Eric has said almost >exactly what I intended to say: > >Eric Landau wrote: >>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. NS 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? >> >>Carefully. There was a clear break in tempo. W has LAs to >>pass. Did the huddle suggest passing? > [snip] >>Suppose E had takeout-double shape, had taken two minutes >>to double, and W had taken it out. Might N-S then claim that >>the slow double suggested the takeout? Can the same slow >>double suggest two different calls, depending on which is the >>winning one? >> >>It looks to me like E and W both knew that the double was >>undefined in their methods, E hoped his partner would work >>out that it was for penalties here, and his partner did. I see >>nothing that suggests that he was helped to do so by E's >>huddle. No infraction; no adjustment. > > If I was W, trying to figure out what the huddle suggested, I would >almost certainly _not_ think that E had a clear penalty double. >In fact, I would probably think that he had an off-shape takeout >double. >[After all, given the NS bidding, E _can't possibly have spades_.] >Frankly, I might, as an ethical player, _think I was >constrained to pass_! We are almost getting into the almost apocryphal situation where you have to tank before the Double in order to constrain your ethical partner to Pass**, because otherwise partner will always treat the double as takeout and take it out. This may have been the inadvertent outcome of East's tank. It would be interesting to ask West why he passed the double. We are getting into grey areas here; I think this case is difficult to adjudicate fairly. It seems to me to be a case where EW may have tried to do all the right ethical things - no slamming out a red Double card, no pulling the slow double - but that it might not be easy to show that that is what happened, due to self-serving statements being discounted somewhat, and the like. The key words seem to be: "partnership often plays doubles for takeout". Those of us who play that style would have a natural tendency to regard a quick double of 3S by East as "obviously takeout". Those adjudicators who personally play a more penalty-oriented approach to such doubles would naturally tend to think that a quick double would be "obviously penalties", but I'm not in that camp. As I said in my previous post, I think NS have a reasonable case, but to come up with a ruling without speaking more to EW: I couldn't do that. Is there anything anywhere in the Laws nowadays that suggests that very doubtful cases should go the non-offenders' way? Peter Gill Australia. ** I describe this as apocrphal because I've never heard of a verified case of someone admitting this happened at the table. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 07:31:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUKUjp02267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:30:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUKUft02262 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot21.domain3.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ba177503 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 06:18:15 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-157.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.157]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Decisive-MailRouter V2.9c 5/3584130); 01 Dec 2000 06:18:14 Message-ID: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 07:16:02 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Yogesh Abhyankar wrote: >>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. > > When a hand does not match an explanation then you consider >UI and MI. What explanation, do I hear? The failure to alert 3H. >Admittedly Yogesh has not said that but I am assuming it. If in >fact there is no alerting in this championship it is difficult to see >anything to rule on unless there was also a wrong explanation >and so the result certainly stands. > > So let us assume there was no alert, no explanation. West has >UI that his partner has forgotten the system - and he passed 4H. >He is one of the good guys! His pass of 4S once 4H was doubled >is automatic. East has no UI, so no adjustment based on UI. > > How about MI? After the double, East told the opponents that he >had got it wrong. At that moment a Director call would allow >North to take his double back. That double must stand - L21B3 >only allows an adjustment for calls that may not be changed. It's not clear to me why "that double must stand". Could you explain in more detail please? It's also not clear to me in Yogesh's post, whether the words: "opps called director and director asked to continue and finally allowed the result on board to stand" means that: (a) the Director was called before the end of the auction period and for some reason (Director's error? or because I don't understand the relevant Laws?) he did not allow North to take his double of 4H back (which most sane Norths would do, I expect), OR (b) the Director was called after the end of the auction period so it was too late for any rolling back of the auction. In this case, has North missed his chance by not calling the Director at the appropriate time? Or was the onus on EW to call the Director at the time of the correction of the explanation? Another complication which may be worth considering is that if North were correctly informed at the time he passed 3H, then he has an ideal hand for a 'takeout of spades' call (either Double or 3S depending on system). Now South would do something, possibly a responsive double of 4S (if NS's CC says that their responsive doubles are still on at this level). North is unlikely to pass a responsive double of 4S, and might bid 4NT, over which South bids 5D, which East is perhaps more likely to Pass than Double, holding only one diamond (or might he bid 5S?). This 5D contract may even escape for down one (minus 100) if declarer (NO) guesses correctly each time and East (Offender) misguesses each time: SA wins, D to ace, D to K, club to A, spade exit (bad guess) ruffed, DQ, C to K, DJ pitch H, club exit = 10 tricks. Peter Gill Australia. >So the only way either North or South can be damaged is South's >pass over 4H - and he is not going to want to change that. How about North's Pass of 3H? See my comments above. > So, no adjustment. > > The only possible reason for an adjustment is if North-South >called the TD at the right time, ie when they found that they >were misinformed, and the TD did not allow North to take his >double back. Then I rule under TD error, perhaps > >For N/S: 4H-4 by East >For E/W: 4S= by East -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 08:28:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAULSDR02333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:28:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAULS7t02329 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:28:07 +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 ; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:27:17 -0800 Message-ID: <017101c05b14$64208420$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200011301652.IAA29081@mailhub.irvine.com> <00113011413001.04411@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:15 -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 Grabiner wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > \ > > I still hold that the standards of "rational" or "irrational" or > > "normal" or "careless" or "inferior" or whatever apply only to the > > claiming side. These standards shouldn't be used to evaluate possible > > plays by the other side. > > > > If a player claims without a statement, and there's an irrational line > > of play that the claimer could take that would cost him a trick, we > > don't consider that line when adjudicating the claim. I think we're > > all agreed to that (except maybe DB). > > > > But if a player claims, and there's a way for the defense to defeat > > the claim with a brilliant discard of an ace, for example, then we > > don't allow the claim. It doesn't matter whether the opponents are > > capable of finding such a play, or even if they're LOLs who would > > consider discarding an ace under any circumstances to be "irrational". > > We still don't allow the claim, as I see it. > > The ACBL has an interpretation which confirms this: I quoted it on BLML > before. > > http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/LawsCommission.htm > > The March 21, 1998 minutes contain the statement: > "When a claim occurs, both opponents (including dummy in the case of a > defender's claim) have the right to inspect their opponent's cards and > confer before they acquiesce. If the non-claiming side can show a line > of play, consistent with the claim statement, that produces more tricks > for their side, the director should award them those tricks." > > There is nothing about rationality here. (I had raised a case in which > a defender found a line for his partner which would cost a trick on an > alternative layout but which might gain a trick if declarer made a > normal misplay on the actual layout. The defender gets the extra trick > even if it would be irrational to risk letting the contract make for an > extra undertrick.) > I don't see full confirmation of what Adam is saying in those words, which place the burden of finding the right line on the non-claiming side, not on the TD. I remember now that I read somewhere that the ACBL TD can give hints to an inexperienced pair, but should not otherwise point out any line that invalidates the claim. That seems right, and I take back my opinion that the TD should decide the matter hirself. Let the non-claiming side confer, and if they can't find a way to refute the claim, usuallly assume they never would find it in actual play. 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 Fri Dec 1 09:07:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUM6wi02369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:06:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thor.inter.net.il (thor.inter.net.il [192.114.186.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eAUM6pt02365 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:06:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-6-139.access.net.il [213.8.6.139] (may be forged)) by thor.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AFC67603; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:05:53 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A26CF85.68585C40@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:07:02 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Law List Subject: [BLML] Substitution of a Player Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The facts: The International Championships of the Banacurda Republic . Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones played in a 3 round MP tourney . They got 64% at the end of the first round , but very sadly Mr. Jones' father passed over that night. Mr. Jones left the hotel that night. Next morning Mr. Smith asked the Chief Tournament Director to accept Mr. Twojacks to play with him , as a substitute of Mr. Jones , who left for his father's burial. According to Law 4 (and 81C4 maybe ?) the CTD decided to accept the substitution - but in order to be on the safe side he discussed the substitution with the president of the SO - Mr. GreatBanacurda. After a short consillium Mr. GreatBanacurda accepted the substitution too. The Smith-Twojacks pair finished 3rd place after the third round. Before the prizes were distributed the Sponsor organization's tournament committee was asked by Mr. GreatBanacurda to cancel the substitution and rub off the Smith-Twojacks result. The CTD and some members of the tournament committee told the forum that according to the laws the committee has no legal right even to discuss the issue , according to the laws of duplicate bridge. But Mr. GreatBanacurda acted in the well known procedure of a Bana....na Republic and convinced the committee to decide : 1. The 3rd prize will not be awarded to the Smith-Twojacks pair. 2. Their will be a "court" ! where the Smith-Twojacks pair has the right to appeal the tournament committee decision. Mr. SmallOrange , the president of the Banacurda Bridge Federation was appointed as the "court president" and he called for the first session of the court in order to discuss : 1. What are the procedures for the substitution of the player !!! 2. What are the rights of the tournament committee to discuss appeals of procedural matters. 3. Is the court allowed -legally - to discuss and compel the tournament committee to accept his decisions. 4. What are the legal relations between the Banacurda Bridge Federation Law Committee and this "court"..... Please - I beg all of you to express your opinions about : 1.The CTD action. 2.The SO president behavior and the tournament committee decision. 3. What is the meaning of the "court" and what are - if any - the mutual relations between this 'court" and the Law Committee. Thank you for you important help 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 Fri Dec 1 09:30:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUMUBW02402 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:30:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUMU7t02398 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:30:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma831128 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:30:29 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-156.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.156]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Peppy-MailRouter V2.9c 15/526125); 01 Dec 2000 08:30:28 Message-ID: <061d01c05b1c$d5b82180$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:27:34 +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 Re-submitted with North's H10 corrected to H3. Sorry. Peter Gill wrote: >West asked me to submit this hand to BLML: > >NSW Teams Championship, Sydney, 27 November 2000 >Dealer S, nil vul > > 97432 > A3 > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 09:55:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUMtPs02421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eAUMtKt02417 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:55:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ca832028 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:55:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-156.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.156]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Chaotic-MailRouter V2.9c 15/536402); 01 Dec 2000 08:55:36 Message-ID: <063201c05b20$5860e4c0$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:53:23 +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 Richard Bley wrote: >>Expert partnership, team match, partnership often plays >>doubles for takeout. >>West East >>S A2 S J97 >>H KQJ5 H T764 >>D AKQ3 D J642 >>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, > >Why didn't West double then, if they play "routinely" take-out >doubles? Perhaps West's Pass showed 20-22 balanced? To takeout one's side to the four level on a balanced 20 count opposite a potential balanced yarborough would be a flawed method. Note that West thought North had the majors so he'd be doubling for takeout into the minors, hardly ideal. Without finding out from EW what the bidding really meant, I can't figure out this case, but I will try.... A very real possibility is that West passed the double because of his good hearts, thinking that partner might be endplayed into doubling on perhaps three small spades and a six count. And that if Pass suggested 20-22 balanced, then East had to stop and think for a while due to the explanation (which I will assume for the sake of argument to be incorrect, the original post didn't say). E thinks: "partner has 2+ spades, so RHO has clubs and LHO may be in a 3-1 fit. Should I just Pass and collect 500 or 600 or 700 against an uncertain game rather than risk pard removing my double?" This is getting interesting - the dud explanation may have been the cause of West's hesitation, and if West's hesitation then produced UI of which West took advantage, then the Mistaken Explanation has been the original cause of EW's infraction. I wonder if there is any sense in this line of reasoning? Also, "routinely" is IMO a bit more often than "often" (ref. 1st line of this post). Peter Gill. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 10:30:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUNU6R02449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:30:07 +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-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 eAUNTwt02441 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:29:58 +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 141d9C-000IjM-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:29:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:14:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints References: <200011301550.HAA27898@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200011301550.HAA27898@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 writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> 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. > >Question 1: Is an SO permitted to outlaw an agreement that isn't a >convention? Yes, as described in your Question 2: you have to be able to disclose it in accordance .. >Question 2: If an SO can use L40B to outlaw some agreements that >aren't conventions (because, say, such an agreement can't be disclosed >"in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization"), >couldn't this idea be used to make an end run around the rule that an >SO may not outlaw agreements that aren't conventions? I do not see the advantage. -- 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 Fri Dec 1 10:30:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eAUNU7f02450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:30:08 +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-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 eAUNTwt02442 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:29:59 +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 141d9B-000IjN-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:29:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:22:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >n y abhyankar wrote: > >>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 > >I think TD should have allowed North to change his double, per L21B1 >(assuming TD was called before South passed). Certainly, the TD must do this if called at the correct time. > Knowing that EW erred, >North would no doubt have passed, resulting in something like 4H-4. >Which is the score I would give. So why give this score? Either they called the TD, and he offered them the chance to take the double back, in which case there is no reason to give them it, or they did not call the TD so why should they gain an advantage from not following the Laws, or they called the TD and he did not follow the Law book, in which case let us give both sides a good score under L82C. -- 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 Fri Dec 1 11:36:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB10Yxb02525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:34:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB10Yqt02521 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:34:53 +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 141eA0-000GZE-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 00:34:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:24:51 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >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. > Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) -- 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 Fri Dec 1 12:20:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB11JYZ02553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB11JRt02549 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:19:28 +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 141er7-000BKr-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:19:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:18:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Substitution of a Player References: <3A26CF85.68585C40@inter.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3A26CF85.68585C40@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 <3A26CF85.68585C40@inter.net.il>, Dany Haimovici writes >The facts: > >The International Championships of the Banacurda Republic . >Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones played in a 3 round MP tourney . They got 64% at >the >end of the first round , but very sadly Mr. Jones' father passed over >that night. >Mr. Jones left the hotel that night. >Next morning Mr. Smith asked the Chief Tournament Director to accept >Mr. Twojacks to play with him , as a substitute of Mr. Jones , who left >for his father's burial. >According to Law 4 (and 81C4 maybe ?) the CTD decided to accept the >substitution - but in order to be on the safe side he discussed the >substitution >with the president of the SO - Mr. GreatBanacurda. After a short >consillium >Mr. GreatBanacurda accepted the substitution too. >The Smith-Twojacks pair finished 3rd place after the third round. >Before the prizes were distributed the Sponsor organization's tournament >committee was asked by Mr. GreatBanacurda to cancel the substitution >and rub off the Smith-Twojacks result. The CTD and some members of the >tournament committee told the forum that according to the laws the >committee has no legal right even to discuss the issue , according to >the laws of duplicate bridge. But Mr. GreatBanacurda acted in the well >known procedure of a Bana....na Republic and convinced the committee to >decide : >1. The 3rd prize will not be awarded to the Smith-Twojacks pair. >2. Their will be a "court" ! where the Smith-Twojacks pair has the right >to appeal >the tournament committee decision. > >Mr. SmallOrange , the president of the Banacurda Bridge Federation was >appointed as the "court president" and he called for the first session >of the >court in order to discuss : >1. What are the procedures for the substitution of the player !!! >2. What are the rights of the tournament committee to discuss appeals of >procedural matters. >3. Is the court allowed -legally - to discuss and compel the tournament >committee to accept his decisions. >4. What are the legal relations between the Banacurda Bridge Federation >Law Committee and this "court"..... > >Please - I beg all of you to express your opinions about : >1.The CTD action. Reasonable and legal. >2.The SO president behavior and the tournament committee decision. He should run for USA president on the democrat ticket >3. What is the meaning of the "court" and what are - if any - the mutual >relations between this 'court" and the Law Committee. > >Thank you for you important help > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 14:30:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB13TSi02646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:29:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB13TLt02642 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:29:22 +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 141gst-000OOz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:29:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:38:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@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 writes >> How about MI? After the double, East told the opponents that he >>had got it wrong. At that moment a Director call would allow >>North to take his double back. That double must stand - L21B3 >>only allows an adjustment for calls that may not be changed. > >It's not clear to me why "that double must stand". Could you >explain in more detail please? If you are misinformed and you call the TD then the TD can allow the last call by your side to be changed if it is affected by the MI under L21B1. This applies whether one of the oppos has called thereafter or not. Thus the player has to make a decision as to the correct action. For example, if the TD is called after 3H P 4H P; X P then the double may be changed if it is affected by the MI: the earlier passes over 3H and 4H may not be. L21B3 allows the TD to give an adjusted score "When it is too late to change a call" so the TD may adjust because of damage caused by the passes over 3H and 4H. But he may not adjust because of damage caused by the double: that could have been changed. Now people will say that there could be an adjustment when the TD is not called. Suppose in the current case that the doubler does not bother to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. What harm is there in that? There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the benefit of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited case perhaps it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might be better to double, depending on what happens. So, best for the player is to ignore L9 requiring players to call the TD - but only if the TD is going to give them an adjustment anyway - and L21B3 does not actually allow it. Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I believe they are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do not follow the Laws and I am sure that is wrong. While I personally have no doubts about the position you may be interested to know that at least one top-level lawman in the EBU thinks the opposite. There was a case at Brighton which will be considered at our December L&EC meeting and we shall thrash the principle out then. The case will be published in about a month, since all the Brighton appeals are to be published at about that time, and any official L&EC comment will be attached. The publishing of the Brighton appeals will be a new first, with comments from three members of BLML, but a friendly non-critical approach. I shall keep you informed. For anyone who cannot wait the case was written up by me for the Brighton bulletin - about number eight - and appears on the EBU website. [s] >>So the only way either North or South can be damaged is South's >>pass over 4H - and he is not going to want to change that. >How about North's Pass of 3H? See my comments above. True - I had missed that. -- 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 Fri Dec 1 14:48:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB13mVG02664 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:48:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta03-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 eB13mPt02660 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 14:48:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta03-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 1753790c58305fd3f286395c4a42fdc7) with SMTP id <20001201034800.SMLI14891.amsmta03-svc@witz> for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 04:48:00 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20001201044903.0104daa0@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 04:49:03 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask In-Reply-To: <061d01c05b1c$d5b82180$a7df36cb@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 09:27 AM 12/1/2000 +1100, you wrote: >Re-submitted with North's H10 corrected to H3. Sorry. > >Peter Gill wrote: >>West asked me to submit this hand to BLML: >> >>NSW Teams Championship, Sydney, 27 November 2000 >>Dealer S, nil vul >> >> 97432 >> A3 >> 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. >> i think W should call the TD after dummy showed his cards. why didnt he/she do this? as afar as i understand the system of NS, they in fact didnt have an agreement. I think N should correct the non-alert before W puts his lead open on the table. This fact should impose a PP for NS, and probable a revision of the result (3 NT -1) regards, anton >>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/ > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Dec 1 17:44:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB16hfT02808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:43:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [209.195.95.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB16hXt02804 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:43:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from etm1 (ip149.ts13.mn.dialup.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.64.149]) by cyberus.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3/Cyberus Online Inc.) with SMTP id BAA04998 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:43:27 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Glen Ashton" To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:42:16 -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) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001130104222.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If partner makes a slow penalty double, the ethical player might feel constrained to pass. For example 1H-1S-4H-4S-Double*-Pass-? *=after two minutes. So the question comes up, if partner makes a slow takeout double, what does the ethical player feel constrained to do. To illustrate: 1H-Pass-4H-Double*-Pass-? * after two minutes. The hesitation suggests that the double is not a clear takeout double: either with length in the takeout suit and/or shortness in one of the suits that the takeout implies. This may make it more likely pass would be correct, so that the ethical player may feel constrained to bid by a slow takeout double, the counterpoint to being constrained to pass by a slow penalty double. However in the case at hand the double was undefined the partnership, except that undefined doubles tend to be takeout. So doesn't the two minute hesitation aid the cause of the doubler, suggesting via tempo that the double is not straight forward. And since there was no immediate action by a bid directly over 2C doubled, doesn't it suggest the problem faced is likely length in the major held? The bidding goes 2C-Double(alert: majors)-Pass-3S-Pass-Pass-? The bidder knows that opener could not make a takeout double directly over 3S - looking at five spades the bidder knows that 3S doubled is the place to play, but wonders how to get to play 3S doubled. Long consideration is given to passing out 3S, playing for undoubled vulnerable down tricks. Finally a double is made. Yet with all this considered, the question still seems muddled to the committee. So the final question in the middle of this muddle was this: did the long hesitation by responder help to induce opener to find the right action. Just like 2C-Double-Pass-3S-Pass-Pass-Double for penalties but made slowly would suggest convertible values, does the same auction for Double likely for takeout but made slowly suggest good defensive values? Glen, who was not at the table -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Grant Sterling Sent: November 30, 2000 11:42 AM To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles I was getting ready to compose a reply, but Eric has said almost exactly what I intended to say: At 08:33 AM 11/30/2000 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 12:04 AM 11/30/00, glen 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? > >Carefully. There was a clear break in tempo. W has LAs to pass. Did >the huddle suggest passing? [snip] >Suppose E had takeout-double shape, had taken two minutes to double, >and W had taken it out. Might N-S then claim that the slow double >suggested the takeout? Can the same slow double suggest two different >calls, depending on which is the winning one? > >It looks to me like E and W both knew that the double was undefined in >their methods, E hoped his partner would work out that it was for >penalties here, and his partner did. I see nothing that suggests that >he was helped to do so by E's huddle. No infraction; no adjustment. If I was W, trying to figure out what the huddle suggested, I would almost certainly _not_ think that E had a clear penalty double. In fact, I would probably think that he had an off-shape takeout double. [After all, given the NS bidding, E _can't possibly have spades_.] Frankly, I might, as an ethical player, _think I was constrained to pass_! >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 Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 18:15:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB17FTA02839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:15:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB17FOt02835 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:15:24 +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 SAA00040 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:09:13 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:10:11 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:12:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/12/2000 07:06:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Glen Ashton wrote: [big snip] >West opens 2C, showing any GF or 20+ balanced. [big snip] In classical bidding theory, if an artificial 2C is game- forcing (or nearly game-forcing, say 23+ if balanced), then subsequent doubles of an opponent's overcall by either partner are penalties. This is because either partner can make a *takeout* pass, as the 2C opening is sufficiently strong (or has sufficient playing strength) to guarantee that an opponent will not declare an *un*doubled contract. But if the opening 2C could be as few as 20 hcp balanced, then it is conceivable that the hand could *belong* to the opponents. Therefore, if doubles after a 2C opening are undiscussed by this partnership, it is logical for one or both to assume that their *often* takeout double style would continue to apply. As TD and AC, I would rule that had East held a hand suitable for a takeout double on this auction, it was possible that the double would have been made in tempo, given that that was the partnership style. I would rule that the slow double contained UI to the effect that East was uncertain whether the double might be interpreted as takeout, leading to a possible disaster. (East may have been also thinking about the half-a-loaf strategy of bidding an unambiguous 3NT, which is again UI to West.) In zones where the iniquitous L12C3 does not apply, I would adjust the contract for both NS and EW to 5D by West (possibly doubled, depending on the layout of the NS cards). 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 Dec 1 19:04:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1840r02902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:04:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB183mt02890 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:03:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18332 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:03:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:59:55 +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> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@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: > > > 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. > See Ed, that you don't even yourself take the regulation literally ? By L9 the Director must always be called !!! So if it is an irregularity, always, then you should always call the TD. So, by your own admission, it only becomes an irregularity if the person hearing the explanation does not understand it. Then, calling the TD, or asking further questions, or whatever, becomes an action intended for partner, a "pro question". [snip the rest] I agree with most of what you are saying, though. But the pro question, is, should be, and should remain illegal. -- 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 Dec 1 19:04:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB183vq02901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:03:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB183kt02887 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:03:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18299 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:03:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 11:55:09 +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> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@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: > > >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. > Well, it is your interpretation that this must be interpreted literally. By giving a few examples, I tried to show you the fallacy of your interpretation. You revert to the literal text. I shall not revert to my examples. -- 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 Dec 1 19:04:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1840x02903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:04:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB183ot02893 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 19:03:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-96.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.96]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA18340 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 09:03:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A263A39.5B04933A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:30:01 +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] Another disputed claim References: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Chip, Welcome to the list. (can I have your full name - just for my records ?) 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. > > 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) > I have read Adam's replay and I agree with it 100%. The rule "no finesses can be taken" is shorthand. It's not even correct. "no winning finesses can be taken" is far more correct. If there are 2 possible lines, then the losing one counts. However, I find this claim very strange. How does one arrive at : > x > K xxx > AJTx without knowing whether or not the King is out ? One of the most important questions a director needs to ask when handling a claim is "Why did you claim ?". The reason often tells you what to rule. Without knowing that answer, it is often difficult. -- 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 Dec 1 21:41:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1AekC02997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:40:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1Aedt02993 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 21:40:40 +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 LAA25584; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:36:13 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA09737; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:40:29 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001201115144.007f3760@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:51:44 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask In-Reply-To: <002501c05ac4$d45676a0$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:58 30/11/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >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. AG : I'm a simple soul :-)) If 3H was intended as a transfer, North should mention it bzefore the openinf lead. He didn't. Adjusted score. What did I miss *this time* ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 1 22:44:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1BhsN03126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:43:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB1Bhgt03122 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:43:43 +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 LAA25436 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:43:32 GMT Message-ID: <3A278EE7.43051999@meteo.fr> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:43:35 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask References: <3.0.6.32.20001201115144.007f3760@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 : > > At 22:58 30/11/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: > >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. > > AG: I'm a simple soul :-)) If 3H was intended as a transfer, North should > mention it before the opening lead. He didn't. Adjusted score. What did I > miss *this time* ? > simple soul or not, N is not required to disclose his intents, but partnership agreements ans partnership experience. not the same thing, and something for the TD to investigate in this case. JP Rocafort > 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/ -- ___________________________________________________ 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 Fri Dec 1 22:51:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Bov003140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:50:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1Boot03136 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:50:51 +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 141oiC-0003FO-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:50:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 03:57:07 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst writes >>>In article , David Stevenson >>> writes >>>> 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. >Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) You are going to lose this one John! :) L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but refers to cards that must be played. So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. -- 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 Dec 2 02:25:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1FOjW03290 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:24:45 +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-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 eB1FOct03286 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:24:39 +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 141s35-000PSW-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:24:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:57:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] To ask or not to ask References: <002501c05ac4$d45676a0$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3.0.6.32.20001201115144.007f3760@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001201115144.007f3760@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 writes >AG : I'm a simple soul :-)) If 3H was intended as a transfer, North should >mention it bzefore the openinf lead. He didn't. Adjusted score. What did I >miss *this time* ? Two things. First, the discussion seems to be about what to do when it wasn't corrected: players do not always do what they should! Second, even if you mean 3H as a transfer, a failure to alert or explanation might remind you that you have the agreement wrong. Alternatively you might have no agreement but were guessing what pd would take 3H as. In these cases you were right not to correct. -- 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 Dec 2 04:35:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1HYmv03421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:34:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB1HYet03411 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive46b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.203]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA31443; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:34:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001801c05bbd$55ce3da0$cb10f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007f01c05a93$aaa05320$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:37:08 -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: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 12:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler > 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 > Surely there are rules...or is that really sure? Grammarians attempt to codify proper usage, then English speakers go and colloquially adopt what they will, then if it becomes widespread enough over a long enough period of time, grammarians often codify that. Thus Spanish has adopted usted, a third person form for most non-personal second person usages, thus English and French have adopted you (vous) for thou (tu), English universally except in archaic speech, French maintaining a distinction between the highly personal/child and the less personal you. Someday English may adopt a realistic equivilent of on, rather than the abominable misuse of they singular to overcome sexual political correctness. Already strict use of some old coventions has become rather pedantic...such as worrying whether to ever split an infinitive or to use a preposition to end a sentence with. People will continue to vote with their mouths, like y'know, duh. Some usages will stand the test of time, other's (hopefully like, y'know and duh) will be the cat's pajamas for awhile and then become liguistic liesure suits. In codifying law, it is best to use forms of the language that have been clearly established and defined. Most words do not get the enforced change that has been perpetrated upon the innocent adjective gay, and even there the antecedent meaning remains clear until an updated Law can be put in place to remove the unfortunate connotations that may have arisen. There is much to be said for not changing what is already clearly defined and understood when there are so many areas to address in which this is not the case. Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 04:54:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Hski03460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:54:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1Hset03456 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 04:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from wrightnet.demon.co.uk ([193.237.21.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 141uOJ-000ChH-0B for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:54:35 +0000 Message-ID: <1HP1ELA$W+J6Ew+F@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:54:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Steve Wright Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 5.00 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In article , David Stevenson writes [snip] > The publishing of the Brighton appeals will be a new first, with >comments from three members of BLML, but a friendly non-critical >approach. I shall keep you informed. > > For anyone who cannot wait the case was written up by me for the >Brighton bulletin - about number eight - and appears on the EBU website. > > [s] Can't seem to find it on the website. Can you post a link please? - -- Steve Wright -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBOiflv/I+4up1n/4bEQJDagCfWX3RPW9nZJGAa8GnrfkhlF/ynSIAn0NW rqlkXAs+ebnm+NAJfft7y9mV =fVax -----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 Dec 2 05:17:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IGai03486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:16:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1IGTt03482 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:16:30 +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 NAA04801 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:12:02 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:07:39 -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, it is your interpretation that this must be >interpreted literally. By giving a few examples, I tried to >show you the fallacy of your interpretation. >You revert to the literal text. I shall not revert to my >examples. If I remember correctly, your examples revolved around situations where all players have the same understanding of the meaning of "Muiderberg" or whatever the name is. Well and good, there's probably no need for adjudication if everyone is happy. *My* point is that in the ACBL, since there is a regulation that says that an explanation by name is insufficient, then an explanation by name is insufficient, whether or not all players are happy they know what's going on. The reg says it's insufficient. The reg doesn't say "it's insufficient, except when the players decide it isn't." If the non-offending side chooses not to call the TD, fine. In jurisdictions where there is no such regulation, players have no recourse except to ask for further information. In the ACBL, I think the existence of this regulation means that if a NOS is damaged because they accepted an explanation by name, and it later turns out there was a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the meaning, they are entitled to redress *even though they asked no further questions*. Do you disagree? Do others on this list disagree? If so, I'll write to the ACBL and ask for their ruling. :-) Analogy: if the law says driving faster than 55 miles per hour is illegal, then doing so is illegal, whether or not you get a speeding ticket, and whether or not everybody else is also speeding. 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/AwUBOifq972UW3au93vOEQIBagCgphov393VVZtE1dWP/e8cJ3gHXfUAnjwO JjEJJG32NREjYDCwLTCby6GH =rV4f -----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 Dec 2 05:26:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IQD703500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:26:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1IQ7t03496 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:26:07 +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 NAA12374 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:21:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:24:08 -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: >See Ed, that you don't even yourself take the regulation >literally ? >By L9 the Director must always be called !!! >So if it is an irregularity, always, then you should always >call the TD. >So, by your own admission, it only becomes an irregularity >if the person hearing the explanation does not understand >it. Nonsense. The fact that one chooses to ignore a law does not invalidate it. >Then, calling the TD, or asking further questions, or >whatever, becomes an action intended for partner, a "pro >question". So lemme see here. Assume I'm the pro (yeah, right :), and we're playing in the ACBL. Your partner makes a call, you alert, and when asked say "Muiderberg". Now, in fact all I remember about this convention is that people in Europe use it, but assume I think I know what you mean. Are you now saying that for me to ask for clarification is a "pro question"? Even when there's a regulation in effect that says "Muiderberg" is insufficient? I don't buy it. If I tell you (wearing your TD hat now) that I asked because I wasn't sure, are you going to believe me, or are you going to decide that's "self-serving" and I was really asking for partner's benefit? If I *am* sure, so what? There's still that pesky regulation. 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/AwUBOiftOb2UW3au93vOEQJ7aACcCOresEuWRuhKt4MqToKvhLuBt2wAoNAy ywE8wwFn1j0jXX2wOVDcLp8r =/Cpm -----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 Dec 2 05:34:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IXpi03516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:33:51 +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 eB1IXjt03512 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:33:46 +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 ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:32:53 -0800 Message-ID: <020d01c05bc5$347a7760$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <018b01c05a3e$78077240$f790e13f@oemcomputer> <3A263A39.5B04933A@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:28:02 -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 From: "Herman De Wael" > 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. > > > > 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) > > > > I have read Adam's replay and I agree with it 100%. > > The rule "no finesses can be taken" is shorthand. > It's not even correct. "no winning finesses can be taken" > is far more correct. If there are 2 possible lines, then > the losing one counts. But, as of 1997, the losing line cannot be an irrational one. "Careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." In this case the losing line is quite normal. > > However, I find this claim very strange. > > How does one arrive at : > > > x > > K xxx > > AJTx > > without knowing whether or not the King is out ? This sort of situation comes up once in a while, it's not at all strange. Scenario: Declarer took an earlier finesse, which seemed to work, and then naively assumed that the king was onside (while misjudging the suit's distribution) when claiming the rest of the tricks. The king-holder bravely held up with a doubleton king earlier in the play, hoping that just this sort of ending would occur. > One of the most important questions a director needs to ask > when handling a claim is "Why did you claim ?". Not pertinent. The right question is "What statement did you make at the time of the claim?" Let's say the answer is "I have a proven double squeeze." Then, if the opponents do not acquiesce, the TD says, "Please explain what you meant by your statement." "When I cash the last club, West must guard hearts, East must guard spades, so neither can guard diamonds." Since that line of play was embraced in the original clarification statement, it is allowed (L70D). If the opponents still don't see it, tough. The TD can enforce their acquiescence. It has been known for a TD or AC to require the claimer to cash his cards in the wrong order, losing the squeeze, but I would want to see the justification for that decision (not implying that it can't be a correct one). > > The reason often tells you what to rule. > > Without knowing that answer, it is often difficult. Not in this case. 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 Sat Dec 2 05:35:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IZOP03534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:35:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f182.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.182]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB1IZIt03530 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:35:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:35:15 -0800 Received: from 172.146.109.196 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 01 Dec 2000 18:35:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.146.109.196] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Way off-topic (Was: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:35:15 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2000 18:35:15.0572 (UTC) FILETIME=[72997B40:01C05BC5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Craig Senior" >Surely there are rules...or is that really sure? Maybe, but the rules are derived from the whims of society rather than society being bound to the rules. >Someday English may adopt a >realistic equivilent of on, rather than the abominable misuse of they >singular to overcome sexual political correctness. This is hardly abominable. Both Finnish and Russian use the 2nd person plural as the polite form even when addressing only one person. Using the 3rd person plural is no less weird. Maybe English should adopt hän (he/she) from Finnish as it has no grammatical gender anywhere. >In codifying law, it is best to use forms of the language that have >been clearly established and defined. Most words do not get the enforced >change that has been perpetrated upon the innocent adjective gay, and even >there the antecedent meaning remains clear until an updated Law can be put >in place to remove the unfortunate connotations that may have arisen. Language is power. If you're curious, check out the first chapter of Laurie Essig's _Queer in Russia_ for some thoughts on how lack of words with such meaning hinder the forming of a collective conscience. (There are many other books with a slant on sociology that express the same idea, but none of them come to mind at the moment.) Also, the perversion of the word queer was thought-out, deliberate, and successful. >There >is much to be said for not changing what is already clearly defined and >understood when there are so many areas to address in which this is not the >case. The vast majority of the people who use the language have no interest in this. Like it or not, they are in control of the language by their sheer numbers. -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 Sat Dec 2 05:54:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IrkB03591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:53:46 +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 eB1Irct03586 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:53:39 +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 141vJK-0007N7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:53:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:50:55 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes >>In article <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson >> writes >>>John (MadDog) Probst writes >>>>In article , David Stevenson >>>> writes > >>>>> 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. > >>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) > > You are going to lose this one John! :) > and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is played. I'm going to win this one :)) > L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but >refers to cards that must be played. > > So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has >maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, >which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - >and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. > -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 05:59:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1IwuI03609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:58:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1Iwot03605 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 05:58:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panther1204.eiu.edu (Panther1204.eiu.edu [139.67.12.189]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id MAA13607 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:59:24 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001201125957.007b3a80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:59:57 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Therefore, if doubles after a 2C opening are >undiscussed by this partnership, it is logical >for one or both to assume that their *often* >takeout double style would continue to apply. > >As TD and AC, I would rule that had East held >a hand suitable for a takeout double on this >auction, it was possible that the double would >have been made in tempo, given that that was >the partnership style. I would rule that >the slow double contained UI to the effect >that East was uncertain whether the double >might be interpreted as takeout, leading to a >possible disaster. (East may have been also >thinking about the half-a-loaf strategy of >bidding an unambiguous 3NT, which is >again UI to West.) But this still leaves out what seemed to me to be the most obvious possibility--that E has a hand unsuitable for a takeout double because he's _missing one of the three suits_. NS's bidding clearly and unmistakeably shows that E does not have a spade stack. [Of course, he in fact does, because NS has either misexplained or misbid.] If I was W, I would never read E's hesitation as showing a penalty double. I would assume the UI is showing an off-shape TO double. I have no clue what call is suggested by the UI that the takeout double is off-shape, but I strongly doubt if 'Pass' is the answer. >Best wishes > >R 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 Dec 2 06:04:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1J47V03635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:04:07 +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 eB1J41t03631 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:04:02 +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; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:03:10 -0800 Message-ID: <021801c05bc9$6f73fb80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 10:55:47 -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: > > > > 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. > > > > Well, it is your interpretation that this must be > interpreted literally. By giving a few examples, I tried to > show you the fallacy of your interpretation. > You revert to the literal text. I shall not revert to my > examples. > The ACBL's stance in this regard is not entirely clear. Ed cites the Alert Procedure correctly, which seems to allow no exceptions to the rule that a full explanation must be given when an Alerted call is questioned. However, the Principle of Full Disclosure (in the ACBL Code of Active Ethics pamphlet) implies a more reasonable approach. The example given there is for a weak two bid, but I believe the procedure described applies to Alerted calls as well as to what is known only from the CC. What the PFD says is that if the short explanation given (in this case by the CC, "weak two bid") does not suffice, an opponent can ask "Would you tell me more.." At that time "all inferences, restrictions, and tendencies [must] be made known..." Logically the same procedure would apply to the questioning of an Alerted bid. Yes, the meaning of the call should be given, not the name, but when there is no doubt, and I mean zero doubt, that the opponents will understand the meaning from the name (e.g., "Stayman") the meaning should be given. Some people find it embarrassing to ask what a named convention means, thinking it reveals their ignorance, and they should not have to ask. However, the meaning given can be short (e.g., "Asks if I have a full opening bid"). Then, going by the PFD, the opponent may ask the "Would you tell me more.." question and get all the details. Perhaps in the case of an Alert, the explainer should be required to offer a full explanation without being asked, after giving an abbreviated meaning. By copy of this e-mail, I ask Gary Blaiss, CTD for the ACBL, if he agrees with me on the above. 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 Sat Dec 2 06:06:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1J6W703654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:06:32 +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.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eB1J6Jt03649 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:06:25 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 10926 invoked for bounce); 1 Dec 2000 18:39:32 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-41-70.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.70) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 18:39:32 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c05bc6$5c22a340$46291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 18:20:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "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? I think this stinks. This might be a case of the dreaded "reverse hesitation" double (double fast for takeout, double slow for penalties, you "ethical" partner will pass the slow double). I report E/W to the national authorities. As to the ruling on the actual hand, I will have lots of questions to both E/W and N/S. W did not takeout-X 3S, W's pass over 3S was not alerted, and N obviously does not have the "both majors" hand S has alerted. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 06:29:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1JTL903717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:29:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eB1JTDt03713 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:29:14 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 32289 invoked for bounce); 1 Dec 2000 19:29:10 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-57-120.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.120) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 1 Dec 2000 19:29:10 -0000 Message-ID: <003e01c05bcd$4b07ce80$46291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "BLML" References: <3A1E2C00.7189BBE9@pn2.vsnl.net.in> <3A218BAD.FB1D818A@inter.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] can he pass Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 20:30:47 +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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Dany Haimovici" wrote: > 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. 1% making 6 is still too generous to offenders with two missing aces, both in the hand of the opening leader. On a H lead, declarer might lose the DJ, too. I adjust to 6NTx-1. Thomas > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 06:40:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Je9s03749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:40:09 +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 eB1Je3t03745 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:40:03 +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 LAA24588; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:39:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200012011939.LAA24588@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Another disputed claim In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 10:28:02 PST." <020d01c05bc5$347a7760$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:39:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > 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. > > > > > > Declarer claimed saying his clubs were good. . . [snip] > > However, I find this claim very strange. > > > > How does one arrive at : > > > > > x > > > K xxx > > > AJTx > > > > without knowing whether or not the King is out ? > > This sort of situation comes up once in a while, it's not at all > strange. Scenario: Declarer took an earlier finesse, which seemed to > work, and then naively assumed that the king was onside (while > misjudging the suit's distribution) when claiming the rest of the > tricks. The king-holder bravely held up with a doubleton king > earlier in the play, hoping that just this sort of ending would > occur. Well, that's one possibility. But if I were the claimer, a more likely possibility would be insufficient attention due to caffeine deficiency. That is, I just would have forgotten the king of clubs is still outstanding. Maybe I remembered seeing the king of spades played earlier and my memory got botched up and told me it was the king of clubs. This isn't all that unlikely; this sort of thing has happened to me a number of times, although it hasn't happened in recent years, because I've been learning to focus on the game more and I've learned to always have a cup of coffee on the table when I play, which there's no room for on the table so I have to put it on top of my convention card, which means the opponents can't easily pick it up to look at it (the convention card, not the coffee), which ties in to some other threads that have been discussed on BLML, but I'm getting off topic now. However, if I forgot the king of clubs was out and I claimed with this hand, and an opponent showed me that he had the club king, I think I'd just concede the rest of the tricks without fighting. While there are some people in this country, at the bridge table and elsewhere, who after they lose something try very hard to find a permutation of the laws that would turn the loss into a win, I don't really see myself acting that way. I blew it, I lose, I'd have no problem conceding gracefully. -- 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 Dec 2 06:43:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Jh9h03772 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:43:09 +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 eB1Jh3t03768 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 06:43:03 +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 LAA24677; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:42:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200012011942.LAA24677@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 "Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:37:08 PST." <001801c05bbd$55ce3da0$cb10f7a5@oemcomputer> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 11:43:00 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior wrote: > . . .Thus Spanish has adopted usted, a third > person form for most non-personal second person usages . . . I thought the Spanish speakers in Spain still used the second person. Am I wrong about this? Or are you perhaps thinking about the language called "Latin American", a mutant language with a vague resemblance to Spanish . . . :) -- 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 Dec 2 07:19:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1KIoH03880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:18:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f51.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB1KIit03876 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:18:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:18:41 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 01 Dec 2000 20:18:41 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:18:41 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Dec 2000 20:18:41.0651 (UTC) FILETIME=[E5B5FC30:01C05BD3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is >played. I'm going to win this one :)) No, it's face up before it's quitted. Was the card face up or played first is a chicken and egg problem and the answer is probably simultaneous. 45C2 - The card must be played. "Declarer must play a card ... maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has [already] been played." You must do in the future something which has already been done in the past? 45C2 is in effect an extension of 45A. 45A - In order to play a card, you must detach it from your hand and face it. Liberty allowed via 45C2 that it need not be faced on the table. Decide what you want, but forcing declarer to play a card not yet exposed to the defenders is somewhat silly and would only invoke declarer's ire. And this is still weird because a defender can expose his card to declarer and still not have played it. -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 Sat Dec 2 07:44:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1KiHs03951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:44:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1KiAt03946 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:44:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Drhq05272; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:53:43 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:47:17 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120113534304.04945@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 01 Dec 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > If I remember correctly, your examples revolved around situations > where all players have the same understanding of the meaning of > "Muiderberg" or whatever the name is. Well and good, there's probably > no need for adjudication if everyone is happy. *My* point is that in > the ACBL, since there is a regulation that says that an explanation > by name is insufficient, then an explanation by name is insufficient, > whether or not all players are happy they know what's going on. The > reg says it's insufficient. The reg doesn't say "it's insufficient, > except when the players decide it isn't." If the non-offending side > chooses not to call the TD, fine. And this is the common precedure for many minor technical infractions. It's common for a question at the end of the auction to disclose that there was a failure to alert. The TD is supposed to be summoned when the explanation is corrected, but usually nobody bothers. I don't call the TD myself when I correct partner's failure to alert if it is unlikely that there was any damage or UI problem; yes, I know that this is a violation of the letter of the Law. The situation is the same here. Answering "Stayman", "Blackwood", "Gerber", or "Flannery" in response to a question is an infraction, but nobody will call the TD since it is clear that there is no damage. Answering "Brozel" is an infraction, and leaves you open to an adverse ruling if the opponents were misled by the meaning of Brozel. > In jurisdictions where there is no such regulation, players have no > recourse except to ask for further information. In the ACBL, I think > the existence of this regulation means that if a NOS is damaged > because they accepted an explanation by name, and it later turns out > there was a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the > meaning, they are entitled to redress *even though they asked no > further questions*. Do you disagree? Do others on this list disagree? > If so, I'll write to the ACBL and ask for their ruling. :-) > > Analogy: if the law says driving faster than 55 miles per hour is > illegal, then doing so is illegal, whether or not you get a speeding > ticket, and whether or not everybody else is also speeding. > > 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/AwUBOifq972UW3au93vOEQIBagCgphov393VVZtE1dWP/e8cJ3gHXfUAnjwO > JjEJJG32NREjYDCwLTCby6GH > =rV4f > -----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/ -- 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 Dec 2 07:48:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Kmaq03976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:48:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1KmUt03972 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:48:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1Dw7Q05276 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:58:07 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 13:53:54 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120113580705.04945@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 01 Dec 2000, Ed Reppert wrote: > In jurisdictions where there is no such regulation, players have no > recourse except to ask for further information. In the ACBL, I think > the existence of this regulation means that if a NOS is damaged > because they accepted an explanation by name, and it later turns out > there was a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the > meaning, they are entitled to redress *even though they asked no > further questions*. Do you disagree? Do others on this list disagree? > If so, I'll write to the ACBL and ask for their ruling. :-) I would semi-agree. Good players are expected to preotect themselves against incomplete explanations, just as they are against failures to alert and unannounced skip-bids. If a bid is explained as "Lebensohl" and it matters to an expert questioner whether the bid shows or denies a stopper, he may not get an adjustment if he does not ask a follow-up question. Even an expert is not expected to know all the nuances of every convention, and I wouldn't deny an adjustment for an expert who didn't ask about "Brozel" and assumed it to be takeout. -- 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 Dec 2 08:10:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1LAeX04038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 08:10:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1LAXt04034 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 08:10:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet0b.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.11]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00220 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 16:10:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001201160828.0129acec@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 16:08:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] schmoints In-Reply-To: <200011301550.HAA27898@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 07:50 AM 11/30/2000 PST, Adam wrote: >Question 1: Is an SO permitted to outlaw an agreement that isn't a >convention? > >Question 2: If an SO can use L40B to outlaw some agreements that >aren't conventions (because, say, such an agreement can't be disclosed >"in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization"), >couldn't this idea be used to make an end run around the rule that an >SO may not outlaw agreements that aren't conventions? Right. Like the SO's really need another loophole for making such end runs. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 09:28:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1MRnT04243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:27:49 +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.screaming.net (smtp.screaming.net [212.49.224.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB1MRgt04239 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 09:27:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from paul (dyn89-ras25.screaming.net [212.49.248.89]) by smtp.screaming.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03839 for ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:31:33 GMT Message-ID: <006301c05be6$4834cf00$59f831d4@paul> From: "Paul Gipson" To: References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <1HP1ELA$W+J6Ew+F@wrightnet.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 22:30:15 -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 5.00.3018.1300 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The bulletin, in PDF format, can be found at http://www.ebu.co.uk/b00bul8.pdf This is linked from the principal Brighton page at http://www.ebu.co.uk/brighton2000.htm Regards paul ----------------------------------------- Paul Gipson Sandhurst, England [Remove Y from return email address] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Wright" To: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 5:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention [snip] > The publishing of the Brighton appeals will be a new first, with >comments from three members of BLML, but a friendly non-critical >approach. I shall keep you informed. > > For anyone who cannot wait the case was written up by me for the >Brighton bulletin - about number eight - and appears on the EBU website. > > [s] Can't seem to find it on the website. Can you post a link please? - -- Steve Wright -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 10:28:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB1NReo04405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:27:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB1NRYt04401 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:27:35 +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 ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:26:44 -0800 Message-ID: <02b901c05bee$40b32440$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <03e701c05a28$5c0cac60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007f01c05a93$aaa05320$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001801c05bbd$55ce3da0$cb10f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 15:19:38 -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: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > > > > 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 > > > Surely there are rules...or is that really sure? Grammarians attempt to > codify proper usage, then English speakers go and colloquially adopt what > they will, then if it becomes widespread enough over a long enough period of > time, grammarians often codify that. The trouble is, Craig, that English grammarians thought they could prescribe what good grammar should be for English without looking at how people were using the language. They regarded Latin, an inflectional language, as the right model for English, a distributive language, and tried to shoehorn English into that mold. This resulted in the rule that words connected by linking verbs must have the same case, as in "That is she over there," something that no one but prigs would say, and that an infinitive must not be split because that doesn't happen in Latin. They decided many rules on what seemed to them a logical basis, such as that "preposition" (their own word!) means standing before, and therefore a preposition must not end a sentence. They restrict their examination of language to sentences made up to fit the rules, ignoring those that don't. > In codifying law, it is best to use forms of the language that have > been clearly established and defined. Yes, but by effective writers and speakers, not by grammarians. Ever hear one of them give an effective speech, or read one of their books that reads well? I have known a number of women English teachers who are believed by everyone to have been raised in a non-English-speaking country, because "she speaks such fine English, she must have learned it in school." It's pretty sad when one has to talk like a foreigner to be considered a proper user of English. The French wouldn't stand for that, and we shouldn't either. 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 Sat Dec 2 12:41:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB21deg04730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:39:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB21dZt04726 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:39:35 +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 ; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:38:45 -0800 Message-ID: <030a01c05c00$b24b2b40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Egregious error Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:33:51 -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 Rich Colker, Mr. Efficiency, has supplied me with the ACBLLC words pertaining to actions that might annul redress for an infraction. He found them tucked away in an ACBLScore Tech File under "Huddles and Hesitations." I had searched for this official statement a long time without success. >Here is the > relevant text of the LC's decision from 1991 Indianapolis: > > ...the Commission reaffirmed that in order to fully protect > his rights to petition for redress following an infraction by > an opponent, a player must "play bridge" at some reasonable > level: an egregious error may well be grounds to cause him to > be awarded the score actually achieved. The particular case > involved a blatantly bad play which permitted fulfillment of a > contract later judged to be invalid because of a violation of > Law 73F1. The position that any result achieved after a > to-be-disallowed action is not to be considered (because the > non-offenders should never have been in the position to commit > the egregious error) was declared invalid. This extends to > damage from misinformation as well as what may appear to be > "free swings" or "double shots." By the way, Rich tells me, Edgar Kaplan chaired the meeting at which this decision was rendered. Given the dictionary definition of "egregious," reading the whole statement I don't see that this is far from the WBFLC's "irrational, wild, or gambling" wording. Unfortunately, some in ACBL-land have seized on the words "play bridge" to require too high a standard of bidding or play for the NOS. This seems to represent a difference of opinion with the ACBLLC, not with the WBFLC. 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 Sat Dec 2 13:00:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB21xoa04810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:59:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB21xjt04806 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:59:45 +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; Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:58:54 -0800 Message-ID: <031e01c05c03$83287d60$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200012011942.LAA24677@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 17:56:38 -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: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Friday, December 01, 2000 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: L12C3 calcs and Butler > > Craig Senior wrote: > > > . . .Thus Spanish has adopted usted, a third > > person form for most non-personal second person usages . . . > > I thought the Spanish speakers in Spain still used the second person. > Am I wrong about this? Or are you perhaps thinking about the language > called "Latin American", a mutant language with a vague resemblance to > Spanish . . . > > :) > -- Adam > I think "usted" originally came from something like "vuestra excellencia," indeed a third person form. AFIK, there isn't much difference between the usages of the familiar "tu" and polite "usted" between Latin America and Spain. 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 Dec 2 13:53:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB22qUS04949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB22qJt04941 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:52:20 +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 1422mX-000LWX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:52:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:06:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >Herman De Wael wrote: > >>See Ed, that you don't even yourself take the regulation >>literally ? >>By L9 the Director must always be called !!! >>So if it is an irregularity, always, then you should always >>call the TD. >>So, by your own admission, it only becomes an irregularity >>if the person hearing the explanation does not understand >>it. > >Nonsense. The fact that one chooses to ignore a law does not invalidate it. > >>Then, calling the TD, or asking further questions, or >>whatever, becomes an action intended for partner, a "pro >>question". > >So lemme see here. Assume I'm the pro (yeah, right :), and we're >playing in the ACBL. Your partner makes a call, you alert, and when >asked say "Muiderberg". Now, in fact all I remember about this >convention is that people in Europe use it, but assume I think I know >what you mean. Are you now saying that for me to ask for >clarification is a "pro question"? Even when there's a regulation in >effect that says "Muiderberg" is insufficient? I don't buy it. If I >tell you (wearing your TD hat now) that I asked because I wasn't >sure, are you going to believe me, or are you going to decide that's >"self-serving" and I was really asking for partner's benefit? If I >*am* sure, so what? There's still that pesky regulation. Nonsense. The fact that one chooses to ignore a law does not invalidate it. Hullo? Where have I heard this before? Seriously, Ed, you must not get the cart before the horse. First you decide what is illegal, then you decide how to police it. You seem to be putting difficulties in policing into the equation of what is illegal. I tell you what I am going to do: I am going to wait till I am called to your table: I am going to explain to you that and why hte pro question is illegal: then I am going to ask you whether your question was a pro question or not. How are you [1] going to answer me, assuming you are playing as a pro? [1] And for once I mean this as a personal question. -- 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 Dec 2 13:53:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB22qUC04950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:52:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB22qJt04942 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 13:52:20 +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 1422mX-000LWY-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:52:15 +0000 Message-ID: <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:08:28 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John, David, John, David, John, David wrote >>>>>> 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. >>>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) >> You are going to lose this one John! :) >and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is >played. I'm going to win this one :)) No you are not: you do not seem to have read my answer below. >> L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but >>refers to cards that must be played. >> >> So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has >>maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, >>which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - >>and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. -- 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 Dec 2 17:35:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB26YP105536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:34:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB26YIt05532 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 17:34:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis214.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.214]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.1999.06.13.00.20) with ESMTP id <0G4X00E2UGWXC5@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 07:34:12 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 07:34:05 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-reply-to: <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> X-Sender: Richard.Bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@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: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:08 02.12.2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >John, David, John, David, John, David wrote > > >>>>>> 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. > >>>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) > >> You are going to lose this one John! :) > >and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is > >played. I'm going to win this one :)) > > No you are not: you do not seem to have read my answer below. > > >> L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but > >>refers to cards that must be played. > >> > >> So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has > >>maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, > >>which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - > >>and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. > What this rule meant is that: The declarer is able to play a card without showing it, but instead putting it on the pile of cardswhich are already played. You know what I mean: II--II-- etc. In this case it is not necessary that the card had to be shown to the defenders. But in the case which I mentioned the played cards are in a different place then the card which the declarer wants to play. So after reading this discussion I found a solution for >>>myself<<<: The card is played in the sense of 45C2 last part of the sentence, when the card is handled AS a played card by this specific declarer. Regularly this is only the case when the declarer puts it on the pile of cards which are played before. Satisfied with my solution ;-))) Cheers Richard >-- >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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 2 21:21:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2AKga06489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:20:42 +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 eB2AKWt06476 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:20:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-91.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.91]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02433 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:20:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A278C23.56EEFA39@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:31:47 +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] Sorry I forgot our convention References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Two comments : > > Martin Sinot writes > > > Knowing that EW erred, No Martin, wrong start. Should be : "Being able to deduce that EW erred,". The distinction is important. N has no right to know that EW erred. However, it seems very strange to change a 3Sp pre-empt into 4He, if one can play in hearts by simply passing. So if N learns the system, he is likely to deduce that they erred. > >North would no doubt have passed, resulting in something like 4H-4. > >Which is the score I would give. > Rest of your comment more or less correct, barring David's remark : David Stevenson replied: > So why give this score? > > Either > they called the TD, and he offered them the chance to take the double > back, in which case there is no reason to give them it, or > (*)(**) > they did not call the TD so why should they gain an advantage from not > following the Laws, or > (**) > they called the TD and he did not follow the Law book, in which case let > us give both sides a good score under L82C. > (*) as you see, two remarks on three points : (*) Is it so clear that TD should offer to take the double back ? L21B1 contains "when it is probable that he made the call as a result of". When should the TD make the decision that it is probable ? I sometimes see people make a fast pass, and then want to change their call after a slowish alert in a common situation where the alert is not unexpected. I believe that is not allowed. So I ask again, if you get called in this case, do you allow North to retract his double, now he also knows that they are going to spades after all ? (**) You know as well as I do, David, that people don't know when to call the TD. Certainly in MI cases, they are used to changes being made after the play. Are you really so stringent on the "no call at that time, no change later" bit ? Against all players equally ? -- 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 Dec 2 21:21:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2AKjo06492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:20:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB2AKat06481 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 21:20:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-91.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.91]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA02441 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:20:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A278FF1.F30AA89D@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 12:48:01 +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] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@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: > > > Now people will say that there could be an adjustment when the TD is > not called. Suppose in the current case that the doubler does not > bother to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. What > harm is there in that? > > There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the benefit > of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited case perhaps > it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might be better to > double, depending on what happens. So, best for the player is to ignore > L9 requiring players to call the TD - but only if the TD is going to > give them an adjustment anyway - and L21B3 does not actually allow it. > > Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I believe they > are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do not follow the > Laws and I am sure that is wrong. > Consider that an answer to my question in a different post. Thanks David, for enlightening us. I am certain that this is the correct type of ruling, not certain that it is applied strictly in all areas. However, what should I do as TD ? I am not the only TD around. If I am the only one that would strictly apply this principle, am I not in fact underperforming in my protection of NOs (NO at first). -- 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 Dec 3 04:51:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2HoNa08439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:50:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB2HoHt08435 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:50:18 +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 MAA01817 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:50:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA20105 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:50:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:50:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012021750.MAA20105@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Glen Ashton" > 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? I'd start by looking at L72B1. Could East have expected, given the EW agreements, that his long pause might make it more likely for West to pass? There are many other aspects to consider, as others have mentioned. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 3 04:58:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2Hwdf08466 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:58:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB2HwXt08462 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:58:34 +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 MAA01903 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:58:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA20253 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:58:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:58:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Peter Gill" > It's also not clear to me in Yogesh's post, whether the words: > "opps called director and director asked to continue and finally > allowed the result on board to stand" means that: > > (a) the Director was called before the end of the auction period > and for some reason (Director's error? or because I don't > understand the relevant Laws?) he did not allow North to take his > double of 4H back (which most sane Norths would do, I expect), OR That's how I read the original post, but of course we don't know for sure. Exactly when was the TD called? If he was called at the proper time and failed to give North his option to change the double, it looks like TD error to me. > (b) the Director was called after the end of the auction period > so it was too late for any rolling back of the auction. In this case, > has North missed his chance by not calling the Director at the > appropriate time? Or was the onus on EW to call the Director > at the time of the correction of the explanation? L75D (law number from memory so might be wrong) says that EW, specifically East in this case, is obliged to call the TD _before_ offering the correction. While this law is often ignored, I don't think it's right to take away North's right of redress just because the TD wasn't summoned at the proper time. I might make an exception (L9?) if NS are very experienced and EW are not. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 3 05:01:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2I1WH08492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:01:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB2I1Qt08487 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 05:01:27 +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 ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:00:37 -0800 Message-ID: <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A278FF1.F30AA89D@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 10:00:22 -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 From: "Herman De Wael" > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > Now people will say that there could be an adjustment when the TD is > > not called. Suppose in the current case that the doubler does not > > bother to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. What > > harm is there in that? > > > > There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the benefit > > of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited case perhaps > > it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might be better to > > double, depending on what happens. So, best for the player is to ignore > > L9 requiring players to call the TD - but only if the TD is going to > > give them an adjustment anyway - and L21B3 does not actually allow it. > > > > Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I believe they > > are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do not follow the > > Laws and I am sure that is wrong. > > > > Consider that an answer to my question in a different post. > Thanks David, for enlightening us. > I am certain that this is the correct type of ruling, not > certain that it is applied strictly in all areas. > > However, what should I do as TD ? > I am not the only TD around. > If I am the only one that would strictly apply this > principle, am I not in fact underperforming in my protection > of NOs (NO at first). > I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder if David has this quite right. L9B1(a): When to Summon The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone else calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the TD at once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. 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 Sun Dec 3 06:03:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2J31t08635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:03:01 +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 eB2J2st08630 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 06:02:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2CCVl05616 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 12:12:31 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: ""Bridge.Laws" "@psa836.la.asu.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 11:57:13 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A278FF1.F30AA89D@village.uunet.be> <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120212123101.05593@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 02 Dec 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > Now people will say that there could be an adjustment when the > TD is > > > not called. Suppose in the current case that the doubler does > not > > > bother to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. > What > > > harm is there in that? > > > > > > There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the > benefit > > > of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited case > perhaps > > > it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might be better > to > > > double, depending on what happens. So, best for the player is > to ignore > > > L9 requiring players to call the TD - but only if the TD is > going to > > > give them an adjustment anyway - and L21B3 does not actually > allow it. > > > > > > Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I > believe they > > > are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do not > follow the > > > Laws and I am sure that is wrong. > > > > > > > Consider that an answer to my question in a different post. > > Thanks David, for enlightening us. > > I am certain that this is the correct type of ruling, not > > certain that it is applied strictly in all areas. > > > > However, what should I do as TD ? > > I am not the only TD around. > > If I am the only one that would strictly apply this > > principle, am I not in fact underperforming in my protection > > of NOs (NO at first). > > > I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder if David has this > quite right. > > L9B1(a): When to Summon > > The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to > an irregularity. > > If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone else > calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the TD at > once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. This is clearly correct, and there are several cases in which it 1s applied. If the wrong hand leads and you are aware that it was the wrong hand, you may still follow to the lead, accepting it without calling the TD. Another example is a revoke. If an opponent revokes, you may wait until the end of the hand to claim the penalty tricks; there is no obligation to call the TD as soon as the player plays a card of the revoke suit. Here, the delayed TD call is officially allowed by the rules out of necessity. (For example, dummy may claim that a defender revoked, but only after the end of the hand.) But if a player fails to call the TD when he is aware of an irregularity and could draw attention to it, he may jeopardize his rights by drawing attention later. If UI/MI is established by a corrected explanation, that is the proper time to call the director if there could have been damage, particularly since there is a rule which requires the TD to be called. Otherwise, the NOS may gain an advantage by delaying the director call beyond what they were entitled to in the rules. In such cases, the adjustment should be denied. Example: After the final pass of 4H, declarer corrects an explanation. If the TD is called, the final passer can change his pass to a double. If the TD is not called until after dummy appears, and 4H goes down, the final passer should not be allowed to change his pass to a double. (Inexperienced players may be given some leniency here.) Or suppose that the player who wanted to change his call was not the final passer. If the TD is called, he can request an adjustment because he would have doubled or sacrificed in 4S with correct information. If the TD is not called until later, he gets a double shot, as he could claim that he would have doubled after seeing the contract go down, or sacrificed after seeing it make. -- 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 Dec 3 07:33:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2KWXO08826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:32:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB2KWQt08820 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:32:27 +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 PAA16597 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:20:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:25:51 -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 David Stevenson asks: >How are you [1] going to answer me, assuming you are playing as a pro? If I am absolutely certain I know what "Muiderberg" means, then I'm going to say it's a pro question. If I have *any* doubt, I'm going to say it's not. Now what? Let me ask you one: if I say it was a pro question, are you going to do anything about opponents' infraction of the regulation? If not, why not? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOilcVb2UW3au93vOEQKWDQCfTPESr3GCoUTW/2VKZnqYEAdUhwEAn2g0 FTyHKtFzA4a2phkE4uP7KWt4 =iThY -----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 Dec 3 07:33:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2KWji08832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:32:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB2KWXt08827 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 07:32:34 +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 PAA16655 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:20:26 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 15:29:56 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Richard Bley writes: >In this case it is not necessary that the card had to be shown to >the defenders. But in the case which I mentioned the played cards >are in a different place then the card which the declarer wants to >play. > >So after reading this discussion I found a solution for >>>myself<<<: >The card is played in the sense of 45C2 last part of the sentence, >when the card is handled AS a played card by this specific declarer. >Regularly this is only the case when the declarer puts it on the >pile of cards which are played before. > > >Satisfied with my solution ;-))) ??? You seem to be saying declarer need not show the card he is playing to a trick to defenders. What if it's a card they need (or want) to know about? They can ask to see it, of course, but why should they have to? 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/AwUBOilcWr2UW3au93vOEQK2+QCfcJGYL3+ZbsIm1nBPJACfJXmkC0cAnAwB L4i7d4VtPGtuSC+rDkKB5PHn =/Kxv -----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 Dec 3 09:45:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB2Mir909156 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:44:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB2Milt09152 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:44:48 +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 XA98LC00; Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:44:42 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000 16:50:13 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In any event, this face down play seems to be a violation of Law 72A3, as well as 72B4 if the card is not promptly turned face up. >At 02:08 02.12.2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>John, David, John, David, John, David wrote >> >> >>>>>> 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. >> >>>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) >> >> You are going to lose this one John! :) >> >and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is >> >played. I'm going to win this one :)) >> >> No you are not: you do not seem to have read my answer below. >> >> >> L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but >> >>refers to cards that must be played. >> >> >> >> So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has >> >>maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, >> >>which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - >> >>and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. >> > >What this rule meant is that: >The declarer is able to play a card without showing it, but instead putting >it on the pile of cardswhich are already played. You know what I mean: > >II--II-- etc. > >In this case it is not necessary that the card had to be shown to the >defenders. But in the case which I mentioned the played cards are in a >different place then the card which the declarer wants to play. > >So after reading this discussion I found a solution for >>>myself<<<: >The card is played in the sense of 45C2 last part of the sentence, when the >card is handled AS a played card by this specific declarer. Regularly this >is only the case when the declarer puts it on the pile of cards which are >played before. > > >Satisfied with my solution ;-))) > >Cheers >Richard > > >>-- >>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 ~ >>-- Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 3 11:41:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB30enq09446 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:40:49 +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 eB30eft09442 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:40:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.160] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 142NCh-0005KR-00; Sun, 03 Dec 2000 00:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: <005101c05cc1$bc5f9c80$a05608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <030a01c05c00$b24b2b40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Egregious error Date: Sat, 2 Dec 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 " Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank, The army of the unalterable law." - Meredith. = <.>= ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2000 1:33 AM Subject: [BLML] Egregious error > > By the way, Rich tells me, Edgar Kaplan chaired the meeting at which > this decision was rendered. > > Given the dictionary definition of "egregious," reading the whole > statement I don't see that this is far from the WBFLC's "irrational, > wild, or gambling" wording. Unfortunately, some in ACBL-land have > seized on the words "play bridge" to require too high a standard of > bidding or play for the NOS. This seems to represent a difference of > opinion with the ACBLLC, not with the WBFLC. > +=+ This fits with my knowledge, more or less, altho I did not know details at the ACBL end. Edgar Kaplan came to the WBFLC saying the ACBL drafters wanted to do something to restore the level of the meaning of 'egregious' which was being set too low. So a debate began which led eventually to "irrational, wild or gambling" - desiring to remove the word 'egregious' from the vocabulary. Edgar in the beginning produced the phrase 'wild or gambling' - in the beginning before we heard of 'egregious' that is. This side of the water we stuck to 'wild or gambling' and did not use 'egregious'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 3 15:34:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB34W0409964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:32:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB34Vmt09955 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:31:49 +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 142QoP-0005Dh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:31:42 +0000 Message-ID: <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:17:50 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@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 <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson writes >John, David, John, David, John, David wrote > >>>>>>> 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. >>>>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) >>> You are going to lose this one John! :) >>and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is >>played. I'm going to win this one :)) > > No you are not: you do not seem to have read my answer below. > >>> L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but >>>refers to cards that must be played. >>> >>> So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has >>>maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, >>>which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - >>>and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. > but he doesn't have to face it and I don't see how (within the law) you can make him. He just says "I haven't maintained it in a position to indicate it has been played". It's not a played card until it's been faced, nor has it been maintained (*) in a position to indicate it has been played and as TD that seems blindingly obvious to me. (*) "maintaining" implies holding rather than releasing. Going back to the first clause a card is played face up ... or ... . A card is not played when it remains face down precisely because it has not been maintained in a position indicating it has been played and that is because it hasn't yet been shown to the opponents. No doubt if I stick it on my forehead (which I occasionally do) so you can see it then I have played it, after all I'm maintaining it on my forehead, but that's different from leaving it face down. Nope, face down card by declarer is ok. By defender it's UI and still unplayed, no problem. Otherwise, if he refuses to turn it over we can't get to 65A. > -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 3 15:34:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB34W0R09963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:32:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB34Vnt09956 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 15:31:50 +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 142QoP-0005Di-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:31:43 +0000 Message-ID: <$B5eMSA+rcK6EwmG@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 04:24:30 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@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 <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes >At 02:08 02.12.2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >>John, David, John, David, John, David wrote >> >> >>>>>> 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. >> >>>Then you can't comply with L65A, since you can't turn it over :)) >> >> You are going to lose this one John! :) >> >and Law 45G? Clearly implies that the card is face up before the card is >> >played. I'm going to win this one :)) >> >> No you are not: you do not seem to have read my answer below. >> >> >> L45C2 does not refer to when a card is played - that's L45A - but >> >>refers to cards that must be played. >> >> >> >> So if I as TD deem that someone who puts his cards face-down has >> >>maintained it in such a position as to indicate it has been played, >> >>which I probably would if he always does this, then he must play it - >> >>and according to L45A that means he must face it. Then we get to L65A. >> > >What this rule meant is that: >The declarer is able to play a card without showing it, but instead putting >it on the pile of cardswhich are already played. You know what I mean: > >II--II-- etc. > >In this case it is not necessary that the card had to be shown to the >defenders. But in the case which I mentioned the played cards are in a >different place then the card which the declarer wants to play. > >So after reading this discussion I found a solution for >>>myself<<<: >The card is played in the sense of 45C2 last part of the sentence, when the >card is handled AS a played card by this specific declarer. Regularly this >is only the case when the declarer puts it on the pile of cards which are >played before. > That might convince me it is the card declarer is intending to play, but I still can't deem it played. There is no substantive difference between holding the card (unshowm) and releasing it (unshown). If it's not faced then it has to be maintained (*ie held, not released*) in a position indicating it is played, and that to me indicates that the opponents must be able to see it. The Law caters for those players who show their card in mid-air and then at the end of the trick flick it over, without it ever getting near the table till quitted. > >Satisfied with my solution ;-))) > >Cheers >Richard > > >>-- >>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/ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 3 19:08:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB387BJ10352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:07:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB386vt10339 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:06:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-194.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.194]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29407 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:06:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A28D655.1F90011B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:00:37 +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> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26320D.CCD7F214@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: > > > If I remember correctly, your examples revolved around situations > where all players have the same understanding of the meaning of > "Muiderberg" or whatever the name is. Well and good, there's probably > no need for adjudication if everyone is happy. Of course not. > *My* point is that in > the ACBL, since there is a regulation that says that an explanation > by name is insufficient, then an explanation by name is insufficient, > whether or not all players are happy they know what's going on. Don't you see where that is heading ? > The > reg says it's insufficient. The reg doesn't say "it's insufficient, > except when the players decide it isn't." If the non-offending side > chooses not to call the TD, fine. > Don't you see it yet ? > In jurisdictions where there is no such regulation, players have no > recourse except to ask for further information. In the ACBL, I think > the existence of this regulation means that if a NOS is damaged > because they accepted an explanation by name, and it later turns out > there was a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the > meaning, they are entitled to redress *even though they asked no > further questions*. Do you disagree? Do others on this list disagree? No of course I don't disagree. I've said all along that if there is some misunderstanding, the onus is on the explainers. If they play a form that is different from standard, they are at fault. If they don't realize that there may be more than one standard, they are at fault. But you go one step further. You call it an infraction, a misinformation, regardless of whether or not the opponents have understood the explanation. By interpreting literally, you would allow an opponent, who fully understands the explanation, but who does not ask further questions, to call the TD afterwards and claim incomplete information. Opp : "He only said Muiderberg". Ed TD : "Ah, yes, that is an incomplete explanation, I will rule MI" Player : "But he acknowledged my response and did not ask further" Ed TD : "that is not important, you should have volunteered a full explanation, he might be too shy to ask for it" Player : "But he plays the convention himself : look at his CC" Ed TD : "that is not important, ACBL regs say naming the convention is insufficient" Now I do know that you would not do that. Which should prove to you my point, namely that a short explanation, towards an opponent who understands the meaning, must be deemed full disclosure. Despite what the ACBL regulation seems to say. > If so, I'll write to the ACBL and ask for their ruling. :-) > > Analogy: if the law says driving faster than 55 miles per hour is > illegal, then doing so is illegal, whether or not you get a speeding > ticket, and whether or not everybody else is also speeding. > I agree, but I am not talking regulation, only interpretation of such. > 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/AwUBOifq972UW3au93vOEQIBagCgphov393VVZtE1dWP/e8cJ3gHXfUAnjwO > JjEJJG32NREjYDCwLTCby6GH > =rV4f > -----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/ -- 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 Dec 3 19:08:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB387Ck10354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:07:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB3870t10342 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:07:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-194.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.194]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29415 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:06:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A28D7F1.A76CC4C0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:07:29 +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> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@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: > > > >Then, calling the TD, or asking further questions, or > >whatever, becomes an action intended for partner, a "pro > >question". > > So lemme see here. Assume I'm the pro (yeah, right :), and we're > playing in the ACBL. Your partner makes a call, you alert, and when > asked say "Muiderberg". Now, in fact all I remember about this > convention is that people in Europe use it, but assume I think I know > what you mean. Are you now saying that for me to ask for > clarification is a "pro question"? Even when there's a regulation in > effect that says "Muiderberg" is insufficient? I don't buy it. If I > tell you (wearing your TD hat now) that I asked because I wasn't > sure, are you going to believe me, or are you going to decide that's > "self-serving" and I was really asking for partner's benefit? If I > *am* sure, so what? There's still that pesky regulation. > Come on Ed, of course not. You are coming up with silly examples to prove your point. No-one would expect anyone to know what Muiderberg is in America. No-one would give such a reply in such a case. I am not questioning the ethics of a pro who asks a normal question. I am questioning the ethics of a pro who asks a (to him) perfectly abnormal question, and who drags in an obscure piece of ACBL regulation to defend his actions. A piece of regulation that I've just debunked as being interpretated far too literally when used as this pro does. -- 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 Dec 3 19:08:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB387Cm10353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:07:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB386wt10341 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 19:06:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-194.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.194]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA29411 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:06:55 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A28D6E6.267CE28D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2000 12:03:02 +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: <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> <00120113534304.04945@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: > > > And this is the common precedure for many minor technical infractions. > It's common for a question at the end of the auction to disclose that > there was a failure to alert. The TD is supposed to be summoned when > the explanation is corrected, but usually nobody bothers. I don't > call the TD myself when I correct partner's failure to alert if it is > unlikely that there was any damage or UI problem; yes, I know that this > is a violation of the letter of the Law. > As Ed pointed out, it stays an infraction. > The situation is the same here. Answering "Stayman", "Blackwood", > "Gerber", or "Flannery" in response to a question is an infraction, but > nobody will call the TD since it is clear that there is no damage. > Answering "Brozel" is an infraction, and leaves you open to an adverse > ruling if the opponents were misled by the meaning of Brozel. > But that is not the issue. I agree that the answer "Muiderberg" is an infraction in the ACBL. But we are discussing whether or not it is MI. I don't believe it is (always), even if it is a technical infraction. -- 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 Dec 4 00:40:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3DdQ310980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3DdFt10971 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:16 +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 142ZMF-000IHd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:39:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:18:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A278FF1.F30AA89D@village.uunet.be> <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$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 >I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder if David has this >quite right. Does the term lese majeste mean anything to you, Marv? Lighten up, people, it was a joke ..... >L9B1(a): When to Summon > > The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to >an irregularity. > >If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone else >calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the TD at >once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. You are correct - but the normal situation is that someone has drawn attention to it. That one worries 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 Mon Dec 4 00:40:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3DdHA10973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3Dd2t10957 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:03 +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 142ZLw-000IHf-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:38:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:16:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <3A278C23.56EEFA39@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A278C23.56EEFA39@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 >Two comments : > >> >> Martin Sinot writes >> >> > Knowing that EW erred, > >No Martin, wrong start. > >Should be : > >"Being able to deduce that EW erred,". > >The distinction is important. >N has no right to know that EW erred. >However, it seems very strange to change a 3Sp pre-empt into >4He, if one can play in hearts by simply passing. >So if N learns the system, he is likely to deduce that they >erred. > >> >North would no doubt have passed, resulting in something like 4H-4. >> >Which is the score I would give. >> > >Rest of your comment more or less correct, barring David's >remark : > >David Stevenson replied: > >> So why give this score? >> >> Either >> they called the TD, and he offered them the chance to take the double >> back, in which case there is no reason to give them it, or >> > >(*)(**) > >> they did not call the TD so why should they gain an advantage from not >> following the Laws, or >> > >(**) > >> they called the TD and he did not follow the Law book, in which case let >> us give both sides a good score under L82C. >> > >(*) > >as you see, two remarks on three points : > >(*) Is it so clear that TD should offer to take the double >back ? >L21B1 contains "when it is probable that he made the call as >a result of". >When should the TD make the decision that it is probable ? >I sometimes see people make a fast pass, and then want to >change their call after a slowish alert in a common >situation where the alert is not unexpected. I believe that >is not allowed. >So I ask again, if you get called in this case, do you allow >North to retract his double, now he also knows that they are >going to spades after all ? How are you going to stop him? By not applying the Law as written? You tell him that he can change his call if it is as a result of UI, and you review it at the end of the hand if there is any doubt, and adjust back if necessary. But you do not forbid him his L121B1 rights. >(**) You know as well as I do, David, that people don't know >when to call the TD. Certainly in MI cases, they are used >to changes being made after the play. Are you really so >stringent on the "no call at that time, no change later" bit >? Against all players equally ? As always, I have a tendency to give less experienced players leeway. But this situation worries me because what most TDs so is to give a *big* advantage to those who do not follow the Laws - and that does not feel right to me at any level, even if they did not follow the Laws through ignorance not malice. -- 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 Dec 4 00:40:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3DdFU10968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3Dd0t10955 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:02 +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 142ZLw-000IHd-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:38:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:09:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >David Stevenson asks: > >>How are you [1] going to answer me, assuming you are playing as a pro? > >If I am absolutely certain I know what "Muiderberg" means, then I'm >going to say it's a pro question. If I have *any* doubt, I'm going to >say it's not. Now what? I have told you the pro question is not permitted, so it is now up to you what you do. >Let me ask you one: if I say it was a pro question, are you going to >do anything about opponents' infraction of the regulation? If not, >why not? Of course I am: I am very strong on proper information. But I shall deal with it at the end of the hand. -- 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 Dec 4 00:40:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3DdFx10970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3Dd1t10956 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:02 +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 142ZLw-000IHe-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:38:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:11:21 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <5.0.0.25.0.20001202072616.00a2e800@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 Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >Richard Bley writes: > >>In this case it is not necessary that the card had to be shown to >>the defenders. But in the case which I mentioned the played cards >>are in a different place then the card which the declarer wants to >>play. >> >>So after reading this discussion I found a solution for >>>myself<<<: >>The card is played in the sense of 45C2 last part of the sentence, >>when the card is handled AS a played card by this specific declarer. >>Regularly this is only the case when the declarer puts it on the >>pile of cards which are played before. >> >> >>Satisfied with my solution ;-))) > >??? You seem to be saying declarer need not show the card he is >playing to a trick to defenders. What if it's a card they need (or >want) to know about? They can ask to see it, of course, but why >should they have to? No, he asked whether the card placed face-down is played at that time, and I explained why it has to be played. The Laws then require it to be faced - it does not need the oppos to ask. -- 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 Dec 4 00:40:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3DdQK10981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 eB3DdGt10972 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:39:17 +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 142ZMF-000IHc-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 13:39:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 02:21:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: "Peter Gill" >> (b) the Director was called after the end of the auction period >> so it was too late for any rolling back of the auction. In this case, >> has North missed his chance by not calling the Director at the >> appropriate time? Or was the onus on EW to call the Director >> at the time of the correction of the explanation? > >L75D (law number from memory so might be wrong) says that EW, >specifically East in this case, is obliged to call the TD _before_ >offering the correction. While this law is often ignored, I don't >think it's right to take away North's right of redress just because the >TD wasn't summoned at the proper time. I might make an exception (L9?) >if NS are very experienced and EW are not. All four players are required to summon the TD, even though one of them is required to summon the TD earlier. You are still giving an advantage to players who break the Law over those who do 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 Mon Dec 4 01:00:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3E0Gn11071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:00:16 +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 eB3E0At11063 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:00:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id va882123 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:55:36 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-148.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.148]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Thoughtful-MailRouter V2.9c 15/1276380); 03 Dec 2000 23:55:35 Message-ID: <043f01c05d30$7837a560$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:36:27 +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 Grant Sterling wrote: >NS's bidding clearly and unmistakeably shows that E does >not have a spade stack. [Of course, he in fact does ... "unmistakeably" - I haven't ever seen that word applied to bridge before. Isn't bridge a game of mistakes? And wrong explanations are just one type of mistake. This proliferation of mistakes is one of the reasons why rulings are so difficult. Which reminds me - my personal interpretation of the ACBL's edict that the NOs have to continue to "play bridge" after an infraction would be that the NOs have to continue to make mistakes at their normal rate. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 4 01:00:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3E0H911072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:00:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3E0At11065 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:00:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ua882122 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 23:55:35 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-148.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.148]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Universal-MailRouter V2.9c 15/1276380); 03 Dec 2000 23:55:34 Message-ID: <043e01c05d30$77a836a0$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:16:14 +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: >... Suppose in the current case that the doubler does not bother >to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. What >harm is there in that? > > There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the >benefit of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited >case perhaps it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might >be better to double, depending on what happens. So, best for >the player is to ignore L9 requiring players to call the TD - but >only if the TD is going to give them an adjustment anyway - and >L21B3 does not actually allow it. > > Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I believe >they are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do >not follow the Laws and I am sure that is wrong. Fair enough. Yes, the Non-Offenders are required to summon the Director at once. However Law 9B1(a) doesn't specify who must summon the Director. Is it possible that by deliberately not calling the Director (as they must do) the Offending Side can also gain, because of the above attitude being taken to the non-offending side's failure to call the Director? If so, is this fair? > While I personally have no doubts about the position you may >be interested to know that at least one top-level lawman in the >EBU thinks the opposite. Are his arguments similar to mine? Or have I completely misunderstood the situation? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 4 01:02:12 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3E28Q11093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:02:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3E23t11089 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:02:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot29.domain7.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ia882188 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 00:01:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-226-148.tmns.net.au ([203.54.226.148]) by mail7.bigpond.com (Claudes-Sharp-MailRouter V2.9c 15/1277229); 04 Dec 2000 00:01:54 Message-ID: <047401c05d31$59e90d00$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:00:10 +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 Grabiner wrote: >Marv French wrote: >> I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder if David >> has this quite right. >> >> L9B1(a): When to Summon >> >> The director must be summoned at once when attention >> is drawn to an irregularity. >> >> If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone >> else calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the >> TD at once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. > >This is clearly correct but is irrelevant to this thread because, as the name of the thread suggests, the offender did draw attention to his irregularity by uttering "Sorry I forgot our convention". Attention had thus been drawn to the irregularity. In case you're interested, I have attached the original post of this thread below. Peter Gill. Yogesh Abhyankar (from India) wrote: >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 Mon Dec 4 03:56:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3GtSS11444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB3GtLt11439 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:55:22 +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 ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 08:54:31 -0800 Message-ID: <03b901c05d49$cbf37620$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge.Laws" <" "@psa836.la.asu.edu> References: <039f01c05b0a$5ca08c40$a7df36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A278FF1.F30AA89D@village.uunet.be> <037b01c05c89$dd8f39c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00120212123101.05593@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 08:49:13 -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 David Grabiner wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > L9B1(a): When to Summon > > > > The director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to > > an irregularity. > > > > If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone else > > calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the TD at > > once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. > > This is clearly correct, and there are several cases in which it 1s > applied. If the wrong hand leads and you are aware that it was the > wrong hand, you may still follow to the lead, accepting it without > calling the TD. > > Another example is a revoke. If an opponent revokes, you may wait until > the end of the hand to claim the penalty tricks; there is no obligation > to call the TD as soon as the player plays a card of the revoke suit. > Another is a call out of rotation, which can be accepted without calling the TD. > But if a player fails to call the TD when he is aware of an > irregularity and could draw attention to it, he may jeopardize his > rights by drawing attention later. I can't find that in the Laws at the moment. Can you cite? > If UI/MI is established by a > corrected explanation, that is the proper time to call the director if > there could have been damage, particularly since there is a rule which > requires the TD to be called. Otherwise, the NOS may gain an advantage > by delaying the director call beyond what they were entitled to in the > rules. In such cases, the adjustment should be denied. > > Example: After the final pass of 4H, declarer corrects an explanation. > If the TD is called, the final passer can change his pass to a double. > If the TD is not called until after dummy appears, and 4H goes down, > the final passer should not be allowed to change his pass to a double. > (Inexperienced players may be given some leniency here.) Not a good example, as attention has been called (by the offender) to an irregularity. Of course the TD must be called at that time, per L9B1(a). Take this one: An Alertable bid (not explicitly shown on the CC) is not Alerted. I know the meaning of the bid, partner doesn't. No MI to me, MI to partner. I am not going to call attention to this irregularity (with a pro question) unless/until partner's ignorance leads to a bad result for us, whereupon I call the TD. 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 Dec 4 04:45:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3HjYi11546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:45:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB3HjSt11541 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 04:45:29 +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, 3 Dec 2000 09:44:38 -0800 Message-ID: <03d601c05d50$cc3b9e80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <030a01c05c00$b24b2b40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c05cc1$bc5f9c80$a05608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Egregious error Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 09:43:39 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > By the way, Rich tells me, Edgar Kaplan chaired the meeting at > > which this decision was rendered. > > > > Given the dictionary definition of "egregious," reading the > > whole statement I don't see that this is far from the WBFLC's > >"irrational, wild, or gambling" wording. Unfortunately, some > > in ACBL-land have seized on the words "play bridge" to require > > too high a standard of bidding or play for the NOS. This seems > > to represent a difference of opinion with the ACBLLC, not with > > the WBFLC. > > > +=+ This fits with my knowledge, more or less, altho > I did not know details at the ACBL end. > Edgar Kaplan came to the WBFLC saying the ACBL > drafters wanted to do something to restore the > level of the meaning of 'egregious' which was being > set too low. So a debate began which led eventually > to "irrational, wild or gambling" - desiring to remove > the word 'egregious' from the vocabulary. Edgar in > the beginning produced the phrase 'wild or gambling' > - in the beginning before we heard of 'egregious' that > is. This side of the water we stuck to 'wild or > gambling' and did not use 'egregious'. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I should have added the further clarification furnished by EK in a *Bridge World* editorial July 1993: ******* IMPs; both vul. You, South, hold: S-KQ876 H-5 D-K875 C-KQ2 South West North East - - Pass 1C 1S 3H* Double 4C ? * Strong What happened: West had a 3-7-2-1 shape and a 7-count. South, who had received misinformation, passed and scored plus 200. The winning action was double, for plus 500. North held: S-xx H-AKJ9x D-Qxxx C-xx How the Committee ruled: The Committee let the result stand. It felt that South should have been able to find the double despite the misinformation. Analysis: The Committee was wrong by quite a lot...For the ruling to have been correct, South's pass must have been off-beat, far-out. Anyway, we find it disturbing that South, misinformed was not given the benefit of all doubts. When we think of mistakes that could cancel the usual protection, we think in terms of revokes, or other *gross* errors. ******* This confirms that the EK and the WBFLC criteria are equivalent. And yet, we had an appeals case at Anaheim (No. 2 in the Daily Bulletin) where the AC considered anulling redress (but didn't) for a merely dubious failure to bid 5C. The ACBL web site isn't working now, so I can't quote it. 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 Dec 4 05:41:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3Iek211654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:40:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3Iedt11650 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:40:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3BoBZ06016; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:50:11 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:41:34 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <00120113534304.04945@psa836> <3A28D6E6.267CE28D@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A28D6E6.267CE28D@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120311501102.05998@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 02 Dec 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > David J Grabiner wrote: > > And this is the common precedure for many minor technical infractions. > > It's common for a question at the end of the auction to disclose that > > there was a failure to alert. The TD is supposed to be summoned when > > the explanation is corrected, but usually nobody bothers. I don't > > call the TD myself when I correct partner's failure to alert if it is > > unlikely that there was any damage or UI problem; yes, I know that this > > is a violation of the letter of the Law. > > > > As Ed pointed out, it stays an infraction. > > > The situation is the same here. Answering "Stayman", "Blackwood", > > "Gerber", or "Flannery" in response to a question is an infraction, but > > nobody will call the TD since it is clear that there is no damage. > > Answering "Brozel" is an infraction, and leaves you open to an adverse > > ruling if the opponents were misled by the meaning of Brozel. > > > > But that is not the issue. > I agree that the answer "Muiderberg" is an infraction in the > ACBL. > But we are discussing whether or not it is MI. > I don't believe it is (always), even if it is a technical > infraction. I agree with you here. It is MI if and only if it causes the opponents to be misinformed. "Ordinary Benji", which started this thread, was MI because one of the opponents did not know what Benji was. "Flannery" may be MI if, by agreement, opener may have four spades and six hearts. The ACBL regulation is more for the purpose of encouraging correct procedure. If players are encouraged to say "11-15 HCP, four spades and five or six hearts" rather than "Flannery", a relatively harmless situation, they will also be encouraged to avoid saying "Game-forcing Stayman", which is misleading even to opponents who think they know what Stayman means. -- 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 Dec 4 05:46:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3Ikd911679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:46:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3IkYt11675 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:46:34 +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, 3 Dec 2000 10:45:43 -0800 Message-ID: <042e01c05d59$54fb4600$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <047401c05d31$59e90d00$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 10:39:50 -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 Peter Gill wrote: > David Grabiner wrote: > >Marv French wrote: > >> I haven't been following this thread, but I wonder if David > >> has this quite right. > >> > >> L9B1(a): When to Summon > >> > >> The director must be summoned at once when attention > >> is drawn to an irregularity. > >> > >> If I notice an opponent's irregularity and neither I nor anyone > >> else calls attention to it, apparently I do not have to call the > >> TD at once. L9A says I *may*, not that I must. > > > >This is clearly correct > > but is irrelevant to this thread because, as the name of the > thread suggests, the offender did draw attention to his > irregularity by uttering "Sorry I forgot our convention". > Attention had thus been drawn to the irregularity. > Yes, irrelevant, my error due to entering a thread late and not researching it, always a doubtful action. However, I think it is a point to be made, even if irrelevant to this case. 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 Dec 4 05:47:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3IlI811693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:47:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB3IlCt11689 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 05:47:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB3Bukl06022 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:56:46 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:51:29 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <043f01c05d30$7837a560$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <043f01c05d30$7837a560$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120311564603.05998@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 03 Dec 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > Which reminds me - my personal interpretation of the ACBL's > edict that the NOs have to continue to "play bridge" after an > infraction would be that the NOs have to continue to make > mistakes at their normal rate. So if a weak declarer is misinformed and correctly sets up a double squeeze which was marked on the MI (with the contract making on a routine finess with the proper information), he doesn't get an adjustment? :-) More seriously, this does seem to be fair to weak players. If a weak player is misinformed and gets to a shaky 4H rather than a cold 4S at IMPs, and could have made 4H by taking a non-trivial safety play, he should still get an adjustment. Failure to take the safety play may be irrational for an expert. -- 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 Dec 4 14:11:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB43ATd12585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:10:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB43AIt12581 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:10:19 +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 142m15-0003Cm-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:10:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 14:21:48 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@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 >but he doesn't have to face it and I don't see how (within the law) you >can make him. He just says "I haven't maintained it in a position to >indicate it has been played". Funnily enough, it is the TD who decides what is correct under the Laws, not the player. > It's not a played card until it's been >faced, nor has it been maintained (*) in a position to indicate it has >been played and as TD that seems blindingly obvious to me. So, if that is your ruling, so what? But if a player is playing a card in a particular way, which makes it clear that a card is being played, then he has maintained it in such a position - or are you saying that his mannerism depends on whether the oppos can see it? Once the Law says it must be played then it must be faced. >(*) "maintaining" implies holding rather than releasing. Going back to >the first clause a card is played face up ... or ... . A card is not >played when it remains face down precisely because it has not been >maintained in a position indicating it has been played and that is >because it hasn't yet been shown to the opponents. But you are now talking generalities. We were talking about a specific annoying habit whereby a player plays a card in a particular way. > No doubt if I stick >it on my forehead (which I occasionally do) so you can see it then I >have played it, after all I'm maintaining it on my forehead, but that's >different from leaving it face down. Suppose that you always play a card by sticking it on your forehead, with the back to the table. Are you going to give that player the benefit of the doubt? > Nope, face down card by declarer >is ok. By defender it's UI and still unplayed, no problem. You should just think of what the Law says. If a card is not visible then it must be played *very* rarely - but you should not get pre- conceived notions in the way. If asked to rule, rule on the wording in the Laws, not the pre-conceived notion. And when the day comes that someone is maintaining a card in a manner that cannot be seen by the oppos [probably with the intention of annoying them] you will rule it must be played and therefore must be faced. >Otherwise, if he refuses to turn it over we can't get to 65A. If you rule it must be played the player will not refuse you. Not twice, anyway! -- 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 Dec 4 17:43:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB46eWu14034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:40:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB46eOt14030 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:40:25 +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 BAA07480 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:35:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 01:31:05 -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 David Stevenson writes: >Of course I am: I am very strong on proper information. But I shall >deal with it at the end of the hand. Fine with me, as long as you deal with 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/AwUBOis8Vb2UW3au93vOEQIUxACeKE3AwFlCjeB6T2qHe6TDXxSsMeUAoP6m zp2yadGQNdba/iFRMBcJoBx5 =m1UE -----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 Dec 4 22:39:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4Bclu14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:38:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB4Bcdt14658 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 22:38:40 +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 142tx2-000DWv-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 11:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:29:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <043e01c05d30$77a836a0$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <043e01c05d30$77a836a0$b1e336cb@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 writes >David Stevenson wrote: >>... Suppose in the current case that the doubler does not bother >>to call the TD, and relies on an adjustment at the end. What >>harm is there in that? >> >> There is an advantage in relying on an adjustment: you get the >>benefit of doubt and do not have to decide yourself. In the cited >>case perhaps it would be better to pass 4H out, but also it might >>be better to double, depending on what happens. So, best for >>the player is to ignore L9 requiring players to call the TD - but >>only if the TD is going to give them an adjustment anyway - and >>L21B3 does not actually allow it. >> >> Many TDs will give an adjustment in such situations but I believe >>they are wrong: they are giving an advantage to players who do >>not follow the Laws and I am sure that is wrong. > > >Fair enough. Yes, the Non-Offenders are required to summon >the Director at once. > >However Law 9B1(a) doesn't specify who must summon the >Director. Is it possible that by deliberately not calling the Director >(as they must do) the Offending Side can also gain, because of >the above attitude being taken to the non-offending side's failure >to call the Director? If so, is this fair? No, but if there is any idea of this then I shall deal with that as well. But it does not really happen: what happens in nearly every case is that players assume [incorrectly] that only players who are damaged should call the TD. Anyway, I am getting towards the situation where I think we are going to have to make a serious effort to persuade people to call the TD in MI situations, even if they don't in some other situations. >> While I personally have no doubts about the position you may >>be interested to know that at least one top-level lawman in the >>EBU thinks the opposite. > >Are his arguments similar to mine? Or have I completely >misunderstood the situation? I do not know: wait until the 13th and then I shall find out for you! -- 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 Dec 5 00:29:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4DSnh14807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:28:49 +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 eB4DSft14803 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:28:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-41.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.41]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA20429 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 14:28:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2A017C.42F22482@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 09:17:00 +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> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@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: > > > David Stevenson asks: > > >How are you [1] going to answer me, assuming you are playing as a pro? > > If I am absolutely certain I know what "Muiderberg" means, then I'm > going to say it's a pro question. If I have *any* doubt, I'm going to > say it's not. Now what? > > Let me ask you one: if I say it was a pro question, are you going to > do anything about opponents' infraction of the regulation? If not, > why not? > OK, 4 people around the table, ACBLland. They are playing the exact same system, being regular partners of one another. They are lying tied for first place. Says A "2Sp" Says B "please explain" Says C "Johnson" Says D "OK" After the board B-D call the TD and ask to give a PP to A-C because of infraction of ACBL regulation "naming a convention". Do you really not see that this is a silly regulation, if applied literally ? OTOH, it is a very sensible regulation, when applied as it should. People need to know that just naming a convention is not enough, that opponents are not required to know the meaning of a convention only named. It is a very sensible regulation, one that shouldn't be necessary, but true nevertheless. But only when it is applied in a correct manner. And your manner is not the correct one. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 5 04:24:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4HNTx15051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:23:29 +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-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 eB4HNKt15043 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:23:21 +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 142zKZ-0006T2-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:16:45 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >John (MadDog) Probst writes > >>but he doesn't have to face it and I don't see how (within the law) you >>can make him. He just says "I haven't maintained it in a position to >>indicate it has been played". The player can reasonably argue this one. I think I'm on very thin ice to insist that a card unseen by the opponents *must* be played if the player wishes to play a different one. > > Funnily enough, it is the TD who decides what is correct under the >Laws, not the player. > Agreed. But ... If a player habitually tosses a card he intends to play face down onto the stack of played cards in front of him and then starts to think about the hand, and then decides he'll play a different card I don't see I *should* or even *can* stop him. To me it is no different to holding it in the air, waving it around but not maintaining it in a position to indicate it has been played. >> It's not a played card until it's been >>faced, nor has it been maintained (*) in a position to indicate it has >>been played and as TD that seems blindingly obvious to me. > > So, if that is your ruling, so what? > > But if a player is playing a card in a particular way, which makes it >clear that a card is being played, then he has maintained it in such a >position - or are you saying that his mannerism depends on whether the >oppos can see it? > Yes. 45A is quite clear about letting the opponents see the card. 45C is an extension to that, to indicate at what point a "faced" (ie seen by other players) card becomes a "played" card when played by declarer 45C2. ... 45C1 does the same for defenders and 45c3 for dummy. Nothing in these laws transcends what 45A has to say on the subject. > Once the Law says it must be played then it must be faced. > Agreed, 45A makes that clear, but it also makes it clear that it isn't played *until* it is faced. (subject to the extensions in 45C) >>(*) "maintaining" implies holding rather than releasing. Going back to >>the first clause a card is played face up ... or ... . A card is not >>played when it remains face down precisely because it has not been >>maintained in a position indicating it has been played and that is >>because it hasn't yet been shown to the opponents. > > But you are now talking generalities. We were talking about a >specific annoying habit whereby a player plays a card in a particular >way. > I can ask the player, "Have you played that card?" and if he says "Yes" I could ask him to turn it over, probably best via 74A2 and 74C7, rather than 45A. If he says "No" I could ask him to restore it to his hand, via 74A2/74C7. If he says "I'm thinking" I don't think I can enforce it as played. >> No doubt if I stick >>it on my forehead (which I occasionally do) so you can see it then I >>have played it, after all I'm maintaining it on my forehead, but that's >>different from leaving it face down. > > Suppose that you always play a card by sticking it on your forehead, >with the back to the table. Are you going to give that player the >benefit of the doubt? > See my remark above. I think 74A2 would apply with greater force. >> Nope, face down card by declarer >>is ok. By defender it's UI and still unplayed, no problem. > > You should just think of what the Law says. If a card is not visible >then it must be played *very* rarely - but you should not get pre- >conceived notions in the way. If asked to rule, rule on the wording in >the Laws, not the pre-conceived notion. I could rule a card as yet unseen by defenders must be played by declarer. "I'm playing this card, and want to think", and tossing it face down on the table for example. Now the card has been designated (the piece of paste board has been identified). >And when the day comes that >someone is maintaining a card in a manner that cannot be seen by the >oppos [probably with the intention of annoying them] you will rule it >must be played and therefore must be faced. > see above, 74A2 clearly applies. "Restore it to your hand or face it" >>Otherwise, if he refuses to turn it over we can't get to 65A. > > If you rule it must be played the player will not refuse you. I agree. Players accept such rulings without demur, IMO. > > Not twice, anyway! > That's true :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 5 04:24:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4HNS115050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:23:28 +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-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 eB4HNHt15042 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 04:23:17 +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 142zKZ-0006T3-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:23:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:20:47 +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: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26332B.2DC93FEB@village.uunet.be> <3A2A017C.42F22482@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A2A017C.42F22482@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 <3A2A017C.42F22482@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> >> David Stevenson asks: >> >> >How are you [1] going to answer me, assuming you are playing as a pro? >> >> If I am absolutely certain I know what "Muiderberg" means, then I'm >> going to say it's a pro question. If I have *any* doubt, I'm going to >> say it's not. Now what? >> >> Let me ask you one: if I say it was a pro question, are you going to >> do anything about opponents' infraction of the regulation? If not, >> why not? >> > >OK, 4 people around the table, ACBLland. > >They are playing the exact same system, being regular >partners of one another. > >They are lying tied for first place. > >Says A "2Sp" >Says B "please explain" >Says C "Johnson" >Says D "OK" > >After the board B-D call the TD and ask to give a PP to A-C >because of infraction of ACBL regulation "naming a >convention". I give B-D a PP under 90A for being jerks. In this example full disclosure has occurred. > >Do you really not see that this is a silly regulation, if >applied literally ? >OTOH, it is a very sensible regulation, when applied as it >should. >People need to know that just naming a convention is not >enough, that opponents are not required to know the meaning >of a convention only named. >It is a very sensible regulation, one that shouldn't be >necessary, but true nevertheless. >But only when it is applied in a correct manner. >And your manner is not the correct one. > -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 5 05:03:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4I3Zv15086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 05:03:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB4I3St15082 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 05:03:29 +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 NAA06861 for ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:03:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA09496 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:03:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 13:03:24 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012041803.NAA09496@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: Herman De Wael > OK, 4 people around the table, ACBLland. > > They are playing the exact same system, being regular > partners of one another. > Says A "2Sp" > Says B "please explain" > Says C "Johnson" > Says D "OK" > > After the board B-D call the TD and ask to give a PP to A-C > because of infraction of ACBL regulation "naming a > convention". As John said, PP to BD under L74A2. (Or maybe he can find another law to use.) As for the rest: C's naming the convention instead of explaining it was an infraction. This infraction did not cause damage because (under the original statement) BD are fully aware of the meaning, thus no score adjustment. No PP because C may not have been aware of the regulation, and anyway he had considerable reason to expect that naming the convention would be enough in this case. However, the TD tells him about the regulation and tells him to give at least a brief explanation next time and always to give a full explanation if playing against opponents who are less familiar with his methods. Do you really disagree with this, Herman? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 5 09:16:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB4MEuB15314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:14:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB4MEot15310 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:14:51 +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 JAA10657 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:08:33 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 05 Dec 2000 09:09:33 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:11:55 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 05/12/2000 10:06:06 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Perhaps the same principle could be applied to face-down *played?* cards as is used for face-down opening leads. Since a face-down opening lead may not be changed - except as required by the TD, usually to prevent an OLOOT - then other face-down *played?* cards could also only be changed with the TD's permission. 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 Dec 5 11:40:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB50e1Q15650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:40:02 +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 eB50dit15645 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 11:39:44 +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 14368p-000O1l-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:39:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:29:39 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes >>John (MadDog) Probst writes >> >>>but he doesn't have to face it and I don't see how (within the law) you >>>can make him. He just says "I haven't maintained it in a position to >>>indicate it has been played". > >The player can reasonably argue this one. I think I'm on very thin ice >to insist that a card unseen by the opponents *must* be played if the >player wishes to play a different one. Thin ice? If the book says a card "must" be played then it must be played. >> Funnily enough, it is the TD who decides what is correct under the >>Laws, not the player. >> >Agreed. But ... If a player habitually tosses a card he intends to play >face down onto the stack of played cards in front of him and then starts >to think about the hand, and then decides he'll play a different card I >don't see I *should* or even *can* stop him. To me it is no different >to holding it in the air, waving it around but not maintaining it in a >position to indicate it has been played. I really think you are mixing the theory with a particular case - and then you give a case where you would not rule it under L45C2 as a card that must be played. Of course if you do not rule that then it need not be played: what I am disagreeing with is your assertion that you will never rule a card by declarer that has not been seen by the defence as one that must be played. So, please, stop thinking about a particular case where you are going to rule differently for judgement reasons. Consider a case where declarer is, in your view, maintaining a card in a position in such a position as to indicate it has been played, but not where it is visible to the oppos. Maybe if he puts a card face-down on the table, puts his hand on it, and says "I am going to play this card". Ok, must that card be played under L45C2? >> But if a player is playing a card in a particular way, which makes it >>clear that a card is being played, then he has maintained it in such a >>position - or are you saying that his mannerism depends on whether the >>oppos can see it? >> >Yes. 45A is quite clear about letting the opponents see the card. 45C >is an extension to that, to indicate at what point a "faced" (ie seen by >other players) card becomes a "played" card when played by declarer >45C2. ... 45C1 does the same for defenders and 45c3 for dummy. Nothing >in these laws transcends what 45A has to say on the subject. It really is time to *read* what L45C2 says. Of course it does not transcend L45A because it does *not* say that such a card is played. It says such a card ***must be*** played. Compare the defence. If you hold a card as a defender so that partner can see it, has it been played? NO! It has not been faced on the table as per L45A. But according to L45C1 it must be played. Similarly, if a declarer maintains a card in a way that indicates he has played it then per L45A he has not played it [yet] but per L45C2 he *must* play it. Whether the oppos can see it is not relevant. >> Once the Law says it must be played then it must be faced. >> >Agreed, 45A makes that clear, but it also makes it clear that it isn't >played *until* it is faced. Exactly! > (subject to the extensions in 45C) There is no extension! Only L45A tells you when it is played: L45C tells you when a card must be played. >> But you are now talking generalities. We were talking about a >>specific annoying habit whereby a player plays a card in a particular >>way. >> >I can ask the player, "Have you played that card?" and if he says "Yes" >I could ask him to turn it over, probably best via 74A2 and 74C7, rather >than 45A. If he says "No" I could ask him to restore it to his hand, >via 74A2/74C7. If he says "I'm thinking" I don't think I can enforce it >as played. That just means you not following your responsibilities. L45C2 states a situation when a card must be [not is] played and as TD it is up to you to judge whether that situation occurs - and if so the card must be played as in L45A. >> You should just think of what the Law says. If a card is not visible >>then it must be played *very* rarely - but you should not get pre- >>conceived notions in the way. If asked to rule, rule on the wording in >>the Laws, not the pre-conceived notion. > >I could rule a card as yet unseen by defenders must be played by >declarer. "I'm playing this card, and want to think", and tossing it >face down on the table for example. Now the card has been designated >(the piece of paste board has been identified). But that is what this whole argument is about: you have been arguing throughout that you cannot and will not make him play it despite the wording of L45C2! -- 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 Dec 5 13:02:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB521po15866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:01:51 +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 eB521jt15862 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:01:46 +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 ; Mon, 4 Dec 2000 18:00:54 -0800 Message-ID: <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2000 17:57:12 -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 Hey guys, This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with BLML. Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. 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 Dec 5 19:45:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB58gCJ17528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:42:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB58g5t17524 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:42:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from BRIAN ([24.180.160.52]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001205084201.XTEU10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:42:01 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 03:41:40 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c05e5f$42da9820$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, 4 Dec 2000 17:57:12 -0800, Marv wrote: >Hey guys, > >This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that >TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with >BLML. > >Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. > As a long-term lurker (mostly) on this list, I have to say that this posting irritates the hell out of me. Marv, I do not want you, or your unnamed TDs, or anyone else for that matter, deciding what is or is not interesting on BLML. David and John's exchange (due acknowledgements to the other occasional contributors), while fairly esoteric, is demonstrably on the subject of bridge laws, and as such, is on topic for BLML. If you, or your TDs, don't want to read it, then get yourselves some decent e-mail software, and learn how to use it properly. It takes me precisely *ONE* mouse click to ignore all future messages in a thread that I do not find interesting - software recommendations on request. This is the accepted way to deal with *on-topic* threads that don't interest you, not send "drop it" messages. Off-topic messages are a different matter. No, I can't say I'm all that interested in the technicalities of L45, but this is a matter of principle, I want to make the decision whether to read it or not for myself, thanks all the same. Back to lurk mode...... 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 Dec 5 22:03:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5B2Ic18025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:02:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB5B2Bt18021 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 22:02:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.134] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 143FrL-0001tM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 05 Dec 2000 11:02:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c05eaa$e9509ec0$865408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 09:47:30 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2000 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > > Hey guys, > > This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that > TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with > BLML. > > Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. > > Marv > San Diego, CA, USA > +=+ I have been deleting this steadily for some time. It amazes me how long some of the threads last. The conclusion is that they are far more interesting than I have appreciated :-( I do think more extensive use of the 'delete' facility keeps the list tidier. But I would not want to discourage those who may learn something of the subject. ~ G ~ +=+ [Having read the first few messages of a thread - a good stop card is when either ton, Kojak, or one of the two Davids responds. I usually use the 'message rules' option to pass further messages direct to the deleted folder if it seems something I will not wish to intrude upon. I can find them again should I wish.] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 01:46:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5Eink18595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:44:49 +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 eB5Eift18590 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:44:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.175]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA20978 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:44:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2000 16:08:40 +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] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > You are still giving an advantage to players who break the Law over > those who do not. > Yep David, but you are also giving an unmerited advantage to players who have made a BIG infraction, just because their opponents have made a little one. There are times for lessons and there are times for correct actions. The situation depends on how well the opponents know their obligations. You may well be right in Liverpool, where all players have been drilled "call the TD at the correct time or don't expect any favors". You would not be right in Antwerp, where all players rule for themselves, then call a director, then come and complain to me because he botched it up. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 03:03:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5G3WD18801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:03:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB5G3Mt18796 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:03:24 +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 143KYl-00028l-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 16:03:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 13:38:50 +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> <001001c054de$28a8d500$56ecf1c3@default> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001301c05e5f$42da9820$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 >Hey guys, > >This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that >TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with >BLML. > >Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. You ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? Look, Marv, it's easy. You do not like it, kill the thread. I am not arguing with someone who does not listen, and there is an important principle involved: once John realises that he will agree with me: trust me. Certainly I would have given up by now if I had been arguing with someone who does not listen. It is important to realise that on all newsgroups and mailing lists there will be posts that do not interest: people who read all posts get bored with all such groups and lists eventually. That is one of the reasons why good software is so important: it is much easier to kill a thread than deleting posts unread if you are just getting emails, However, that is still better than reading ones that do not interest you. Some people put their cases and never budge. No point them arguing. Some people listen to others views and new things appear. Why should they not sort it out? -- 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 Dec 6 03:53:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5Gqrr18944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:52:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB5Gqlt18940 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:52:47 +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, 5 Dec 2000 08:51:58 -0800 Message-ID: <008501c05edb$bde7aea0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 08:43:45 -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: > > >Hey guys, > > > >This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that > >TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with > >BLML. > > > >Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. > > > > As a long-term lurker (mostly) on this list, I have to say that this posting > irritates the hell out of me. > > Marv, I do not want you, or your unnamed TDs, or anyone else for that matter, > deciding what is or is not interesting on BLML. David and John's exchange (due > acknowledgements to the other occasional contributors), while fairly esoteric, > is demonstrably on the subject of bridge laws, and as such, is on topic for > BLML. > Not deciding, just asking with a "please." My polite requests do not carry the weight of a command, I'm sure. Meanwhile, I'll take your advice and apply a filter to anything with L45C4(b) in the subject line. Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 04:50:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5HnsU19086 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 04:49:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB5Hnlt19082 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 04:49:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-180.access.net.il [213.8.4.180] (may be forged)) by diana.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AFL33809; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 19:47:55 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A2D2A9F.2EA96D23@inter.net.il> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 19:49:19 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David J Grabiner CC: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles References: <043f01c05d30$7837a560$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00120311564603.05998@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I try again to tell all of us that the Laws were written to help players enjoy the game ; not ot compell them to think about the laws first. I don't say the laws and ethics should be infringed... And to our case : I don't think I'll ever change the contract - with East's hand no sane player will take out the double : neither if it was in tempo or faster than light's speed or after 20 minutes thinking. I am not sure if I'll ask to hang mister West or not , but I don't think it is the main problem here. Dany David J Grabiner wrote: > On Sun, 03 Dec 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > > > Which reminds me - my personal interpretation of the ACBL's > > edict that the NOs have to continue to "play bridge" after an > > infraction would be that the NOs have to continue to make > > mistakes at their normal rate. > > So if a weak declarer is misinformed and correctly sets up a double > squeeze which was marked on the MI (with the contract making on a > routine finess with the proper information), he doesn't get an > adjustment? :-) > > More seriously, this does seem to be fair to weak players. If a weak > player is misinformed and gets to a shaky 4H rather than a cold 4S at > IMPs, and could have made 4H by taking a non-trivial safety play, he > should still get an adjustment. Failure to take the safety play may be > irrational for an expert. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 04:56:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5HumM19110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 04:56:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB5Huet19106 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 04:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from pn2.vsnl.net.in ([202.54.82.109]) by pn2.vsnl.net.in (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id XAA32202 for ; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 23:24:05 +0530 (IST) Message-ID: <3A2D29F2.5D0BD814@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 23:16:27 +0530 From: n y abhyankar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: [BLML] Guidelines for Appeals, Rulings. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Members, Office Bearers of our Bridge Association MBA (Maharashtra Bridge Association, a state in western part of India) will be meeting this Sat 9th Dec to discuss following points 1) To make a panel of players from which to form an appeal committee for any tournament, who ever is present at that time from panel. 2) Draw guidelines for TDs for giving rulings. 3) Draw guidelines for Appeal Committee to handle any appeal. Can anybody send me any information which may be useful to us. I am not an office bearer of MBA, but just an ordinary member, however I do take interest if any kind of work is entrusted to me. Thx in advance. Best Regards Yogesh V.Abhyankar -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 06:15:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5JF7619288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:15:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB5JF0t19284 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 06:15:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive465.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.197]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA22425; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:14:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <014101c05ef0$0dcd6360$c510f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: <00f801c0582a$bb3bc0e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A224CD3.CBC7397D@village.uunet.be> <3A2377FF.E4CE1ADE@village.uunet.be> <3A26320D.CCD7F214@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Is this a UI situation? Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 14:17:46 -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 think you are right on Ed. If an opponent is genuinely misled by our partnership giving only a convention name when that is specifically noted as insufficient by the ACBL, I expect to give up an adjusted score if he is injured by the inadequate disclosure. I will still say Flannery or Stayman or RKC 0314 when asked, to save time, and expect a please explain further from those who are unclear, and if we play a convention other than the way everyone else in our group does will give a more detailed explanation without prompt. I also elect not to use the stop card, and WILL NOT complain if my opponent bids too swiftly over 1N/3N. If they don't know what I mean, it is their responsibility to ask...but if I have confused them it is my penalty to pay if I have violated SO regs, even though everybody does it. I once questioned a speeding ticket for doing 43 in a 40 mph speed trap where many other vehicles were passing me. That argument before the district justice won me my freedom (that argument and three points on my license and $115). Craig > In jurisdictions where there is no such regulation, players have no > recourse except to ask for further information. In the ACBL, I think > the existence of this regulation means that if a NOS is damaged > because they accepted an explanation by name, and it later turns out > there was a misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the > meaning, they are entitled to redress *even though they asked no > further questions*. Do you disagree? Do others on this list disagree? > If so, I'll write to the ACBL and ask for their ruling. :-) > > Analogy: if the law says driving faster than 55 miles per hour is > illegal, then doing so is illegal, whether or not you get a speeding > ticket, and whether or not everybody else is also speeding. > > Regards, > > Ed -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 07:45:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB5KjGZ19493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:45:16 +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 ([24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB5KjBt19489 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 07:45:11 +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; Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:44:22 -0800 Message-ID: <00b401c05efc$35134a00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "n y abhyankar" , "BLML" References: <3A2D29F2.5D0BD814@pn2.vsnl.net.in> Subject: Re: [BLML] Guidelines for Appeals, Rulings. Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 12:36:27 -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 From: "n y abhyankar. > Dear Members, > > Office Bearers of our Bridge Association MBA (Maharashtra Bridge > Association, a state in western part of India) will be meeting this Sat > 9th Dec to discuss following points > > 1) To make a panel of players from which to form an appeal committee for > any > tournament, who ever is present at that time from panel. > > 2) Draw guidelines for TDs for giving rulings. > > 3) Draw guidelines for Appeal Committee to handle any appeal. > > Can anybody send me any information which may be useful to us. > > I am not an office bearer of MBA, but just an ordinary member, however I > do take interest if any kind of work is entrusted to me. > > Thx in advance. > > Best Regards > > Yogesh V.Abhyankar > I recommend for a start the World Bridge Federation's Code of Practice (CoP) for Appeals Committees, although you might want to ignore the provision that would permit directors, rather than only appeals committees, to apply Law 12C3. That is an experimental idea that may not accord with the practices of your organization in regard to assigned adjusted scores. The CoP can be found on David Stevenson's web site: http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cop.htm Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 11:16:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB60G3V20044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:16:03 +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 eB60Fst20035 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:15:55 +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 143SFR-000PUm-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:03:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> You are still giving an advantage to players who break the Law over >> those who do not. >> > >Yep David, but you are also giving an unmerited advantage to >players who have made a BIG infraction, just because their >opponents have made a little one. > >There are times for lessons and there are times for correct >actions. > >The situation depends on how well the opponents know their >obligations. >You may well be right in Liverpool, where all players have >been drilled "call the TD at the correct time or don't >expect any favors". >You would not be right in Antwerp, where all players rule >for themselves, then call a director, then come and complain >to me because he botched it up. So, if in Antwerp, one player calls the TD at the right time, and another does not, you would give a *better* score to the one who does not because they do not follow the rules in Antwerp? I could live with adjusting for the offending side only, but I dislike people gaining from not following the laws. -- 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 Dec 6 11:16:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB60G6x20046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:16:06 +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-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 eB60Fwt20037 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:15:59 +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 143SFR-000PUn-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:15:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 00:07:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Guidelines for Appeals, Rulings. References: <3A2D29F2.5D0BD814@pn2.vsnl.net.in> In-Reply-To: <3A2D29F2.5D0BD814@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 >Dear Members, > >Office Bearers of our Bridge Association MBA (Maharashtra Bridge >Association, a state in western part of India) will be meeting this Sat >9th Dec to discuss following points > >1) To make a panel of players from which to form an appeal committee for >any > tournament, who ever is present at that time from panel. > >2) Draw guidelines for TDs for giving rulings. > >3) Draw guidelines for Appeal Committee to handle any appeal. > >Can anybody send me any information which may be useful to us. The trouble is that this is an enormous subject! However, the EBU White book, currently being re-written, contains advice to TDs - several pages - and advice to ACs - rather shorter. Perhaps you could download it and have a look. You will find it at the EBU L&EC page: http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec -- 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 Dec 6 14:12:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB63BP420528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:11:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB63BCt20524 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:11:13 +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 143UwS-00076c-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 03:08:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 02:53:16 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$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 In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French writes >>Hey guys, >> >>This is the sort of endless thread on an uninteresting matter that >>TDs have cited to me as a reason they do not want to bother with >>BLML. >> >>Please wind it up in a last summary of positions, and drop it. > > You ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black? > > Look, Marv, it's easy. You do not like it, kill the thread. I am not >arguing with someone who does not listen, and there is an important >principle involved: once John realises that he will agree with me: trust >me. > Conditional Acquiescence. Provided an action over and above merely placing it face down has taken place. sigh :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 6 21:36:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB6AYNK21877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:34:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB6AYEt21872 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 21:34:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-7-176.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.7.176]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA18417 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 11:34:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2D0903.5918A07A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2000 16:25:55 +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: <200012041803.NAA09496@cfa183.harvard.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > > From: Herman De Wael > > OK, 4 people around the table, ACBLland. > > > > They are playing the exact same system, being regular > > partners of one another. > > > Says A "2Sp" > > Says B "please explain" > > Says C "Johnson" > > Says D "OK" > > > > After the board B-D call the TD and ask to give a PP to A-C > > because of infraction of ACBL regulation "naming a > > convention". > > As John said, PP to BD under L74A2. (Or maybe he can find another > law to use.) > Actually, why ? They are asking the TD to apply the regulation ? > As for the rest: C's naming the convention instead of explaining it was > an infraction. That is exactly Ed's point. > This infraction did not cause damage because (under the > original statement) BD are fully aware of the meaning, thus no score > adjustment. Well, that is the one Ed does not agree with, I suspect. > No PP because C may not have been aware of the regulation, > and anyway he had considerable reason to expect that naming the > convention would be enough in this case. However, the TD tells him > about the regulation and tells him to give at least a brief explanation > next time and always to give a full explanation if playing against > opponents who are less familiar with his methods. > > Do you really disagree with this, Herman? I don't, not at all. I was using an example to show to Ed why he is wrong in interpreting the ACBL regulation so as to allow for a pro question. > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 6 23:54:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB6CruG22279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:53:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB6Crnt22275 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:53:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.157.226] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 143e4n-0002Up-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 06 Dec 2000 12:53:38 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:53:12 -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 Having paid this thread no heed at all, my attention was drawn to it by Marvin's assertion that it was of no interest to anyone. It seems to me that the Law itself is not really of much use: Law 45A Each player...plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it on the table immediately before him. It seems difficult to imagine that anyone could have a problem with this; a card detached from a player's hand and faced on the table immediately before the player is a played card. Of course, the English here is ambiguous; what is meant is that the card should be faced on that portion of the table which is immediately in front of the player, but what is said is that the player faces his card anywhere on the table, provided it is the table immediately in front of him and not some other table. "...and facing it immediately before him on the table" would be correct, though "before" is archaic and capable of mistranslation, while "in front of" is not. I have mentioned in the past that only Law 8A1 is without linguistic flaw. We may consider, then, that a card detached from a player's hand and placed face up in front of him on the table is a played card, while any other card is not. However: Law 45C2 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 previously indicated that this wording is imperfect; what is meant is that declarer must play a card that is held face up and touches or nearly touches the table, and must also play a card maintained in some other position that indicates that it has been played. What is said is that declarer must play a card held face up, and must play a card touching or nearly touching the table, and must play a card maintained in some other position that indicates that it has been played. It is the second (or third) possibility that is of interest to me now. How can declarer maintain a card in such a position as to indicate that it has been played? Well, in what position must a card be to have been played? It can only be a card face up immediately in front of declarer on the table - no other card has been played within the meaning of L45A, and it is not possible to maintain a card "in such a position as to indicate that it has been played" unless that card is face up in front of the player on the table. A declarer who puts a card face down on the table has not maintained it in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. Thus, when DWS writes: Consider a case where declarer is, in your view, maintaining a card in a position in such a position as to indicate it has been played, but not where it is visible to the oppos. he is (apart from using clauses containing the word "position" rather too frequently to be consistent with perfect sense) alluding to a contrafactual: a card that is not visible to the opponents cannot be maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. This means, of course, that the final clause of L45C2 is worthless - since there is only one position in which a card has been played, no one can maintain a card in any other position that indicates that it has been played. Law 45C4 A card must be played if a player names or otherwise designates it as the card he proposes to play. This Law has been confused by Probst with L45C2 - it is possible, by maintaining a card in any one of a number of positions, to designate it as the card one proposes to play. His confusion is understandable, since it existed in the minds of the Lawmakers when they constructed the final clause in L45C2. Whether or not a card has been maintained in such a position as to have been designated by declarer as the card he proposes to play is a matter for the director - if, as uncouth people do, a player slaps a card against his forehead, that could be considered a designation leading to the card's having to be played. If a player, as perfectly couth people do, puts a card face down on the table in order to indicate that he has no difficulty with this trick, but wishes to consider the rest of the deal, that could also be considered a designation within the meaning of L45C4. Personally, I would distinguish between the two cases: if a player slaps a card to his forehead, I would almost certainly rule that the card must be played; if a player with a face-down card wants to change his mind about playing it after completing his reflections, I would almost certainly permit such a change. But my actual ruling in any particular case would depend on circumstances. The answer to the question: can a card be played that the player's opponents have not seen? is of course "Yes", for I can detach a card from my hand and place it face up on the table before turning it over at the end of the trick, and if my opponents were looking elsewhere at the time, that does not change the status of my card. The answer to the question: can a card be played that the player's opponents have not had the opportunity to see? is of course "No". 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 Dec 7 00:57:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB6DuZR22436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:56:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB6DuSt22431 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:56:28 +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 OAA24907; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:54:11 +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 OAA28573; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 14:56:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001206150739.00812d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 15:07:39 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] How to argue ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Some cases are quite easy to solve. The problem might then be how to explain your decision to the sides. Especially when you consider the case to be so obvious ... AKxx Axx xx J10xx J10xxx x Jx Q109xx Jx K10x AKQx 9xxx Q9x Kx AQxxxx xx W N E S 1S p 1NT 2D p ... 1NT was of the forcing species, not that it matters. North took some time deciding what to do on his second round, and indeed this would be a good hand for any "what do you bid?" feature (2NT, 3NT, 2S ?). After some time, East reached for his bidding box. North stopped him quickly before anyboby could see where he was aiming. East mumbled something, and now something strange happened : his concentration vanished, North pulled out the 2H card ! East quickly doubled that, so quickly that it convinced South to go back to 3D. West and North passed and N/S had missed their thin-but-making game. And now, faced with a misfit-looking bidding sequence, East doubled again ! The director was called (no, not me, I was merely kibitzing), told them to go through. 3D made with an overtrick, an obvious top to N/S. Re-summoning. The TD didn't find it difficult : in the absence of any fault by N/S, he couldn't do anything. But ... He explained that East's double was an obvious wild gamble, with no hope of any heart trick and diamonds under the length. So East was responsible of what happened to him. After the tournament, East told me he didn't like the decision, especdially the 'gamble' argument. I told him he was right, because this is an argument that may only be used to state there is no link between an infraction and the result. But here, there was no infraction. 1) Is that right ? 2) Now East asked me how I could be sure there was no infraction (everybody agreed that 2H was not artificial, only a lapsus digiti). Laws 40A and 75B only deal with intentional deviations. It proved surprisingly difficult to find any mention of what to do after a material error. So, question 2 is : what should the argument have been, to prove North has the right to lapse ? Thank you for your help. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 7 03:13:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB6GCd922788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 03:12:39 +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.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB6GCWt22784 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 03:12:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d311.iae.nl [212.61.5.57]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E9DEE21077 for ; Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:12:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <009b01c05f9f$62a6a0e0$39053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:11:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 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: Friday, December 01, 2000 12:22 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention > they called the TD and he did not follow the Law book, in which case let > us give both sides a good score under L82C. >> What is a good score? I know TD's always giving both sides A+. But in this case one may ask what the influence is of TD's fault. What is the chance that north let the double stand in case the TD offers him to change? The TD is not allowed to apply Law 12C3. So there is a final pass and play starts. The result may be minus 4. What is wrong with that as an adjusted score? No influence on the bidding, no influence on the play. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 7 12:18:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB71Ett23840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:14:55 +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-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 eB71Eht23831 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:14:44 +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 143pdq-0007QV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:14:39 +0000 Message-ID: <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:52:00 +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$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@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 >Having paid this thread no heed at all, my attention was drawn to it by >Marvin's assertion that it was of no interest to anyone. It seems to me >that the Law itself is not really of much use: > >Law 45A >Each player...plays a card by detaching it from his hand and facing it >on the table immediately before him. > >It seems difficult to imagine that anyone could have a problem with >this; a card detached from a player's hand and faced on the table >immediately before the player is a played card. > >Of course, the English here is ambiguous; what is meant is that the card >should be faced on that portion of the table which is immediately in >front of the player, but what is said is that the player faces his card >anywhere on the table, provided it is the table immediately in front of >him and not some other table. "...and facing it immediately before him >on the table" would be correct, though "before" is archaic and capable >of mistranslation, while "in front of" is not. I have mentioned in the >past that only Law 8A1 is without linguistic flaw. > >We may consider, then, that a card detached from a player's hand and >placed face up in front of him on the table is a played card, while any >other card is not. However: > >Law 45C2 >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 previously indicated that this wording is imperfect; what is >meant is that declarer must play a card that is held face up and touches >or nearly touches the table, and must also play a card maintained in >some other position that indicates that it has been played. What is said >is that declarer must play a card held face up, and must play a card >touching or nearly touching the table, and must play a card maintained >in some other position that indicates that it has been played. It is the >second (or third) possibility that is of interest to me now. > >How can declarer maintain a card in such a position as to indicate that >it has been played? Well, in what position must a card be to have been >played? It can only be a card face up immediately in front of declarer >on the table - no other card has been played within the meaning of L45A, >and it is not possible to maintain a card "in such a position as to >indicate that it has been played" unless that card is face up in front >of the player on the table. A declarer who puts a card face down on the >table has not maintained it in such a position as to indicate that it >has been played. Thus, when DWS writes: > >Consider a case where declarer is, in your view, maintaining a card in a >position in such a position as to indicate it has been played, but not >where it is visible to the oppos. > >he is (apart from using clauses containing the word "position" rather >too frequently to be consistent with perfect sense) alluding to a >contrafactual: a card that is not visible to the opponents cannot be >maintained in such a position as to indicate that it has been played. >This means, of course, that the final clause of L45C2 is worthless - >since there is only one position in which a card has been played, no one >can maintain a card in any other position that indicates that it has >been played. Is it reasonable to interpret the Law in such a way as to assume it is meaningless? I grant that the wording is imperfect, and your logic is impeccable: but that does not seem a useful or necessary interpretation. It seems reasonable to interpret it that a card maintained in a position that indicates it has been played in the popular sense rather than the legal sense. -- 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 Dec 7 12:18:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB71Etr23839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:14:55 +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-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 eB71Egt23830 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:14:44 +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 143pdp-0007QU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 01:14:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:48:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? References: <3.0.6.32.20001206150739.00812d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001206150739.00812d10@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 writes >Dear blmlists, > >Some cases are quite easy to solve. The problem might then be how to >explain your decision to the sides. >Especially when you consider the case to be so obvious ... > > AKxx > Axx > xx > J10xx > > J10xxx x > Jx Q109xx > Jx K10x > AKQx 9xxx > > Q9x > Kx > AQxxxx > xx > > W N E S > > 1S p 1NT 2D > p ... > >1NT was of the forcing species, not that it matters. >North took some time deciding what to do on his second round, and indeed >this would be a good hand for any "what do you bid?" feature (2NT, 3NT, 2S >?). After some time, East reached for his bidding box. North stopped him >quickly before anyboby could see where he was aiming. East mumbled >something, and now something strange happened : his concentration vanished, >North pulled out the 2H card ! >East quickly doubled that, so quickly that it convinced South to go back to >3D. West and North passed and N/S had missed their thin-but-making game. >And now, faced with a misfit-looking bidding sequence, East doubled again ! > >The director was called (no, not me, I was merely kibitzing), told them to >go through. 3D made with an overtrick, an obvious top to N/S. Re-summoning. >The TD didn't find it difficult : in the absence of any fault by N/S, he >couldn't do anything. But ... >He explained that East's double was an obvious wild gamble, with no hope of >any heart trick and diamonds under the length. So East was responsible of >what happened to him. > >After the tournament, East told me he didn't like the decision, especdially >the 'gamble' argument. >I told him he was right, because this is an argument that may only be used >to state there is no link between an infraction and the result. But here, >there was no infraction. >1) Is that right ? >2) Now East asked me how I could be sure there was no infraction (everybody >agreed that 2H was not artificial, only a lapsus digiti). Laws 40A and 75B >only deal with intentional deviations. It proved surprisingly difficult to >find any mention of what to do after a material error. So, question 2 is : >what should the argument have been, to prove North has the right to lapse ? > >Thank you for your help. It is difficult to see what East is asking for. Of course, his "gambling" double is not something that the TD should have mentioned, since it has nothing to do with anything. Unless East wishes for a rule to be introduced that every time the opponents make a mistake he should get a top, it is difficult to see why he is making a fuss. N/S made a mistake: as a result they missed a game. I wish all my opponents played like that! -- 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 Dec 7 14:24:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB73LQN24130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:21:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB73LJt24125 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:21:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.181.214] (helo=D457300) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 143rcL-0005Fh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:21:10 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 03:21:33 -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: > Is it reasonable to interpret the Law in such a way as to assume it is > meaningless? I grant that the wording is imperfect, and your logic is > impeccable: but that does not seem a useful or necessary interpretation. > It seems reasonable to interpret it that a card maintained in a position > that indicates it has been played in the popular sense rather than the > legal sense. It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. It is ludicrous to have to "interpret" the Laws at all, for they should not be susceptible to "interpretation" - they should say what they mean, so that every player from the lowest to the highest knows what they are and can play the game in accordance with them. Of course, if this were actually to happen, then (among other things) this mailing list would cease to exist and tournament directors would fulfil a purely functional role. Your view and mine as to the desirability of this may differ. 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 Dec 7 15:26:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB74NwK24332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:23:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB74Nrt24328 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:23:53 +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 PAA24213 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:17:10 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:18:06 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:15:56 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 07/12/2000 04:14:39 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [big snip] >Laws 40A and 75B only deal with intentional >deviations. It proved surprisingly difficult to find any mention of what to do after a material >error. So, question 2 is : >what should the argument have been, to prove >North has the right to lapse ? > >Thank you for your help. > > Alain. My reading of L40A is that it permits a player to make any call - which is not based on a partnership understanding - with only a few constraints (such as an SO can regulate that a particular convention may not be psyched). However, there is the egregious law penalising *paying insufficient attention to the game*. This should be rewritten or dropped in the 2007 Laws, as a broad interpretation allows TDs and ACs unlimited power to impose their parochial views of what *the game* should be. 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 Dec 7 21:37:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7AaGD25015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:36:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7Aa8t25011 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:36:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-152.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.152]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA25138 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:36:02 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 11:54:23 +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] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@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 writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> > >> You are still giving an advantage to players who break the Law over > >> those who do not. > >> > > > > So, if in Antwerp, one player calls the TD at the right time, and > another does not, you would give a *better* score to the one who does > not because they do not follow the rules in Antwerp? > No I would not. But I would not either give a far worse score to people who make a small, somewhat unrelated error. > I could live with adjusting for the offending side only, but I dislike > people gaining from not following the laws. > They would not be gaining. They would get what they could have got if they had followed the laws entirely. For example, I might give them a ruling under which their actions were not "optimal". Say they could defeat 3Sp by 4 or 5. If they play the contract after calling in time and getting to play it for real, they will get -5 or -4. If they were not in any way at fault and I were to rule by L12C2, they'd get -5. Now I might be persuaded to give them only -4. But I would let them remain at -620 just because of a small error that everyone makes. As I said, there are times for lessons and there are times for doing the right thing. I prefer giving lessons when it does not cost. Keeps the customers happy. -- 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 Dec 8 00:15:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7DElo25304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:14:47 +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 (oe56.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.191]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7DEet25300 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:14:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 05:14:37 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [216.67.50.3] From: "axman22" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 07:10:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2000 13:14:37.0499 (UTC) FILETIME=[A64B00B0:01C0604F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 09:21 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > DWS wrote: > > > Is it reasonable to interpret the Law in such a way as to assume it > is > > meaningless? I grant that the wording is imperfect, and your logic is > > impeccable: but that does not seem a useful or necessary > interpretation. > > It seems reasonable to interpret it that a card maintained in a > position > > that indicates it has been played in the popular sense rather than the > > legal sense. > > It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that > make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more > ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be > changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. It is ludicrous > to have to "interpret" the Laws at all, for they should not be > susceptible to "interpretation" - they should say what they mean, so > that every player from the lowest to the highest knows what they are and > can play the game in accordance with them. Of course, if this were > actually to happen, then (among other things) this mailing list would > cease to exist and tournament directors would fulfil a purely functional > role. Your view and mine as to the desirability of this may differ. > > David Burn > London, England An important step in the best direction, I say. Still, as Florida is discovering, the true feat is determining the best words to write. roger pewick houston, tx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 01:57:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7Eulo25513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:56:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7Eudt25506 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:56:40 +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 1442TG-000LV6-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:56:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:09:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> Herman De Wael writes >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> You are still giving an advantage to players who break the Law over >> >> those who do not. >> So, if in Antwerp, one player calls the TD at the right time, and >> another does not, you would give a *better* score to the one who does >> not because they do not follow the rules in Antwerp? >No I would not. >But I would not either give a far worse score to people who >make a small, somewhat unrelated error. >> I could live with adjusting for the offending side only, but I dislike >> people gaining from not following the laws. >They would not be gaining. They would get what they could >have got if they had followed the laws entirely. That is not true. The example that worries me is this one: 1S 2C X P 2H At this time it is discovered that the double required an alert. Without the alert it is a penalty double. The passer has a club fit, and if she were given her call back, she might pass anyway: she might bid 3C: she might bid 4C: she might bid 5C. If the TD is called, then she will get her pass back, and she will have to choose whether to pass, bid 3C, 4C or 5C. She will then get the actual result on the board. Let us say for arguments sake that she bids 5C, is doubled, goes for 800, and slam fails. If the TD is not called, then the Laws do not allow an adjustment because of this. Ok, we know that not everyone agrees with me, and you are saying that in Antwerp you will give them an adjustment whether the Laws permit it or not. What adjustment do you give? If you ask her she will say [correctly: there is no doubt she was a perfectly ethical player] that she does not know what she would have bid if she had known double was for takeout. The actual score at the table [let us say] was 5S making. Now what? For an adjustment you look at the various possible actions, and realise that if she had bid 4C there is enough room to check on aces but not enough room to realise there is a particular duplication, so 6S-1 seems a reasonable result. So, under L12C2 you rule 6S-1. Now, I know that L12C3 complicates this scenario, but you are going to give a decided advantage to the player who does *not* call the TD after MI for a call that can be changed. Are you sure this is right? >I prefer giving lessons when it does not cost. Keeps the >customers happy. If I was the opponent who was given 6S-1 I would not be a happy customer. Note that I am coming more and more to the feeling based on experience and case law that it is misinformation cases that really need an immediate Director call: others tend to be less important. The TD has other options in MI cases [eg taking someone away from the table] to get a proper result without an adjustment: he cannot do these things if not called. -- 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 Fri Dec 8 01:57:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7EuoY25516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:56:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7Eudt25507 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 01:56:44 +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 1442TH-000LV3-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 14:56:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:56:12 +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> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@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 >DWS wrote: > >> Is it reasonable to interpret the Law in such a way as to assume it >is >> meaningless? I grant that the wording is imperfect, and your logic is >> impeccable: but that does not seem a useful or necessary >interpretation. >> It seems reasonable to interpret it that a card maintained in a >position >> that indicates it has been played in the popular sense rather than the >> legal sense. > >It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that >make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more >ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be >changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. While true, there is an interim period before you can get a new and corrected wording. Thus we need to interpret the Laws in that interim period. -- 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 Fri Dec 8 03:33:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7GSd125757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:28:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7GSWt25753 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:28:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id QAA07643 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:28:22 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention 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: <047401c05d31$59e90d00$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Looking at the hand again I feel that DWS has it right in ruling result stands. People have said that North would retract the double - why? 4H-5 is a poor score when NS can make 3NT, 4S*-3 is a fine score. I believe that North has a genuinely difficult decision over whether to retract the double/leave it in. He should not be permitted to avoid this decision by failing to call the TD. Not relevant here but the hand is, IMO, a fine example of a non-egregious defence costing 5 tricks over best defence. IE South leads a heart, a club is thrown from dummy and when East plays a diamond South wins the jack and switches to a club. > Yogesh Abhyankar (from India) wrote: > >Teams > Both Vul > Dealer West > > A > KQT9 > KQ76 > 9843 > QJ9872 T65 > Void AJ8762 > T984 2 > T92 AQJ > K43 > 543 > AJ53 > K76 > 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 Dec 8 03:36:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7GaIl25786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:36:18 +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 eB7Ga7t25782 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:36:12 +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 14441a-000GPB-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:36:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:27:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > > > Note that I am coming more and more to the feeling based on experience >and case law that it is misinformation cases that really need an >immediate Director call: others tend to be less important. I have freely admitted, and it is probably well known amongst EBU TDs that I am *very* harsh on MI, and more relaxed about UI than most. (This means that I relax my MI views and sharpen my UI views when TD'ing EBU events). I find that the levels of frustration caused by MI are much more annoying to players than apparent use of UI. Players will accept a TD's UI ruling ("He has his bid") with far less concern than the justifiable anger they have when they get screwed up by MI. Because of this I'm 100% with DWS here. "Gentlemen, you really *do* have to call me when this happens, because among other things I can sometimes roll back the auction and get the problem solved, and we can play bridge, not award adjusted scores". This is a view the players understand and they would prefer to play bridge than attend ACs. Equally they know that if I determine UI has been used then I will adjust the score at the end of the hand, and they don't really need to call me until then. "John, can you look at this, we reserved our rights and the hesitation is agreed." is typical, and leads to very little friction. Not so with MI. cheers john > The TD has >other options in MI cases [eg taking someone away from the table] to get >a proper result without an adjustment: he cannot do these things if not >called. > -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 03:44:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7Gid825813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:44:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7GiWt25809 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 03:44:33 +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 KAA22422 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 10:45:09 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 10:45:23 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-Reply-To: <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I feel like I am merrily sailing in between Scylla and Charybdis, and at the same time lengthening an already long thread, but I can't help myself. At 03:21 AM 12/7/2000 -0000, you wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> Is it reasonable to interpret the Law in such a way as to assume it >is >> meaningless? I grant that the wording is imperfect, and your logic is >> impeccable: but that does not seem a useful or necessary >interpretation. >> It seems reasonable to interpret it that a card maintained in a >position >> that indicates it has been played in the popular sense rather than the >> legal sense. > >It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that >make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more >ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be >changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. It is ludicrous >to have to "interpret" the Laws at all, for they should not be >susceptible to "interpretation" - they should say what they mean, so >that every player from the lowest to the highest knows what they are and >can play the game in accordance with them. Of course, if this were >actually to happen, then (among other things) this mailing list would >cease to exist and tournament directors would fulfil a purely functional >role. Your view and mine as to the desirability of this may differ. I disagree with this, even though I may be the only one who does. My disagreement comes on three grounds: a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language that I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can write a long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and unambiguous, _and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand immediately what those laws mean. It can't be done. Totally unambiguous language usually requires extra clauses designed to tie up loose ends, and those extra clauses invariably produce confusion and complexity as a result. Completeness and precision, on the one hand, and simplicity of understanding, on the other, are to a large extent conflicting goals, as many writers or law, for bridge or for society, have discovered. Most governments have given up entirely on the second goal while seeking to fulfill the former, and they _still_ end up with tremendous problems of interpretation. b) If it could be done, the result would be to make the game less just. That is 'just' in my own ordinary common-sense 'natural justice' definition, not in the sense of 'justice' where justice is defined by the statutes themselves. We could, for example, change the way bridge is played by writing laws such as 'A bid once made cannot be changed', and this would certainly greatly increase simplicity and reduce ambiguity. The result, of course, is that when the LOL with vision problems pulls out the 2 heart card when she thinks she's pulling out the 2 spade card, we have to stick her with her bid even if she quickly realizes her mistake. Or take a case that happened at my club where someone made an alertable bid, was asked, and explained the bid as showing 6 spades. The next bidder, thinking hard, then said "6 spades, no, wait, I mean 3 diamonds". It is incontroverable that he didn't intend to _bid_ 6 spades--but we cannot allow into our new 'improved' bridge laws such notions as 'incontrovertability'. To the wall with all beginners, all players who like polite conversation during a hand, all players with any sort of handicap of vision, hearing, or concentration. I _like_ laws that have enough ambiguity that the TD can have the flexibility to apply them where it is _right_ to apply them, or let them slide where it's right to do that. And, 'yes', I know that means there will be mistakes, and controversy. c) As has been pointed out, even if it were _possible_ to write the sort of laws you want, it will take us some time to get there. [I, of course, think this will be an unending process, as a law that seemed clear to the lawmakers gets questioned by somebody in Hoboken, eventually gets re-written, and then the re-written version is misunderstood in Johannesburg or ambiguously translated in Bejing, gets re-written again, etc.] During the time it takes us to get there, it is not helpful to uphold interpretations of the law that render the law incoherent or vacuuous, even if those interpretations uphold what seems to be some literal meaning of the words the lawmakers used. [And, I think, a literal interpretation of the words is just as much an interpretation as a more loose interpretation.] >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling cfgcs@eiu.edu -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 04:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7HCNi25882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 04:12:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7HCHt25878 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 04:12:18 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eB7HCwu05133 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:12:58 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200012071712.eB7HCwu05133@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 12:12:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> from "Grant Sterling" at Dec 07, 2000 10:45:23 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling writes: > > a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language that > I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can write a > long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and unambiguous, > _and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand immediately > what those laws mean. I agree. Which is why I'm constantly lobbying for an official case book written not by SOs (*not* intended as a slam at the AC books. These are of tremendous value.) but rather by the framers of the laws. From my experience in other rule books concepts that are difficult to explain in words can often be illustrated by examples. How do you know what needs these official examples? Well the framers of the rules should be able to see what areas AC and directors tend to have a lot of problems with. If they see more than one or two rulings that cite a law and use it in a way not intended, then an example can show what the intent really is. -- 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 Dec 8 05:05:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7I4OG25990 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 05:04:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno.racsa.co.cr (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7I47t25986 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 05:04:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from john (sanpedro-a185.racsa.co.cr [196.40.40.186]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA12910; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:54:26 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000401c0606f$d7a190a0$ba2828c4@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: , "Adam Beneschan" References: <200011291820.KAA02508@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:35:19 -0500 Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ah yes, and the delcarer has been carefully watching West's spades, noticing that the "6" has not been discarded on the diamonds. Or, they have been dutifully counting them, and realize that the end position, when the Jack of Spades has been discarded, is: s T h - d - c Ax s A6 h - d - c K s Q h - d - c Qx and that West does not hold s A h - d - c Kx, which is what they would like declarer to believe. Discarding can be such fun when someone is not watching ..... John John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com johnmacg@sol.racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 1:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Objecting to Partners Acquiescence | | 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/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 05:27:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7IR7s26045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 05:27:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7IQpt26040 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 05:27:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-148.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.148]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0999236CEC; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:26:37 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001401c0607a$9d098fa0$94b6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:22:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 B: >>It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that >>make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more >>ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be >>changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. > > While true, there is an interim period before you can get a new and >corrected wording. Thus we need to interpret the Laws in that interim >period. >David St My dearest Davids, You are living in a phantasy world. I have said it before: It is simply impossible to use 'normal' language and to succeed in describing uniquely defined definitions, regulations, what so evers. The fact that you ignore this statement proofs it: you apparently read something else as I meant to say. So dear Davids, there is no interim period as long as we use English to define our laws (and not Euclidian arithmatic in stead, for example). And I am not even worried , as long as you want to debate the meaning of '... on the table immediately before him' . 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 Dec 8 06:28:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7JRsH26123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:27:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7JRmt26119 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:27:49 +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 ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:26:58 -0800 Message-ID: <01f301c06083$ac0a1ca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:21:41 -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 Grant Sterling wrote: > > a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language that > I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can write a > long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and unambiguous, > _and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand immediately > what those laws mean. It can't be done. How do you know? Why not cite a few laws that are currently problematical, and see if David Burn or anyone else can rewrite them in clear, simple, unambiguous language? However, do not require that unnecessary complexities be retained. For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. 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 Fri Dec 8 06:51:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7JpFO26163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:51:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB7Jp9t26159 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 06:51:10 +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 <20001207193351.GXRQ29930.mail.rdc2.occa.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:33:51 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 11:34:29 -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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <200012071712.eB7HCwu05133@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Grant Sterling writes: > > > > a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language that > > I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can write a > > long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and > unambiguous, > > _and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand > immediately > > what those laws mean. > > I agree. Which is why I'm constantly lobbying for an official case book > written not by SOs >(*not* intended as a slam at the AC books. These are > of tremendous value.) and not taken that way by the authors :-) It is our hope that some of the "slam-dunk" cases from the AC books will be used for that very purpose some day. >but rather by the framers of the laws. From my > experience in other rule books concepts that are difficult to explain in > words can often be illustrated by examples. Again, we can learn from golf - they have a wonderful "Decisions on the Rules of Golf" that is updated annually and does an excellent job of this very thing... Linda > > How do you know what needs these official examples? Well the framers of > the rules should be able to see what areas AC and directors tend to have > a lot of problems with. If they see more than one or two rulings that > cite a law and use it in a way not intended, then an example can show > what the intent really is. > > -- > 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 Dec 8 08:39:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7Lcpv26405 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:38:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from frigg.inter.net.il (frigg.inter.net.il [192.114.186.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7Lcit26401 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:38:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-90.access.net.il [213.8.4.90] (may be forged)) by frigg.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AFW33763; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 23:37:51 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A300388.3EC7AF9@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 23:39:21 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David J Grabiner , BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Slow Expert Doubles References: <043f01c05d30$7837a560$b1e336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <00120311564603.05998@psa836> <3A2D2A9F.2EA96D23@inter.net.il> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hmmm I apologize ...East doubled , not west ; the sanity issue is out ...! In my opinion - West showed his hand , he has nothing more to bid. West becomes "the captain" -> any call he makes - East must pass. Dany Dany Haimovici wrote: > I try again to tell all of us that the Laws were written to help players > enjoy the game ; not ot compell them to think about the laws first. > I don't say the laws and ethics should be infringed... > > And to our case : I don't think I'll ever change the contract - with > East's > hand no sane player will take out the double : neither if it was in > tempo or > faster than light's speed or after 20 minutes thinking. > > I am not sure if I'll ask to hang mister West or not , but I don't think > it > is the main problem here. > > Dany > > David J Grabiner wrote: > > > On Sun, 03 Dec 2000, Peter Gill wrote: > > > > > Which reminds me - my personal interpretation of the ACBL's > > > edict that the NOs have to continue to "play bridge" after an > > > infraction would be that the NOs have to continue to make > > > mistakes at their normal rate. > > > > So if a weak declarer is misinformed and correctly sets up a double > > squeeze which was marked on the MI (with the contract making on a > > routine finess with the proper information), he doesn't get an > > adjustment? :-) > > > > More seriously, this does seem to be fair to weak players. If a weak > > player is misinformed and gets to a shaky 4H rather than a cold 4S at > > IMPs, and could have made 4H by taking a non-trivial safety play, he > > should still get an adjustment. Failure to take the safety play may be > > irrational for an expert. > > > > -- > > 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/ > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 8 09:37:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7Mb8P26545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:37:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7Mb2t26541 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:37:02 +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 RAA09091 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21163 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:36:57 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012072236.RAA21163@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > After the tournament, East told me he didn't like the decision, especdially > the 'gamble' argument. > I told him he was right, because this is an argument that may only be used > to state there is no link between an infraction and the result. But here, > there was no infraction. > 1) Is that right ? I think what the director was trying to say was that _even if_ NS had violated some law, EW would get no adjustment because East's double was wild or gambling. Whether it's wise for a TD to say such a thing is another question, but I don't think there is anything legally wrong with it. > 2) Now East asked me how I could be sure there was no infraction (everybody > agreed that 2H was not artificial, only a lapsus digiti). Laws 40A and 75B > only deal with intentional deviations. L40A applies. I don't think North's mispull was based on a partnership agreement, hence it was entirely legal. I expect one could argue that South's 3D bid is a UI infraction because of North's long hesitation before the 2H bid. Of course the loudness of East's double is AI to S, so LA's have to be considered with that in mind. Even if you think 3D was illegal, there might not be a score adjustment. I don't really think North would sit for 2Hx on his three-card suit! On the other hand, maybe if the auction goes differently (e.g., South passing 2Hx, North bidding 2NT), the final contract wouldn't be doubled. So it wouldn't be crazy to give NS 2NT+1 = +150 or some such. (3NT by S might go down, but I don't see how it can avoid being played by N.) But I don't see adjusting the EW score. [Sorry; the following uses tabs put in by the original poster, and I cannot easily remove them at the moment.] > AKxx > Axx > xx > J10xx > > J10xxx x > Jx Q109xx > Jx K10x > AKQx 9xxx > > Q9x > Kx > AQxxxx > xx > > W N E S > > 1S p 1NT 2D p ...2H x!! 3D p p x all p -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 09:48:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7MmSq26583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:48:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7MmMt26579 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:48:23 +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 RAA09566 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21181 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 17:48:19 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012072248.RAA21181@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > At this time it is discovered that the double required an alert. > Without the alert it is a penalty double. > > The passer has a club fit, and if she were given her call back, she > might pass anyway: she might bid 3C: she might bid 4C: she might bid 5C. > > If the TD is called, then she will get her pass back, and she will > have to choose whether to pass, bid 3C, 4C or 5C. She will then get the > actual result on the board. Let us say for arguments sake that she bids > 5C, is doubled, goes for 800, and slam fails. > > If the TD is not called, ... > What adjustment do you give? If you ask her she will say [correctly: > there is no doubt she was a perfectly ethical player] that she does not > know what she would have bid if she had known double was for takeout. Why wouldn't it be right to give an adjusted score under L12C2 _with both sides offenders_? There are two infractions: the original MI, and failing to call the TD at the right time: L9B1a. Of course you can apply L11A, I suppose, but it isn't mandatory. The NOS didn't gain by premature action taken by an opponent. So just follow the usual procedure for two consecutive infractions. Of course players won't like this approach, giving both sides the worst of things (worst "at all probable" result, that is), but it seems consistent with the Laws. In the best case, the action taken by the NOS if correctly informed will be obvious, and that score gets assigned to both sides. And even in the worst case, this approach at least prevents either side from _gaining_ from an infraction. Of course John's educational approach is the long-run best solution. The problem won't arise if the TD is called when required, at least if he has his copy of the FLB with him and bothers to open it up. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 10:54:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB7NrS726745 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:53:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB7NrLt26741 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:53:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp125.pullman.com [204.227.174.125]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA31468 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:58:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001207155437.006fafc8@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 15:55:04 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:07 PM 12/6/00 +0100, you wrote: >Dear blmlists, > >Some cases are quite easy to solve. The problem might then be how to >explain your decision to the sides. >Especially when you consider the case to be so obvious ... > > AKxx > Axx > xx > J10xx > > J10xxx x > Jx Q109xx > Jx K10x > AKQx 9xxx > > Q9x > Kx > AQxxxx > xx > > W N E S > > 1S p 1NT 2D > p ... The infraction of the laws is that the hand contains 14 clubs and 12 hearts! I would order a redeal. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 13:47:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB82kZi27912 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:46:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB82kQt27908 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:46:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.89.175] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144DYE-00013y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:46:23 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c060c1$29357de0$af5908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 08:20:43 -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 escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 3:21 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > ---------------------------- \x/ ----------------- > It is reasonable to assume that the Law is contained in the words that > make up the Laws. If those words make no sense, or make sense in more > ways than one, this should be pointed out and the words should be > changed so that they make sense in one and only one way. It is ludicrous > to have to "interpret" the Laws at all, for they should not be > susceptible to "interpretation" - they should say what they mean, so > that every player from the lowest to the highest knows what they are and > can play the game in accordance with them. Of course, if this were > actually to happen, then (among other things) this mailing list would > cease to exist and tournament directors would fulfil a purely functional > role. Your view and mine as to the desirability of this may differ. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I have been deleting this thread but when two Davids were writing to the subject I thought I would look. I do not see any difficulty in the fact that if a player detaches a card from his hand and places it face up on the table under his opponent's nose, or to one side, it is a played card. When the trick is complete the cards must be arranged as Law 65 requires. Bridge players are such intelligent beings that a little bit of vocabulary and parsing, reminiscent of and nostalgic for the times of the first Elizabeth, will not obscure the meaning of the Laws from them. Nor do I find it strange that in a user- friendly environment one of the roles of a TD should be to explain the requirements of the laws to 'the lowest', and perhaps even as much to 'the highest'. ~ 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 Dec 8 13:55:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB82t3327938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:55:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB82sxt27934 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:54:59 +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 NAA03982 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:48:37 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:49:37 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Regulating BLML To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:49:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 08/12/2000 02:46:09 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On page 77 of the June 10th 2000 edition of The Economist is an interesting article, *Regulating the Internet: The consensus machine*. Two quotes: *These bodies have certain characteristics in common. They are largely self-created and self- governing. They are open in both membership and arguments, priding themselves on giving all voices a hearing. They are largely concensus- based in their decision-taking. And, so far at least, they have worked surprisingly smoothly...* *That does not mean all members are, in practice, equal. Unsurprisingly, the contributions of some carry a particular weight, not because they have been elected, but because they are so widely respected (although people can lose that status quickly if they rest on their laurels).* 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 Dec 8 14:56:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB83sMc28167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:54:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB83sFt28163 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:54:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp110.pullman.com [204.227.174.110]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA64115 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 19:59:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001207195549.006f4e50@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:56:00 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:36 PM 12/7/00 -0500, you wrote: >> From: alain gottcheiner >> After the tournament, East told me he didn't like the decision, especdially >> the 'gamble' argument. >> I told him he was right, because this is an argument that may only be used >> to state there is no link between an infraction and the result. But here, >> there was no infraction. >> 1) Is that right ? > >I think what the director was trying to say was that _even if_ NS had >violated some law, EW would get no adjustment because East's double >was wild or gambling. > >Whether it's wise for a TD to say such a thing is another question, >but I don't think there is anything legally wrong with it. > >> 2) Now East asked me how I could be sure there was no infraction (everybody >> agreed that 2H was not artificial, only a lapsus digiti). Laws 40A and 75B >> only deal with intentional deviations. > >L40A applies. I don't think North's mispull was based on a partnership >agreement, hence it was entirely legal. > >I expect one could argue that South's 3D bid is a UI infraction because >of North's long hesitation before the 2H bid. Of course the loudness of >East's double is AI to S, so LA's have to be considered with that in mind. > >Even if you think 3D was illegal, there might not be a score >adjustment. I don't really think North would sit for 2Hx on his >three-card suit! On the other hand, maybe if the auction goes >differently (e.g., South passing 2Hx, North bidding 2NT), the final >contract wouldn't be doubled. So it wouldn't be crazy to give NS 2NT+1 >= +150 or some such. (3NT by S might go down, but I don't see how it >can avoid being played by N.) Supposing that I ignore the fact that they need to throw out the deal and find a deck that has 13 cards in each suit; I still don't see how 3NT by S could go down. (Or for that matter any reason that 3N by S should be harder than 3N by N.) Nothing looks better than a heart opening lead so HA, DA, SA and a low diamond toward the queen looks best. But simply winning HA and finessing the DQ also works. >But I don't see adjusting the EW score. > >[Sorry; the following uses tabs put in by the original poster, and >I cannot easily remove them at the moment.] >> AKxx >> Axx >> xx >> J10xx >> >> J10xxx x >> Jx Q109xx >> Jx K10x >> AKQx 9xxx >> >> Q9x >> Kx >> AQxxxx >> xx >> >> W N E S >> >> 1S p 1NT 2D > p ...2H x!! 3D > p p x all p >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 16:03:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB851mW28410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:01:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB851ft28406 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:01:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp019.pullman.com [204.227.174.19]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA98528 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 21:06:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:03:28 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychic tendencies? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, The opponents come to the table: Opponent 1: "How could you take out my penalty double?" Opponent 2: "What penalty double? In that situation a double has to be for takeout." Neither vul LHO opens 1D, 1H by partner, 1S by RHO. So with A1098x,xxx,-,xxxxx I psyche 4H. Is the following a tendency? "Tend to psyche when the opponents appear to be flustered, are inappropriately discussing a previous hand and their table talk suggests that they may not know how to handle the situation that the psyche would present." (I do have this "tendency" and while it doesn't come up often it comes up more often than one might think. On the given hand I am close enough to my bid that it could work out and of course I have a good chance that the flustered opponents will misjudge the situation and end up in a hopeless spot, like 4S**. This is a real hand, at least approximately and 4S redoubled was down 1600.) BTW, I avoid psyching against inexperienced opponents, this situation applies to experienced opponents who should know better, but come to the table arguing about the last hand. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 17:38:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB86bcS28646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 17:37:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB86bUt28642 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 17:37:31 +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 ; Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:36:41 -0800 Message-ID: <02c301c060e1$332eff40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 22:29:16 -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: > Note that I am coming more and more to the feeling based on > experience and case law that it is misinformation cases that > really need an immediate Director call: others tend to be > less important. The TD has other options in MI cases [eg > taking someone away from the table] to get a proper result > without an adjustment: he cannot do these things if not > called. > Under what MI circumstances would you take someone away from the table? I thought we agreed this was inappropriate. Yes, an immediate call, unless it is for the sole purpose of helping an oblivious partner *and* attention has not been called to the irregularity. I presume that L21B3's language ("the Director may award an adusted score") means that s/he can refuse to adjust the NOS table result if a delay in calling looks like a double-shot attempt. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 19:59:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB88wm228993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:58:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB88wet28984 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:58:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.181] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144JMS-0007WZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:58:36 +0000 Message-ID: <003301c060f5$29a66a80$b55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001401c0607a$9d098fa0$94b6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:56:11 -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 The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) > > My dearest Davids, > > You are living in a phantasy world. > I have said it before: It is simply impossible to use 'normal' language and to succeed in describing uniquely defined definitions, regulations, what so evers. The fact that you ignore this statement proofs it: you apparently read something else as I meant to say. So dear Davids, there is no interim period as long as we use English to define our laws (and not Euclidian arithmatic in stead, for example). And I am not even worried , as long as you want to debate the meaning of '... on the table immediately before him' . > > ton > +=+ 'Spes mea in Deo' delivers! No perseverance required. :-)) +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 19:59:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB88wma28992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:58:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB88wbt28982 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.181] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144JMO-0007WZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:58:32 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c060f5$27088e20$b55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:42:52 -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 The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) --------- \x/ --------- > > Of course, the English here is ambiguous; what is meant is that the card should be faced on that portion of the table which is immediately in front of the player, but what is said is that the player faces his card anywhere on the table, provided it is the table immediately in front of him and not some other table. "... and facing it immediately before him on the table" would be correct, though "before" is archaic and capable of mistranslation, while "in front of" is not. I have mentioned in the past that only Law 8A1 is without linguistic > flaw. > +=+There are one or two things about the statements here that occur to me. One is that the wise David may just be wrong. I do not know on what authority David bases an assertion about 'what is meant'. In fact I do not see a reason that 'what is meant' should not be what David says it actually means. In point of fact I, at least, do not know which of the two it was intended to mean - Edgar had a lawyer's frugality with the use of commas and if he thought they could be omitted so it was. Here he may have decided to leave out such in a draft that could have been written: " .... on the table, immediately before him." My recollection is that the words in question were never actually put to the test of opinion. The committee had them in the drafts, each member felt no need to explore them, each member "knew" what they meant. What I do not know is how many thought they meant what David says they were intended to mean, how many thought they meant what David says they do mean. If anything my reaction is that no intention was articulated. However, I do note a difference in defining location as between the words in 45A and those in 65A, so maybe the closeness was not an essential in the case of 45A. To conclude as much leaves in the air why the drafter should have wanted to include the word "immediately" in 45A. If I have a view it is that probably Edgar had in his mind a comma after 'table' as mentioned above, but I have no reason to say that Edgar may not have been thinking "this table, the one immediately before him". And, frankly, I have no problem with it either way. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 20:00:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8909329017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:00:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB8902t29013 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:00:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.181] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144JMR-0007WZ-00; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:58:35 +0000 Message-ID: <003201c060f5$28d55ee0$b55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 08:51:05 -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 The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Linda Trent To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 7:34 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L45C4(b) > > > It is our hope that some of the "slam-dunk" cases from the AC books will be > used for that very purpose some day. > > >but rather by the framers of the laws. From my > > experience in other rule books concepts that are difficult to explain in > > words can often be illustrated by examples. > > > Again, we can learn from golf - they have a wonderful "Decisions on the > Rules of Golf" that is updated annually and does an excellent job of this > very thing... > > Linda > > > > > How do you know what needs these official examples? Well the framers of > > the rules should be able to see what areas AC and directors tend to have > > a lot of problems with. If they see more than one or two rulings that > > cite a law and use it in a way not intended, then an example can show > > what the intent really is. > > +=+ The WBF's first essay at a code of jurisprudence, to be associated with its Code of Practice. is close to the point of publication. Just give us a little more time. Having put the basic model on the road we will be able to expand its contents subsequently. The President's aim in requesting the work is to establish with WBF authority "Decisions on the Rules of Bridge". ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 20:13:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB89D1X29060 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:13:01 +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 eB89Cst29056 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 20:12:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.172] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144JaD-0007xd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:12:51 +0000 Message-ID: <006701c060f7$26e4eea0$b55608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Regulating BLML Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:03:23 -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 escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 3:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Regulating BLML > > On page 77 of the June 10th 2000 edition of The > Economist is an interesting article, *Regulating the > Internet: The consensus machine*. > > Two quotes: > > *These bodies have certain characteristics in > common. They are largely self-created and self- > governing. They are open in both membership > and arguments, priding themselves on giving all > voices a hearing. They are largely concensus- > based in their decision-taking. And, so far at > least, they have worked surprisingly smoothly...* > > *That does not mean all members are, in > practice, equal. Unsurprisingly, the > contributions of some carry a particular > weight, not because they have been elected, > but because they are so widely respected > (although people can lose that status quickly if > they rest on their laurels).* > > Best wishes > > R +=+ As much can also be said for 'The Economist' +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 21:49:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8Am7i29257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:48:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB8Am1t29253 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 21:48:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.71.104] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 144L4G-0003Lq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:47:56 +0000 Message-ID: <002201c06104$5f7f0fe0$684701d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <003101c060f5$27088e20$b55608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:48:15 -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 Grattan wrote: > > Of course, the English here is ambiguous; what is meant is that > the card should be faced on that portion of the table which is > immediately in front of the player, but what is said is that the > player faces his card anywhere on the table, provided it is the > table immediately in front of him and not some other table. "... > and facing it immediately before him on the table" would be > correct, though "before" is archaic and > capable of mistranslation, while "in front of" is not. I have > mentioned in the past that only Law 8A1 is without linguistic > > flaw. > > > +=+There are one or two things about the > statements here that occur to me. One is > that the wise David may just be wrong. I do > not know on what authority David bases an > assertion about 'what is meant'. None whatever - pure conjecture. It seems fairly clear that if the notion had been that cards could in fact be put anywhere on the table, there would have been no need for a clause relating to "immediately before" the player at all. Nor would it actually have been necessary to indicate that the table was supposed to be the table at which the player was sitting. However, on occasion players do reach across the table in order to discard some winner a couple of inches from partner's nose, when he has missed an obvious switch earlier in the play. By the same token, I have seen a card hurled in the air to land - as it happened - on the next table but one. Both these are instances of "playing" a card as far as I am concerned - and Ton Kooijman is quite correct to assert that the matter is of minuscule importance in the scheme of things. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 8 22:23:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8BNMi29385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:23:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 eB8BN8t29380 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:23:09 +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 144LcE-0009l2-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 11:23:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 18:22:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Permitted system 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 eB8BNFt29382 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ted Reveley ["the Bear" of the occasional "Tales of the Bear" on RGB and my Bridgepage] was directing at our local club Swiss Teams league night [twelve nights a year, two matches a night]. He came over to my table and told me a Director was wanted. "But you are the Director", I said, puzzled. "I think I shall leave this one to you," he said. AQTxx J97xx x xx Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so I shall give you the regs: 9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) 9.2.1 This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually for opening bids). 14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids 14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. · The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except · You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter. I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal conventions after their openings. ---------- While no ruling was asked for, he had played against our team in the first match. Holding Qxx xx AQTxxx xx he opened 1D against the Bear and reached the wrong game: my partner opened 3D and we missed game [3NT while cold off in theory will probably make]. ---------- So, how do you rule? If you rule it as playing an illegal convention then EBU regulations require you to cancel the board and give A-/A+, unless the opponents did better than A+. On the actual hand 3NT made ten tricks in both rooms. -- 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 Dec 9 01:15:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8EE9H29775 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:14:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8EE1t29771 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 01:14:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from p5fs02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.96] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 144OFY-0000Xp-00; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:11:49 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c06120$ff247140$605293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "N. Scott Cardell" References: <3.0.32.20001207155437.006fafc8@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:52:21 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: N. Scott Cardell To: Sent: 07 December 2000 23:55 Subject: Re: [BLML] How to argue ? +=+ A very confusing and mysterious subject heading. On blml whoever needed to ask this question? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 02:27:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8FRCF29910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:27:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB8FR6t29906 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 02:27:06 +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 KAA05927 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:27:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA24565 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:27:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:27:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012081527.KAA24565@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > In fact I do not see a reason that 'what > is meant' should not be what David says it > actually means. [We are talking about L45C2 now, not the law in the heading.] If there were three independent conditions, as David B. suggests the words mean, one of them would be "Declarer must play a card touching or nearly touching the table." That can't be right. It would require declarer to play a card accidentally dropped, even face down! Or the bottom card if he folds his hand and puts it down for a moment. How about if we put the 'held' in? This would make the three phrases in the series fail to coordinate because we would need to read "held maintained" for the third one, but never mind. What about "Declarer must play a card held touching or nearly touching the table?" This says that if declarer takes out a card and holds it face down on the table while he is thinking, he must play that card. I don't think so. To John P.: 'maintained' is not a synonym for 'held'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 03:04:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8G3nq29986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:03:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8G3gt29982 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:03:43 +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 144Pzl-000A67-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:03:38 +0000 Message-ID: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:01:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: 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 > > Ted Reveley ["the Bear" of the occasional "Tales of the Bear" on RGB >and my Bridgepage] was directing at our local club Swiss Teams league >night [twelve nights a year, two matches a night]. He came over to my >table and told me a Director was wanted. "But you are the Director", I >said, puzzled. "I think I shall leave this one to you," he said. > > AQTxx > J97xx > x > xx > > Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? > > The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system >with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. > > The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so >I shall give you the regs: > >9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) >9.2.1 This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs >to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used >for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually >for opening bids). > >14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids >14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. >· The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except >· You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by >agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls >thereafter. > > I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, >and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal >conventions after their openings. The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here. I'd award 30% or the score attained. > > ---------- > > While no ruling was asked for, he had played against our team in the >first match. Holding > > Qxx > xx > AQTxxx > xx > >he opened 1D against the Bear and reached the wrong game: my partner >opened 3D and we missed game [3NT while cold off in theory will probably >make]. > > ---------- > > So, how do you rule? If you rule it as playing an illegal convention >then EBU regulations require you to cancel the board and give A-/A+, >unless the opponents did better than A+. > > On the actual hand 3NT made ten tricks in both rooms. > -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 03:06:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8G6pu29999 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:06:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8G6ht29995 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:06:44 +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 144Q2M-000Aem-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:06:19 +0000 Message-ID: <5Mkq6aBaaQM6Ew2L@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 16:04:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychic tendencies? References: <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.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 <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.com>, N. Scott Cardell writes >Dear blmlists, > > The opponents come to the table: > >Opponent 1: "How could you take out my penalty double?" > >Opponent 2: "What penalty double? In that situation a double has to be >for takeout." > >Neither vul LHO opens 1D, 1H by partner, 1S by RHO. So with >A1098x,xxx,-,xxxxx I psyche 4H. > "When the opponents are arguing: Stoke them" Probst: Master Pairs UK 1981. -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 03:29:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8GTLJ00078 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:29:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8GTDt00074 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:29:14 +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 KAA02934 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:29:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001208103003.00794dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:30:03 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-Reply-To: <01f301c06083$ac0a1ca0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <001201c0592e$8a07ab60$0113ff3e@vnmvhhid> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts! .eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:21 AM 12/7/2000 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> >> a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language >that >> I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can >write a >> long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and >unambiguous, >> _and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand >immediately >> what those laws mean. It can't be done. > >How do you know? Why not cite a few laws that are currently >problematical, and see if David Burn or anyone else can rewrite them >in clear, simple, unambiguous language? However, do not require that There have been numerous occasions on this list when posters have complained about an ambiguous [or allegedly ambiguous] law, and continued with "the law should read... instead." On nearly every occasion that I can remember, the result was a comment from someone else arguing that the revision was just as ambiguous as the original. [I have already had such an agreement with David B. recently, in a case where he said that had a law meant such-and-such it would have been written so-and-so, where I though so-and-so no clearer than the original. I grant that this is not a perfect example.] But, in any case, I am sure the list would enjoy seeing utterly unambiguous versions of UI or MI law, for example. But please remember that these revisions must be clear to even the average bridge player, and must render the TD's role purely functionary. I am betting it cannot be done, without.... >unnecessary complexities be retained. > >For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. ...gutting the ability of the law to produce just results. I agree that the revoke law is _too_ complex. [Even here, you must have language for 'establishment', and you must preserve L64C.] But I think many of the other laws cannot be made general and seamless without a corresponding loss of justice. Since I am not troubled by laws that are generally understood despite minor flaws in language, I am not willing to pay out in justice in order to remove ambiguities. >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA 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 Dec 9 03:48:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8Gmmn00123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:48:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8Gmft00117 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 03:48:41 +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 RAA20707; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 17:44:17 +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 RAA29697; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 17:48:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001208175958.0081bd00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:59:58 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-Reply-To: <200012081527.KAA24565@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:27 8/12/00 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >If there were three independent conditions, as David B. suggests the >words mean, one of them would be "Declarer must play a card touching or >nearly touching the table." That can't be right. It would require >declarer to play a card accidentally dropped, even face down! Or the >bottom card if he folds his hand and puts it down for a moment. > >How about if we put the 'held' in? This would make the three phrases >in the series fail to coordinate because we would need to read "held >maintained" for the third one, but never mind. What about "Declarer >must play a card held touching or nearly touching the table?" This >says that if declarer takes out a card and holds it face down on the >table while he is thinking, he must play that card. I don't think so. > I would interprete the difference between defender and declarer as such : -a defender is compelled to play any card from his hand that is visible, provided this is not constitutive of a revoke, unless its visibility is imputable to external sources (eg one bumped into his elbow). This includes major penalty cards. -a declarer will not be compelled to do this unless it is clear that his intent was to play it. This means, of course, that declarer will not have penalty cards. The most visible sign of the intent of playing a card is the fact of holding it for more than a very short time, in full view of everyone, on or near the playing surface (hey, what if we don't une tables ?). A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 04:31:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8HV2w00205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 04:31:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f270.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.48]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB8HUut00201 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 04:30:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:30:48 -0800 Received: from 172.129.74.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 08 Dec 2000 17:30:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.129.74.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:30:48 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Dec 2000 17:30:48.0946 (UTC) FILETIME=[9ACD6D20:01C0613C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Grant Sterling > But, in any case, I am sure the list would enjoy seeing utterly >unambiguous versions of UI or MI law, for example. But please remember >that these revisions must be clear to even the average bridge player, and >must render the TD's role purely functionary. I am betting it cannot be >done, without.... I thought the UI laws were intentionally ambiguous to allow for regional flexibility? -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 Sat Dec 9 05:23:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8IMp000311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:22:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8IMit00307 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 05:22:45 +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 MAA15315 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:23:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001208122340.007be420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 12:23:40 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eB8IMlt00308 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:22 PM 12/7/2000 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > AQTxx > J97xx > x > xx > > Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? 1S. Although, to be fair, if it didn't work out my partner would claim my opening was too light for our system. > The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system >with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. I wouldn't have--seems within the bounds of "normal" to me. > The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so >I shall give you the regs: > >9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) >9.2.1 This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs >to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used >for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually >for opening bids). > >14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids >14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. >· The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except >· You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by >agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls >thereafter. > > I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, >and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal >conventions after their openings. I am prepared to give a certain amount of lee-way on hand evaluation, and so I might be convinced to hold that this hand is so exceptionally concentrated that it could be 'graded up' to an opener. [I.e., to hold that the pair's real _agreement_ doesn't violate the rule, and this hand is merely an aberrational re-valuation.] But, I can't in this case, because.... > While no ruling was asked for, he had played against our team in the >first match. Holding > > Qxx > xx > AQTxxx > xx > >he opened 1D against the Bear and reached the wrong game: my partner This hand makes it clear that the player, in fact, routinely opens hands that violate the Rule of 18. So I have no choice but to rule that the first case really is an illegal opening, and not an aberration. > So, how do you rule? If you rule it as playing an illegal convention >then EBU regulations require you to cancel the board and give A-/A+, >unless the opponents did better than A+. I do as required. A-/A+ >-- >David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ 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 Dec 9 06:02:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8J1vF00400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 06:01:57 +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 eB8J1qt00396 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 06:01:52 +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; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:58:54 -0800 Message-ID: <003a01c06149$2a2ef040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts! .eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001208103003.00794dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu > Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:59:04 -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: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. > > ...gutting the ability of the law to produce just results. I agree > that the revoke law is _too_ complex. [Even here, you must have language > for 'establishment', and you must preserve L64C.] But I think many > of the other laws cannot be made general and seamless without a > corresponding loss of justice. Since I am not troubled by laws that > are generally understood despite minor flaws in language, I am not willing > to pay out in justice in order to remove ambiguities. > What you are seeking is equity, I believe, not justice. Equity is served when both sides get what they had coming before an infraction; justice is served when the offender gets slammed with a penalty that will get hir attention. Justice deters, equity does not. The recent shifts from justice to equity, exemplified by the change to the revoke law and the addition of L12C3, do indeed require more complex Laws. I am not willing to pay out in justice in order to add the complexities of equity. We need simple laws: easily understood, easily remembered, and easily applied. That's what most players and most TDs want. 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 Sat Dec 9 06:58:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8Jw5L00513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 06:58:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8Jvvt00508 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 06:57:58 +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 NAA21002 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 13:58:39 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001208135851.007d07b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 13:58:51 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-Reply-To: <003a01c06149$2a2ef040$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts! .eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001208103003.007! 94dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:59 AM 12/8/2000 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> Marvin L. French wrote: >> > >> >For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. >> >> ...gutting the ability of the law to produce just results. I >agree >> that the revoke law is _too_ complex. [Even here, you must have >language >> for 'establishment', and you must preserve L64C.] But I think >many >> of the other laws cannot be made general and seamless without a >> corresponding loss of justice. Since I am not troubled by laws >that >> are generally understood despite minor flaws in language, I am not >willing >> to pay out in justice in order to remove ambiguities. >> >What you are seeking is equity, I believe, not justice. Equity is >served when both sides get what they had coming before an >infraction; justice is served when the offender gets slammed with a >penalty that will get hir attention. Justice deters, equity does >not. Justice means giving _desert_. So justice sometimes requires a penalty, though not from the standpoint of deterrence. Equity is a stranger concept--something like justice heavily tempered with mercy. >The recent shifts from justice to equity, exemplified by the change >to the revoke law and the addition of L12C3, do indeed require more >complex Laws. I am not willing to pay out in justice in order to add I don't think L12c3 really adds any complexity to L12--L12 is already too complex for the vast majority of players to really understand without an educational effort that exceeds anything likely ever to come forth in the ACBL, at least. There are very few players who can understand a ruling that awards two different scores because one was 'likely' and the other was 'at all probable', but cannot understand a ruling that awards 75% of one score and 25% of another. >the complexities of equity. We need simple laws: easily understood, >easily remembered, and easily applied. That's what most players and >most TDs want. As I said, I thihk some laws can and should be made simpler, such as the revoke laws. I don't want simpler MI laws, or simpler laws regarding claims, for example. >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA 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 Dec 9 07:02:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8K2C600533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 07:02:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8K25t00529 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 07:02:06 +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 OAA23051 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 14:02:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001208140301.007ab150@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 14:03:01 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:30 AM 12/8/2000 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >>From: Grant Sterling >> But, in any case, I am sure the list would enjoy seeing utterly >>unambiguous versions of UI or MI law, for example. But please remember >>that these revisions must be clear to even the average bridge player, and >>must render the TD's role purely functionary. I am betting it cannot be >>done, without.... > > I thought the UI laws were intentionally ambiguous to allow for >regional flexibility? Quite possibly, yes. But those who want clean, crisp, unambiguous laws that will eliminate the interpretive responsibility of the TD must eliminate such things. Regional flexibility would have to be limited to "The penalty for an established revoke is two tricks, unless a region specifies a penalty of three trick instead", or suchlike. >-Todd Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 09:57:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8MtQl00925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:26 +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 eB8MtBt00912 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:12 +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 144WPp-0002Dp-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:55:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:48:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Psychic tendencies? References: <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001207210319.006f313c@pullman.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk N. Scott Cardell writes >Dear blmlists, > > The opponents come to the table: > >Opponent 1: "How could you take out my penalty double?" > >Opponent 2: "What penalty double? In that situation a double has to be >for takeout." > >Neither vul LHO opens 1D, 1H by partner, 1S by RHO. So with >A1098x,xxx,-,xxxxx I psyche 4H. > >Is the following a tendency? "Tend to psyche when the opponents appear to >be flustered, are inappropriately discussing a previous hand and their >table talk suggests that they may not know how to handle the situation that >the psyche would present." > >(I do have this "tendency" and while it doesn't come up often it comes up >more often than one might think. On the given hand I am close enough to my >bid that it could work out and of course I have a good chance that the >flustered opponents will misjudge the situation and end up in a hopeless >spot, like 4S**. This is a real hand, at least approximately and 4S >redoubled was down 1600.) > >BTW, I avoid psyching against inexperienced opponents, this situation >applies to experienced opponents who should know better, but come to the >table arguing about the last hand. Sounds like playing bridge to me. "We play bridge, especially when opponents are arguing." -- 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 Dec 9 09:57:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8MtJC00917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:19 +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 eB8MtAt00911 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:11 +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 144WPp-0002Dn-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:55:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:37:47 +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> <5.0.0.25.0.20001128144335.00a34a50@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.0.25.0.20001129074536.00a22ac0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <0VRskHA$KbJ6Ewvi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <8W9VXCCcmFK6EwXI@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <2BtcMPAulcK6EwnF@probst.demon.co.uk> <001301c05e5f$42da9820$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <001301c05f83$9cda98a0$e29d7ad5@D457300> <51jk$FAgCmL6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <001f01c05ffc$ce1bce60$d6b501d5@D457300> <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001207104523.007afb00@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 > I disagree with this, even though I may be the only one who does. >My disagreement comes on three grounds: > > a) I think what you are asking for is impossible. No language that >I know of [and certainly not English] is so precise that one can write a >long book of laws in such a way as to be absolutely clear and unambiguous, >_and_ in such a way as to allow ordinary players to understand immediately >what those laws mean. It can't be done. I agree with this, which is why I believe we need to interpret Laws. -- 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 Dec 9 09:57:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8MtQH00924 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:26 +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 eB8MtAt00910 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 09:55:15 +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 144WPp-0002Do-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:55:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 12:44:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> <02c301c060e1$332eff40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02c301c060e1$332eff40$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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Note that I am coming more and more to the feeling based on >> experience and case law that it is misinformation cases that >> really need an immediate Director call: others tend to be >> less important. The TD has other options in MI cases [eg >> taking someone away from the table] to get a proper result >> without an adjustment: he cannot do these things if not >> called. >> >Under what MI circumstances would you take someone away from the >table? I thought we agreed this was inappropriate. I think you are thinking of a different circumstance, where you take an NO away and ask what he would do if ... I agree, that is inappropriate. Suppose I am called to the table. West has been asked what 3C means, and says "I know we have an agreement, but I cannot remember what it is." I send West away, and invite East to tell his oppos the agreement of the 3C bid [warning him that it is only an agreement that we are looking for]. West already has UI from the original answer, and this does not provide any more UI. But I cannot do this if I am not called until the end of the hand! >Yes, an immediate call, unless it is for the sole purpose of helping >an oblivious partner *and* attention has not been called to the >irregularity. > >I presume that L21B3's language ("the Director may award an adusted >score") means that s/he can refuse to adjust the NOS table result if >a delay in calling looks like a double-shot attempt. If you read the rest of L21B3 then it does not apply at all to calls that may be changed. -- 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 Dec 9 10:55:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB8Nss301071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:54:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB8Nsmt01067 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:54:49 +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, 8 Dec 2000 15:51:51 -0800 Message-ID: <005b01c06172$154e6880$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 15:46:42 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: Grant Sterling > > But, in any case, I am sure the list would enjoy seeing utterly > >unambiguous versions of UI or MI law, for example. But please remember > >that these revisions must be clear to even the average bridge player, and > >must render the TD's role purely functionary. I am betting it cannot be > >done, without.... > > I thought the UI laws were intentionally ambiguous to allow for > regional flexibility? > Are you thinking perhaps of "logical alternative" in L16A? That is intentionally vague, probably, but not ambiguous (the meaning of the term is clear). What is logical bridge in one region may not be so in another, so it provides a welcome flexibility. The WBF LC has been wise to avoid a global interpretation of LA. 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 Sat Dec 9 14:38:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB93bHq01615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:37:17 +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 eB93bBt01611 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:37:12 +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 ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:34:14 -0800 Message-ID: <007901c06191$2473e0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> <02c301c060e1$332eff40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 19:35:37 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> Note that I am coming more and more to the feeling based on > >> experience and case law that it is misinformation cases that > >> really need an immediate Director call: others tend to be > >> less important. The TD has other options in MI cases [eg > >> taking someone away from the table] to get a proper result > >> without an adjustment: he cannot do these things if not > >> called. > >> > >Under what MI circumstances would you take someone away from the > >table? I thought we agreed this was inappropriate. > > I think you are thinking of a different circumstance, where you take > an NO away and ask what he would do if ... I agree, that is > inappropriate. > Suppose I am called to the table. West has been asked what 3C means, > and says "I know we have an agreement, but I cannot remember what it > is." I send West away, and invite East to tell his oppos the agreement > of the 3C bid [warning him that it is only an agreement that we are > looking for]. West already has UI from the original answer, and this > does not provide any more UI. > > But I cannot do this if I am not called until the end of the hand! Yes, I see. This is not an MI case, but a matter of avoiding MI. > > >Yes, an immediate call, unless it is for the sole purpose of helping > >an oblivious partner *and* attention has not been called to the > >irregularity. > > > >I presume that L21B3's language ("the Director may award an adusted > >score") means that s/he can refuse to adjust the NOS table result if > >a delay in calling looks like a double-shot attempt. > > If you read the rest of L21B3 then it does not apply at all to calls > that may be changed. L21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply). What I mean is, this is an option for the director ("may"), who may decide *not* to award an adjusted score for the NOS if s/he decides that failure to call immediately when the MI was known constituted a double shot attempt. I thought that was part of this thread, i.e., Can a TD deny redress because s/he was not called immediately? Marv mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 16:05:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB953kF01892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm5.texas.rr.com (mail.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.219] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB953ct01888 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:03:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from kevins (cs167118-140.austin.rr.com [24.167.118.140]) by sm5.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id eB95wkB16047 for ; Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:58:46 -0600 Message-ID: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> From: "Kevin Perkins" To: Subject: [BLML] penalty card Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 23:03:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0616B.178EBFC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_001E_01C0616B.178EBFC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable My partner revoked. He caught it before the trick had been quitted. = The declarer did not call the director. The card first played was left = on the table. Later, on my lead of a winning card, my partner was out = of a suit. He discarded another suit. At this time, the director was = called. He ruled that the previously exposed card must be played to the = current trick (it was a trump). He ruled that the newly exposed card = must then be led. =20 1) I know that the declarer should have called the director, but should = I? 2) Since the director wasn't called, isn't this ruling incorrect? 3) If incorrect, what should be the ruling? Kevin Perkins ------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0616B.178EBFC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My partner revoked.  He caught it before the = trick had=20 been quitted.  The declarer did not call the director.  The = card first=20 played was left on the table.  Later, on my lead of a winning card, = my=20 partner was out of a suit.  He discarded another suit.  At = this time,=20 the director was called.  He ruled that the previously exposed card = must be=20 played to the current trick (it was a trump).  He ruled that the = newly=20 exposed card must then be led. 
1)  I know that the declarer should have called = the=20 director, but should I?
2)  Since the director wasn't  called, = isn't this=20 ruling incorrect?
3)  If incorrect, what should be the = ruling?
 
Kevin Perkins
------=_NextPart_000_001E_01C0616B.178EBFC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 19:39:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB98cmC02359 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:38:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB98cet02355 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:38:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.44] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144fWe-000OM3-00; Sat, 09 Dec 2000 08:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c061bb$890727a0$2c5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 08:38:02 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:22 PM Subject: [BLML] Permitted system AQTxx J97xx x xx Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so I shall give you the regs: ----------- \x/ ------------------- I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal conventions after their openings. ---------- +=+ 1. Has the EBU ever rescinded the permission given conditionally to Dr. & Mrs. Keen to open such hands? 2. The EBU would be well advised to add to its regulation 'or a hand based on the losing trick count having no more than seven losers'. ~ 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 Dec 9 20:11:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB99Au702438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:10:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB99Ant02434 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:10:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA28279 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:11:58 -0900 Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 00:12:10 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] A strange accident Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to save them squinting. In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." Several questions comes to mind: 1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner has done? 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. a) which club has really been played? b) is the other club a penalty card? c) if you think the six is played and the queen is not a penalty card, what obligations is East now under? 3. Suppose the queen of clubs ISNT in West's hand. Make sure you have an answer for how to handle whatever situation your answers to question 2 create. (For example, suppose the director's investigation makes it obvious to everyone at the table that declarer has the CQ; how do you compensate for how that might change the defence?) ------- Yes, I was West. I didn't think there was anything in my manner than indicated why I might have misnamed my card (I could have been staring at dummy's queen of spades when I played the club, or....) My partner contends it was "obvious" that a) I had the QC in my hand and b) I had not intended to play it, in effect "dropping it face up on the table". I don't know what it looked like. My thought process, in fact, was that the second, and more difficult, discard to make was going to be the QC and my mouth got one trick ahead though my finger didn't, and I duly played the QC on the next trick, so it would have made no difference, this time, if I really was forced to expose it. About the questions - my opinions: 1. In practice I think East did the right thing pointing it out right away. This certainly avoids a risk that the nearsighted declarer wouldn't notice my error until later. Reading the law book strictly, on the other hand, this does appear to be illegal communication between partners possibly waking me up to a mispull. 2/3. The six has been played. East has UI (whatever he thinks his partner's reason is) and South has AI (which she can use only at her own risk). Director and players must be very careful to avoid revealing who actually holds the CQ. If I get called back after the hand with an accusation the East abused the UI, I am very unlikely to award an adjustment since "demonstrably" doesn't seem to be met. Under the 87 laws I probably would have adjusted. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 9 21:46:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9AiMO02644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 21:44:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9AiFt02640 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 21:44:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d485.iae.nl [212.61.5.231]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A50E820F12 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 11:44:09 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <007c01c061cd$02a79160$e7053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:59:47 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000A_01C061CF.255313E0" 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_000A_01C061CF.255313E0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Kevin Perkins=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 6:03 AM Subject: [BLML] penalty card My partner revoked. He caught it before the trick had been quitted. = The declarer did not call the director. The card first played was left = on the table. Later, on my lead of a winning card, my partner was out = of a suit. He discarded another suit. At this time, the director was = called. He ruled that the previously exposed card must be played to the = current trick (it was a trump). He ruled that the newly exposed card = must then be led. =20 1) I know that the declarer should have called the director, but = should I? 2) Since the director wasn't called, isn't this ruling incorrect? 3) If incorrect, what should be the ruling? =20 Kevin Perkins=20 Ad 1 Somebody must call the TD: Law 9B1a Ad 2 You do not need a TD to be correct, but there was not a ruling. Ad 3 The TD ruled correctly, but he forgot to give the players a = scolding. Ben ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C061CF.255313E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Kevin=20 Perkins
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Saturday, December 09, = 2000 6:03=20 AM
Subject: [BLML] penalty = card

My partner revoked.  He caught it before the = trick had=20 been quitted.  The declarer did not call the director.  The = card=20 first played was left on the table.  Later, on my lead of a = winning card,=20 my partner was out of a suit.  He discarded another suit.  = At this=20 time, the director was called.  He ruled that the previously = exposed card=20 must be played to the current trick (it was a trump).  He ruled = that the=20 newly exposed card must then be led. 
1)  I know that the declarer should have = called the=20 director, but should I?
2)  Since the director wasn't  called, = isn't this=20 ruling incorrect?
3)  If incorrect, what should be the=20 ruling?
 
Kevin Perkins 
 
Ad 1 Somebody must call the TD: Law = 9B1a
Ad 2 You do not need a TD to be correct, but there = was not a=20 ruling.
Ad 3  The TD ruled correctly, but he forgot = to give the=20 players a scolding.
 
Ben
------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C061CF.255313E0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 10 02:04:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9F2OQ03197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:02:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carno.brus.online.be (carno.brus.online.be [194.88.127.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB9F2Ht03193 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 02:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from norbertf (a02-154.antw.online.be [62.112.3.154]) by carno.brus.online.be (8.9.1/8.9.0) with ESMTP id QAA29217; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:01:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200012091501.QAA29217@carno.brus.online.be> From: "Norbert Fornoville" To: "Gordon Bower" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:00:52 +0100 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---------- > From: Gordon Bower > To: Bridge Laws Mailing List > Subject: [BLML] A strange accident > Date: zaterdag 9 december 2000 10:12 > > > I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in > deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. > > We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is > customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to > save them squinting. I have the same problem at different clubs and I think the best solution to avoid problems is to let dummy announce the played cards.(without intonation) Anyway the six of clubs is a played card. Norbert Fornoville Frankrijklei 160 bus 2 B 2000 ANTWERPEN 32-3-2319853 nf@glo.be -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 10 03:47:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9GklG03452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:46:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9Gket03448 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:46:41 +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 KAA19748 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:45:39 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:41:59 -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 My feeling here is that as soon as the person said it was the queen of clubs and they saw the six, that play should have ceased at the table and the director should have been called. The director should next take the person away from the table and look in his hand to see if the queen of clubs is in his hand. We do a similar thing here in ACBL land, if someone pulls the wrong card from the bidding box, the director comes over, talks to the person away from the table to find out if it was a mechanical error. If it was, the person is allowed to correct the bid. Seems to me, in ACBL land at least, that this should be examined for mechanical error and have major/ minor penalty card rules applied; but the correct card is the one the visually impaired person meant to play. I would also want to confirm that every card was being called as it was laid down or if the voice was used on this card only. One other factor, if the opponents were calling out cards at this table only, there is a certain amount of mental confusion when you are not used to saying something out loud at one table only and I would probably be a little more forgiving of the unimpaired opponents who were going the extra distance for their impaired opponents. -Chyah ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 3:12 AM Subject: [BLML] A strange accident I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to save them squinting. In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." Several questions comes to mind: 1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner has done? 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. a) which club has really been played? b) is the other club a penalty card? c) if you think the six is played and the queen is not a penalty card, what obligations is East now under? 3. Suppose the queen of clubs ISNT in West's hand. Make sure you have an answer for how to handle whatever situation your answers to question 2 create. (For example, suppose the director's investigation makes it obvious to everyone at the table that declarer has the CQ; how do you compensate for how that might change the defence?) ------- Yes, I was West. I didn't think there was anything in my manner than indicated why I might have misnamed my card (I could have been staring at dummy's queen of spades when I played the club, or....) My partner contends it was "obvious" that a) I had the QC in my hand and b) I had not intended to play it, in effect "dropping it face up on the table". I don't know what it looked like. My thought process, in fact, was that the second, and more difficult, discard to make was going to be the QC and my mouth got one trick ahead though my finger didn't, and I duly played the QC on the next trick, so it would have made no difference, this time, if I really was forced to expose it. About the questions - my opinions: 1. In practice I think East did the right thing pointing it out right away. This certainly avoids a risk that the nearsighted declarer wouldn't notice my error until later. Reading the law book strictly, on the other hand, this does appear to be illegal communication between partners possibly waking me up to a mispull. 2/3. The six has been played. East has UI (whatever he thinks his partner's reason is) and South has AI (which she can use only at her own risk). Director and players must be very careful to avoid revealing who actually holds the CQ. If I get called back after the hand with an accusation the East abused the UI, I am very unlikely to award an adjustment since "demonstrably" doesn't seem to be met. Under the 87 laws I probably would have adjusted. GRB -- ===================================================================== === (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 10 04:23:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9HMw603519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:22:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9HMqt03515 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:22:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9AWH509204; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:32:17 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Kevin Perkins" , Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 10:25:18 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120910321701.09192@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 09 Dec 2000, Kevin Perkins wrote: > My partner revoked. He caught it before the trick had been quitted. > The declarer did not call the director. The card first played was > left on the table. Later, on my lead of a winning card, my partner > was out of a suit. He discarded another suit. At this time, the > director was called. He ruled that the previously exposed card must > be played to the current trick (it was a trump). He ruled that the > newly exposed card must then be led. > 1) I know that the declarer should have called the director, but > should I? Yes. L9A1 applies to all four players at the table; once attention has been drawn to the irregaularity, the director must be summoned. > 2) Since the director wasn't called, isn't this ruling incorrect? > 3) If incorrect, what should be the ruling? Did your partner know the laws about major penalty cards (and that this penalty card was major rather than minor?) If not, then the declarer gained an advantage from action taken by your side in ignorance of the penalty, and forfeits his right to penalize under L11A. However, since the only ruling was your partner's obligation to playy the penalty card at the first legal opportunity, and most players are aware of that, the penalty should probably be imposed. In any case, the director forgot to give declarer the option of accepting the card played, leaving the original penalty card as a penalty card, and then giving your partner the usual options. -- 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 Dec 10 04:57:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9Hv8v03626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:57:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9Huqt03609 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:56:57 +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 144oEn-0009mg-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:56:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:13:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <002901c061bb$890727a0$2c5408c3@dodona> In-Reply-To: <002901c061bb$890727a0$2c5408c3@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 writes > AQTxx > J97xx > x > xx > > Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? > > The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive >system >with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. > > The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event >so >I shall give you the regs: >----------- \x/ ------------------- > >I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said >certainly, >and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play >normal >conventions after their openings. > > ---------- > >+=+ 1. Has the EBU ever rescinded the permission >given conditionally to Dr. & Mrs. Keen to open such >hands? What permission? Was it under the current Orange book? > 2. The EBU would be well advised to add to >its regulation 'or a hand based on the losing trick >count having no more than seven losers'. I shall note your suggestion for OB 03. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 04:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9Hv7H03624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:57:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9Hust03612 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:56:55 +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 144oEo-0009mh-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:24:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalty card References: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> 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 eB9Huxt03617 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kevin Perkins writes > My partner revoked.  He caught it before the trick had been > quitted.  The declarer did not call the director.  The card first > played was left on the table.  Later, on my lead of a winning card, > my partner was out of a suit.  He discarded another suit.  At this > time, the director was called.  He ruled that the previously > exposed card must be played to the current trick (it was a trump).  > He ruled that the newly exposed card must then be led.  > 1)  I know that the declarer should have called the director, but > should I? Definitely. Attention was drawn to the revoke, and *all four* players had a duty to call the Director. There is no rule that declarer should rather than anyone else. > 2)  Since the director wasn't  called, isn't this ruling incorrect? Goodness knows. It depends how the Director interprets your failure to call him. It was certainly not 100% correct. > 3)  If incorrect, what should be the ruling? If the original trump is an MPC [major penalty card] then it has to be played at the first legal opportunity. When your partner played another card, declarer now has the choice whether to accept the new card, and keep the old one as an MPC, or to make your partner play the original MPC, and have the other card played instead as an MPC. But both sides have a right to know the ruling before this happens so that they can attempt to minimise the damage. As a result, I might decide to designate the original card as not a revoke card as L50 permits. If so, I would tell your partner to pick his trump up and play what he likes. I could also do this under L11A. It sounds to me as though declarer knew the rules and your partner did not: if so, I would say no penalty, let the hand continue, and give a strong warning about calling the TD in future - to all four players. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 04:57:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9Hv5x03623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:57:05 +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-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 eB9Hurt03610 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:56:54 +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 144oEo-0009mf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:56:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 16:11:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012021758.MAA20253@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3A2BB378.FCCC9F23@village.uunet.be> <3A2E1ADF.43E2109B@village.uunet.be> <02c301c060e1$332eff40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <007901c06191$2473e0a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007901c06191$2473e0a0$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 >David Stevenson wrote: >Yes, I see. This is not an MI case, but a matter of avoiding MI. Eh? Well, I would call that an MI case, personally! >L21B3: When it is too late to change a call, the Director may award >an adjusted score (Law 40C may apply). > >What I mean is, this is an option for the director ("may"), who may >decide *not* to award an adjusted score for the NOS if s/he decides >that failure to call immediately when the MI was known constituted a >double shot attempt. > >I thought that was part of this thread, i.e., Can a TD deny redress >because s/he was not called immediately? My point has been that when a TD is called during or at the end of an auction, the last call by the NOs may be changed under L21B1, but no earlier ones. Thus this call may not be the subject of an adjustment under L21B3 which refers to "When it is too late to change a call ...". Earlier calls may be the subject of an adjustment, and it is reasonable to assume that later calls [and the play] occur when the NOs realise what the situation is and can protect themselves, usually because the MI is now corrected. I have not mentioned the case where a pair could find out what they need to know, but the do not call the TD, they do not find it out, and then they are damaged thereby. The wording of L21B3 does not automatically disallow an adjustment for this, though the word "may" is interesting. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 04:57:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9HvIb03631 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:57:18 +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-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 eB9HvAt03627 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 04:57:11 +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 144oF5-000KId-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:57:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 17:39:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Another claim and revoke! MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A correspondent has sent me this hand. I have changed the location of one card since I believe it makes the ruling considerably more interesting. Qxxx xx KTx KJxx - xx KJxxxx xx xx AQJxxx Axxxx Qxx AKJxxxx Contract AQT 5S by S xx x The play went Diamond to the K and A, 2 more D's ruffed high by S, 2 rounds of trumps and a club towards the K but won by the A with E discarding a D!!! South now claimed the rest stating that W must lead into the AQ of H or give me the marked Club finesse to discard 2 H's from hand. W tabled his hand (face up) and examined his partner's hand with the intention of verifying the accuracy of the claim and of course the revoke was discovered. I am completely convinced that (a) W had no intention at that point of acquiescing to the claim and (b) had no idea that his partner might have revoked. So the question is has the revoke become established? Law 63A3 seems to imply that W has acquiesced to the claim by facing his cards but (a) that was clearly not his intention here (b) is a common practice to establish the accuracy of a claim and (c) does not seem to constitute an acquiescence under Law 69A. Two other observations, neither of which may be relevant, (a) E had no idea that he had revoked and if play had continued it almost certainly would have been established, and (b) if W had agreed the claim and returned his hand to the board the revoke would not have been discovered. Another (hypothetical) question is if W knows (or suspects) his partner has revoked can he (ethically) do anything such as refusing to acquiesce to the claim. The question is for academic interest only because we decided that we did not want to make the contract in this manner so did not pursue the revoke claim. Thank you for your consideration. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 05:53:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9IrWD03786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:53:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB9IrRt03782 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:53:27 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id E3D214878A; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:53:22 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 13:53:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke Cc: David Stevenson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, when I saw "Another claim and revoke!" I thought for a moment you were going to mention a situation I've been saving "for a rainy day". At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? How did I hear about this case? Let's just say that I was a member of the declaring side and that I was not dummy... AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 10 06:15:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9JF4p03854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 06:15:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9JEwt03850 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 06:14:58 +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 144pSO-000GC7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:14:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 18:20:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chyah Burghard writes >My feeling here is that as soon as the person said >it was the queen of clubs and they saw the six, that >play should have ceased at the table and the director >should have been called. > >The director should next take the person away from >the table and look in his hand to see if the queen of >clubs is in his hand. Why? Yet again, we have an example of TDs looking into hands unnecessarily. How does it affect the ruling? All you do is to give UI. >We do a similar thing here in ACBL land, if someone >pulls the wrong card from the bidding box, the >director comes over, talks to the person away from >the table to find out if it was a mechanical error. If >it was, the person is allowed to correct the bid. But *not*, I trust, by looking into the player's hand. >Seems to me, in ACBL land at least, that this should >be examined for mechanical error and have major/ >minor penalty card rules applied; but the correct card >is the one the visually impaired person meant to play. Same laws for everyone. From the description, it seems to have been a mechanical error saying "queen of clubs" so may be changed under L45C4B, but looking in the player's hand does not affect this ruling. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 07:22:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9KLpB04019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:21:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe25.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.82]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eB9KLkt04015 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:21:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 12:21:34 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [216.67.82.60] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:24:16 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Dec 2000 20:21:34.0095 (UTC) FILETIME=[9FCCD9F0:01C0621D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 12:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident | Same laws for everyone. From the description, it seems to have been a | mechanical error saying "queen of clubs" so may be changed under L45C4B, I agree, it seems to be a mechanical error. However, I do believe that 45C4b refers to correcting an inadvertant designation, not correcting a play. Also, in the case the designation was not corrected without pause for thought- I don't even think it was changed. roger pewick | 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 Sun Dec 10 07:23:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9KN3F04032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:23:04 +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 eB9KMut04027 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 07:22:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.48] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 144qWC-000IGq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 09 Dec 2000 20:22:52 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c0621d$ebec9d20$105908c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002901c061bb$890727a0$2c5408c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 20:22:58 -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 escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > Grattan Endicott writes > > >+=+ 1. Has the EBU ever rescinded the permission > >given conditionally to Dr. & Mrs. Keen to open such > >hands? > > What permission? Was it under the current Orange book? > +=+ 'Current' I doubt. Some years ago they informed the L&E of their light opening methods and, in a letter(following a committee minute), were told they may use their methods subject to a very full disclosure. As far as I know they have been playing the same methods ever since. As to what Ted should have ruled: no comment. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 10 08:16:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9LFxh04173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:15:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eB9LFqt04169 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:15:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eB9EPNC09345 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:25:23 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 14:16:08 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00120914252302.09192@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 09 Dec 2000, Adam Wildavsky wrote: > At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a > National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made > no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he > needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in > dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, > draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine > statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said > diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless > declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he > has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? > > How did I hear about this case? Let's just say that I was a member of > the declaring side and that I was not dummy... If a claim statement becomes impossible to fulfill, declarer is not held to that statement. If declarer says, "I'll cash the AK of clubs," and an opponent has two outstanding trumps and ruffs the first club, declarer is not required to lead the CK out of turn to the next trick. (Thus, if there is no normal line of play which will give this defender a second ruff, the second ruff will not happen.) I think this applies here as well. Declarer would be assumed to lead the diamond from dummy and discover that he could not ruff it. He would then be judged on the least favorable normal line of play, which would make all the 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 Sun Dec 10 14:24:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA3Lwx05095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:58 +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-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 eBA3Llt05084 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:48 +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 144x3V-0001VK-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:21:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 00:01:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> 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 eBA3Lot05089 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >David Stevenson writes >> Ted Reveley ["the Bear" of the occasional "Tales of the Bear" on RGB >>and my Bridgepage] was directing at our local club Swiss Teams league >>night [twelve nights a year, two matches a night]. He came over to my >>table and told me a Director was wanted. "But you are the Director", I >>said, puzzled. "I think I shall leave this one to you," he said. >> >> AQTxx >> J97xx >> x >> xx >> >> Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? >> >> The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system >>with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. >> >> The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so >>I shall give you the regs: >> >>9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) >>9.2.1 This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs >>to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used >>for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually >>for opening bids). >> >>14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids >>14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. >>· The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except >>· You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by >>agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls >>thereafter. >> >> I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, >>and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal >>conventions after their openings. > >The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser >hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly >here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they >can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here. I do not understand this. If you upgrade a nine-point mini because you believe it to be worth ten HCP and open 1NT then: [a] In the ACBL you are playing an illegal system because you are not allowed to upgrade: Meckwell says so. [b] In the EBU there is no problem. If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. >I'd award 30% or the score attained. Wow! Vicious! Anyway I ruled A+/A- as per the regs: since this was a match I ruled 3 imps to the oppos, unless they had done better. Now the aggrieved party came back to me and asked whether it had made any difference that the bidding had been identical in the other room, ie that 1S had been opened there as 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 Sun Dec 10 14:24:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA3Lv105094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBA3Lit05081 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:45 +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 144x3P-0001VJ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 23:54:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky writes >David, when I saw "Another claim and revoke!" I thought for a moment >you were going to mention a situation I've been saving "for a rainy >day". > >At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a >National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made >no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he >needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in >dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, >draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine >statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said >diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless >declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he >has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? > >How did I hear about this case? Let's just say that I was a member of >the declaring side and that I was not dummy... Oh, that's easy. With your efforts here you have proved yourself an obvious person to go and count votes in Florida - which should keep you happy for a year or two! Actually, I think we rule you get away with it - and then tell *everyone*. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 14:24:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA3LsC05093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:54 +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-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 eBA3Lht05080 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:21:44 +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 144x3P-000MAb-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 03:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 23:51:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.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 Roger Pewick writes >| Same laws for everyone. From the description, it seems to have been a >| mechanical error saying "queen of clubs" so may be changed under L45C4B, >I agree, it seems to be a mechanical error. However, I do believe that >45C4b refers to correcting an inadvertant designation, not correcting a >play. Also, in the case the designation was not corrected without pause for >thought- I don't even think it was changed. Interesting view. Let us look at the original wording. Gordon Bower writes >West >follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places >the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, >a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of >clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles >something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." So, to change it under L45C4B we need four things: [1] For it to be a designation [2] For it to be inadvertent [3] For there to be a change or an attempt [4] For the change or attempt to be without pause for thought So, what do we think? [2] seems to be accepted - the player did not mean to play the CQ at that moment. [4] seems fine to me - his comment "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six" seems to have been immediately after realisation. But was it a designation? Did the player try and change it? Actually, I think it was a designation: "This is the card I propose to play and here it is". ["No it's not!!!"] And I believe that the comment was a change of the designation. So the change is permitted under L45C4B. -- 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 Sun Dec 10 14:29:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA3TWO05134 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:29:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bootable.wni.wireless-networks.com (adsl-63-197-8-222.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.197.8.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBA3TQt05129 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 14:29:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (willwats@localhost) by bootable.wni.wireless-networks.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id eBA3TOs03996 for ; Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:29:24 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: bootable.wni.wireless-networks.com: willwats owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 19:29:24 -0800 (PST) From: William Watson X-Sender: willwats@bootable.wni.wireless-networks.com To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Insufficient cuebid Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, I've been a pet-less lurker for a while on this list and have a problem that came up that might be interesting. DLR North K8 VUL East-West 9832 872 QJ93 AJ 94 KJT654 AQ A93 KQT654 T2 AK7 QT76532 7 J 8654 N E S W P 1C(1) 1H(2) 2D(3) P 2H(4) 3S 3S 1: 1C=16+ any shape 2: 1H=spades 3: 2D=hearts 4: 2H=semi-automatic EW do not have specific agreements about a cuebid by west on second round. Does a 4S bid by west bar east? Thank You, William Watson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 10 17:32:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA6VOx05630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:31:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBA6VIt05626 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:31:18 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id A588548706; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:31:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 01:31:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 1:53 PM -0500 12/9/00, I wrote: >His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in dummy, >ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, draw >trump, and my hand is good." A (private) correspondent had trouble visualizing the situation. This one will do - it's played in 7S with the claim statement made after winning the opening club lead: KQ2 765432 432 2 AJT9543 AK A A43 AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 10 20:11:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA9Aus06019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBA9Aht06005 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-121.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.121]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18152 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:10:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A320D07.9DBD4DDD@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:44:23 +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] Permitted system References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Ted Reveley ["the Bear" of the occasional "Tales of the Bear" on RGB > and my Bridgepage] was directing at our local club Swiss Teams league > night [twelve nights a year, two matches a night]. He came over to my > table and told me a Director was wanted. "But you are the Director", I > said, puzzled. "I think I shall leave this one to you," he said. > > AQTxx > J97xx > x > xx > > Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call? > > The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system > with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one. > > The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so > I shall give you the regs: > > 9.2 Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25) > 9.2.1 This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs > to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used > for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually > for opening bids). > > 14.1 One of a Suit Opening Bids > 14.1.1 Minimum opening bids. > · The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except > · You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by > agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls > thereafter. > > I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, > and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal > conventions after their openings. > Very simple. Rule of 18 applies. This hand does not conform. It is explained as a normal opening for this pair. So this is an unauthorized system. Rule as appropriate. -- 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 Dec 10 20:11:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA9AwK06021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:58 +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 eBA9Alt06009 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-121.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.121]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18160 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:10:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A320FA5.A1A325C8@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:55:33 +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] A strange accident References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in > deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. > > We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is > customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to > save them squinting. > > In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West > follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places > the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, > a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of > clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles > something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." > Is west a player with poor eyesight ? It is silly to have him announce his own card. However, we could formulate a regulation by which the blind announce their card so that is for them a played card, and any other shown is a (minor) penalty card. I am assuming West is not a blind player. > Several questions comes to mind: > > 1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner > has done? Well, there is an irregularity, isn't there. Does it matter who first draws attention to it ? > > 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. > a) which club has really been played? Barring regulations that say that the named card is played, the shown card must be played. > b) is the other club a penalty card? If it is clearly announced as being in the hand, it is a Penalty card. > c) if you think the six is played and the queen is not a penalty card, > what obligations is East now under? N/A > > 3. Suppose the queen of clubs ISNT in West's hand. Then there is no problem. Equally if there has been no clear statement that it is, whether or not it actually is. > Make sure you have an answer for how to handle whatever situation your > answers to question 2 create. (For example, suppose the director's > investigation makes it obvious to everyone at the table that declarer has > the CQ; how do you compensate for how that might change the defence?) Director's error. -- 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 Dec 10 20:11:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBA9AuQ06020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBA9Ajt06007 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 20:10:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-121.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.121]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA18156 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:10:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A320E23.8A686742@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 11:49:07 +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] penalty card References: <002101c0619d$625b8a60$8c76a718@austin.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Kevin Perkins wrote: > > My partner revoked. He caught it before the trick had > been quitted. The declarer did not call the director. > The card first played was left on the table. Later, on my > lead of a winning card, my partner was out of a suit. He > discarded another suit. At this time, the director was > called. He ruled that the previously exposed card must be > played to the current trick (it was a trump). He ruled > that the newly exposed card must then be led. > 1) I know that the declarer should have called the > director, but should I? Not if you know that your partner knows he has to play this card. > 2) Since the director wasn't called, isn't this ruling > incorrect? No > 3) If incorrect, what should be the ruling? > > Kevin Perkins I usually rule that when a card remains open on the table, the player indicates that he knows it has to be played. So when he does not play it, he is at fault. When the player picks up his card and they don't call the TD, I rule that there was no Penalty card up to the moment the TD was called. I will not rule lead restrictions on partner unless the TD has been called, or unless the table has agreed that they know of that part of the laws as well. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 10 21:00:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAA0S306152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAA0Lt06148 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.108]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13409 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:00:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:35:05 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser > >hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly > >here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they > >can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here. > > I do not understand this. If you upgrade a nine-point mini because > you believe it to be worth ten HCP and open 1NT then: > > [a] In the ACBL you are playing an illegal system because you are not > allowed to upgrade: Meckwell says so. > > [b] In the EBU there is no problem. > I did not think that was what was being said. > If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal > both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. > I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on 9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not allowed. If he opens on 9HCP because he counted 13 (I've seen it happen !), then there is no problem. BTW, I opened 1He, third in hand, on 7654 9742 Q432 9, yesterday. Partner duly doubled 3NT, and they allowed him to make a heart trick so it was only +1. (but that has not a lot to do with this thread - I just thought I should mention it so that it is on record) > >I'd award 30% or the score attained. > > Wow! Vicious! > Yes, please explain. You know this pair and have warned them before, I hope. > Anyway I ruled A+/A- as per the regs: since this was a match I ruled 3 > imps to the oppos, unless they had done better. > > Now the aggrieved party came back to me and asked whether it had made > any difference that the bidding had been identical in the other room, ie > that 1S had been opened there as well! > So that's -3IMPs to both sides. -- 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 Dec 10 21:01:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAA0pu06166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAA0ft06155 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.108]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13455 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:00:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A334FE7.7035BBA6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:41:59 +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] A unique claim and revoke References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: > > David, when I saw "Another claim and revoke!" I thought for a moment > you were going to mention a situation I've been saving "for a rainy > day". > > At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a > National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made > no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he > needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in > dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, > draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine > statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said > diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless > declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he > has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? > Easy. Claim statement unexecutable, so no claim statement in fact. All normal lines apply. Presumably your claim was good. -- 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 Dec 10 21:01:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAA0xX06173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAA0it06158 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.108]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13461 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:00:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A33533C.5B6D9076@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:56:12 +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: [BLML] Another claim and revoke - the original Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Since Adam has jumped in, I've revived the original and made it into a new thread. David Stevenson wrote: > > A correspondent has sent me this hand. I have changed the location of > one card since I believe it makes the ruling considerably more > interesting. > > Qxxx > xx > KTx > KJxx > - xx > KJxxxx xx > xx AQJxxx > Axxxx Qxx > AKJxxxx > Contract AQT > 5S by S xx > x > > The play went Diamond to the K and A, 2 more D's ruffed high by S, 2 > rounds of trumps and a club towards the K but won by the A with E > discarding a D!!! > > South now claimed the rest stating that W must lead into the AQ of H > or give me the marked Club finesse to discard 2 H's from hand. > Perfectly normal claim, if East has a void in clubs (I believe). > W tabled his hand (face up) and examined his partner's hand with the > intention of verifying the accuracy of the claim and of course the > revoke was discovered. I am completely convinced that (a) W had no > intention at that point of acquiescing to the claim and (b) had no idea > that his partner might have revoked. > Neither of these is important. W is entitled to see his partner's hand before acquiescing. > So the question is has the revoke become established? Law 63A3 seems > to imply that W has acquiesced to the claim by facing his cards but L63A3 is apparently badly written. The "such as facing his hand" should not be in there, or only under "claims", not under "acquiesces". Anyway, since a claim is clearly defined elsewhere, why add to the confusion by repeating it here. Grattan, Notebook ! (a) > that was clearly not his intention here (b) is a common practice to > establish the accuracy of a claim and (c) does not seem to constitute an > acquiescence under Law 69A. > correct analysis. > Two other observations, neither of which may be relevant, (a) E had no > idea that he had revoked and if play had continued it almost certainly > would have been established, Absolutely not relevant. Declarer has claimed, so revoke does not become established. > and (b) if W had agreed the claim and > returned his hand to the board the revoke would not have been > discovered. > Not relevant. It would have happened anyway. Suppose they discover it 29 minutes after end of play. Chaos of Floridan proportion ensues. > Another (hypothetical) question is if W knows (or suspects) his > partner has revoked can he (ethically) do anything such as refusing to > acquiesce to the claim. No need. > > The question is for academic interest only because we decided that we > did not want to make the contract in this manner so did not pursue the > revoke claim. > > Thank you for your consideration. > Now for the ruling. There has been a revoke. It was not established, so it should be corrected. There are no revoke penalty tricks. There is a penalty card. There has been a claim, with a claim statement. The claim statement is correct in the situation as seen from declarer's point of view (important as it shows declarer made no error). The claim statement is not correct in the actual situation, as the finesse is now not proven. I suspect the Q of clubs is the one that has been changed from the original layout. The claim has to be dealt with, and there is no valid claim statement, so all normal lines can count. The Bermuda decision of the WBFLC says that doubtful points must be decided against revoker. I do not know if the Bermuda decision includes the word "established", but I would be surprised to see that it does, as it is clear to any law maker that unestablished revokes can create just as many problems. So doubtful points against revoking side. One normal winning line is now enough. Hearts return. all tricks to NS. -- 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 Dec 10 21:01:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAA12Y06174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:01:02 +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 eBAA0lt06162 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:00:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.108]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA13472 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:00:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3353ED.CE70B5E6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:59:09 +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] Insufficient cuebid References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk William Watson wrote: > > Hello, I've been a pet-less lurker for a while on this list and have > a problem that came up that might be interesting. > Hello William, glad to hear from you ! > DLR North K8 > VUL East-West 9832 > 872 > QJ93 > AJ 94 > KJT654 AQ > A93 KQT654 > T2 AK7 > QT76532 > 7 > J > 8654 > > N E S W > P 1C(1) 1H(2) 2D(3) > P 2H(4) 3S 3S > > 1: 1C=16+ any shape > 2: 1H=spades > 3: 2D=hearts > 4: 2H=semi-automatic > > EW do not have specific agreements about a cuebid by west on second round. > > Does a 4S bid by west bar east? > Spades is south's suit, so 4S by west is a cuebid. I'd even have ruled under the old laws that 3S was a cuebid. Anyway, clearly conventional and not correctible. East would be barred. West cannot save his partner and should make the final call for his side. -- 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 Dec 10 22:01:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAB0XT06333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:00:33 +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 eBAB0Qt06329 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:00:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.102] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 1454DP-000286-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 11:00:23 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c06298$82c6edc0$665408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 10:32:52 -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 The escutcheon for the Grattan family bears the motto: 'Spes mea in Deo' When this fails I switch to the motto on the shield of the Endicott kin: 'Perseverance'. <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 6:20 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident ---------------- \x/ ------------- > Same laws for everyone. From the description, > it seems to have been a mechanical error saying > "queen of clubs" so may be changed under L45C4B, > but looking in the player's hand does not affect > this ruling. > +=+ I believe it is not desirable for Directors to act in ways that convey information about the lay of the cards to the players at the table. If a Director makes a ruling after looking into a player's hand there are often inferences to be drawn, especially by the more astute players. So he needs to have an essential reason for looking. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 00:11:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAD7x806617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:07:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAD7qt06613 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:07:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 05:07:44 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.46.43.208] From: "axman22" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 07:19:55 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2000 13:07:44.0470 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F590760:01C062AA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Attention was drawn to an irregularity. Time to call the director. The c6 is a played card 45A. The CQ is not yet a played card, but must be played [immediately] if it is held [45C4a], note specifically that the card was proposed as be played, but not yet played. If the CQ is not held it is UI. As the 6 and Q were both played to the trick, the 6 being played first belongs to the trick. The Q is a penalty card [49]. I think it is notable that if a ruling is not sought immediately that it can become rather messy if not ugly depending upon when the CQ is played. For instance. If it is played [exposed] during a subsequent trick at partner's of LHO's turn then 57A options apply. And consider that during a trick that declarer discovers that the director need to be called after all, where dummy has just led. The delay in requesting a ruling does not change the fact of the irregularity and the UI that exists. Now, the CQ must be played [out of turn] before partner bringing L57A into play. I know it is not nice to go around improperly deceiving opponents so as another topic I find interesting is the construction of L45C4a. That if a defender names a card [but he does not hold that card then L45C4a requires the player who does hold it] must play it. roger pewick houston, tx ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 03:12 AM Subject: [BLML] A strange accident > > I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in > deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. > > We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is > customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to > save them squinting. > > > In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West > follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places > the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, > a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of > clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles > something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." > > Several questions comes to mind: > > 1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner > has done? > > 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. > a) which club has really been played? > b) is the other club a penalty card? > c) if you think the six is played and the queen is not a penalty card, > what obligations is East now under? > > 3. Suppose the queen of clubs ISNT in West's hand. > Make sure you have an answer for how to handle whatever situation your > answers to question 2 create. (For example, suppose the director's > investigation makes it obvious to everyone at the table that declarer has > the CQ; how do you compensate for how that might change the defence?) > > ------- > > > Yes, I was West. > > I didn't think there was anything in my manner than indicated why I might > have misnamed my card (I could have been staring at dummy's queen of > spades when I played the club, or....) My partner contends it was > "obvious" that a) I had the QC in my hand and b) I had not intended to > play it, in effect "dropping it face up on the table". I don't know what > it looked like. My thought process, in fact, was that the second, and more > difficult, discard to make was going to be the QC and my mouth got one > trick ahead though my finger didn't, and I duly played the QC on the next > trick, so it would have made no difference, this time, if I really was > forced to expose it. > > About the questions - my opinions: > > 1. In practice I think East did the right thing pointing it out right > away. This certainly avoids a risk that the nearsighted declarer wouldn't > notice my error until later. Reading the law book strictly, on the other > hand, this does appear to be illegal communication between partners > possibly waking me up to a mispull. > > 2/3. The six has been played. East has UI (whatever he thinks his > partner's reason is) and South has AI (which she can use only at her own > risk). Director and players must be very careful to avoid revealing who > actually holds the CQ. > > If I get called back after the hand with an accusation the East abused the > UI, I am very unlikely to award an adjustment since "demonstrably" doesn't > seem to be met. Under the 87 laws I probably would have adjusted. > > > GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 04:19:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAHHlU07260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 04:17:47 +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 eBAHHft07256 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 04:17:41 +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 MAA21651 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:13:06 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A33533C.5B6D9076@village.uunet.be> References: <3A33533C.5B6D9076@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 12:07:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Another claim and revoke - the original Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Neither of these is important. W is entitled to see his >partner's hand before acquiescing. This seems like a perfectly reasonable principle, but I can't find it in the Laws. So whence comes 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/AwUBOjO6r72UW3au93vOEQLDZgCgqinMSci46phvD5BHuAVW7dEd+NUAn1dU tFjxARSSlnrBZurJ8eygKouI =dvZC -----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 Dec 11 08:47:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBALkQb07853 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:46:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBALkJt07849 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 08:46:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.64.222] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 145EIN-0007dJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:46:11 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:46:02 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This was the title of an article in the March 1997 Bridge World that discussed this auction: West East 1C* 2D** 3D*** 2NT**** (1) Precision (2) Natural, game forcing (3) Asking bid in diamonds (4) Intended as 3NT, which would show five diamonds to two top honours. The director, duly called, determines that a correction to 3NT would be conventional. He rules that you, South, may accept 2NT (in which case there will be no further penalty), or reject it (in which case East may make any call and West is barred thereafter). Your hand as South is: K953 KJ1043 3 876 If you accept 2NT, you give the opponents another round of asking bids. If you reject it, you will force East to guess the final contract. Since you do not fancy being on lead when he guesses six diamonds, you choose to accept 2NT. The Bridge World, somewhat naively, asks its readers whether East-West, having divined your strategy, can continue to respond to asking bids with insufficient bids in order to maximise their advantage. The answer to this is, of course, "No". However... suppose that West, having divined your strategy from your acceptance of 2NT, decides to jump to six diamonds anyway, when left to his own devices, he would have proceeded with further asking bids. Has West acted in unethical fashion? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 09:27:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAMQr307948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:26:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAMQkt07944 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:26:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA00388 for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:27:57 -0900 Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:28:09 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident In-Reply-To: <3A320FA5.A1A325C8@village.uunet.be> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > Gordon Bower wrote: > > In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West > > follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places > > the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, > > a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of > > clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles > > something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." > > Is west a player with poor eyesight ? It is silly to have > him announce his own card. However, we could formulate a > regulation by which the blind announce their card so that is > for them a played card, and any other shown is a (minor) > penalty card. To clarify a bit, North and South both have poor eyesight, only South's is so bad as to be unable to see cards the other players face. South generally does not announce her own cards, West, North, and East generally do. Having dummy announce all the plays in an uninflected voice, which was proposed earlier in the thread, is a nice idea, but at this table it isn't really an option with two people not up to the task of doing so. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 09:29:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAMSxH07962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:28:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBAMSst07958 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:28:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 207FC8EDB; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:28:50 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 17:28:49 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Cc: "Bridge Laws" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 9:46 PM +0000 12/10/00, David Burn wrote: >However... suppose that West, having divined your strategy from your >acceptance of 2NT, decides to jump to six diamonds anyway, when left to >his own devices, he would have proceeded with further asking bids. Has >West acted in unethical fashion? No. Which law would you suppose West to have violated with his 6D call? To look at it another way, could West have known that his insufficient bid would work to his advantage? I'd say not. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 10:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBANcTW08125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:29 +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-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 eBANcGt08113 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:17 +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 145G2m-0005xq-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:38:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:12:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A334E49.F9FDF417@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 <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> > >> >The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser >> >hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly >> >here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they >> >can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here. >> >> I do not understand this. If you upgrade a nine-point mini because >> you believe it to be worth ten HCP and open 1NT then: >> >> [a] In the ACBL you are playing an illegal system because you are not >> allowed to upgrade: Meckwell says so. >> >> [b] In the EBU there is no problem. >> > >I did not think that was what was being said. > >> If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal >> both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. >> > >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not >allowed. >If he opens on 9HCP because he counted 13 (I've seen it >happen !), then there is no problem. > >BTW, I opened 1He, third in hand, on 7654 9742 Q432 9, >yesterday. >Partner duly doubled 3NT, and they allowed him to make a >heart trick so it was only +1. >(but that has not a lot to do with this thread - I just >thought I should mention it so that it is on record) > I overcalled 1S with 1NT on Void xxxx xxxx Jxxxx Friday before last at love all, Butler imps. That was -1100 when they can make 980. Just for the record :)) -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 10:39:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBANcT508126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:29 +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-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 eBANcGt08114 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:17 +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 145G2m-0005xr-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:38:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:20:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Adam Wildavsky writes >>David, when I saw "Another claim and revoke!" I thought for a moment >>you were going to mention a situation I've been saving "for a rainy >>day". >> >>At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a >>National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made >>no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he >>needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in >>dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, >>draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine >>statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said >>diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless >>declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he >>has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? >> >>How did I hear about this case? Let's just say that I was a member of >>the declaring side and that I was not dummy... > > Oh, that's easy. With your efforts here you have proved yourself an >obvious person to go and count votes in Florida - which should keep you >happy for a year or two! > > Actually, I think we rule you get away with it - and then tell >*everyone*. > I rule you are obliged to buy the TD and the table a round of drinks, and give him all the tricks. -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 10:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBANcR808124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBANcGt08112 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:38:17 +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 145G2m-0005xp-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:38:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 23:09:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes snip > >[b] In the EBU there is no problem. > > If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal >both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. > but I still can't play any convention, even at level 4. The illegality is not the problem, it's the stifling of conventions that stops us doing it. >>I'd award 30% or the score attained. > > Wow! Vicious! > > Anyway I ruled A+/A- as per the regs: Use of an illegal bid fetches 60/30 ?? > since this was a match I ruled 3 >imps to the oppos, unless they had done better. > > Now the aggrieved party came back to me and asked whether it had made >any difference that the bidding had been identical in the other room, ie >that 1S had been opened there as well! > Do they always open this hand? If so I'd adjust. if they don't I'd rule result stands. -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 10:50:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBANo8o08176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBANo1t08172 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 10:50:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAGxUa09751 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:59:30 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge.Laws" "@psa836.la.asu.edu Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 16:50:27 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121016593001.09649@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 10 Dec 2000, David Burn wrote: > This was the title of an article in the March 1997 Bridge World that > discussed this auction: > > West East > 1C* 2D** > 3D*** 2NT**** > > (1) Precision > (2) Natural, game forcing > (3) Asking bid in diamonds > (4) Intended as 3NT, which would show five diamonds to two top honours. > However... suppose that West, having divined your strategy from your > acceptance of 2NT, decides to jump to six diamonds anyway, when left to > his own devices, he would have proceeded with further asking bids. Has > West acted in unethical fashion? No. There is no law which makes an opponent's choice of penalty UI (it is not a withdrawn action), although you draw inference from it at your own risk. A more likely example: East has a diamond major penalty card (say, from a corrected revoke), and when West is on lead, declarer chooses to forbid a diamond lead. West leads a spade, which East wins. East, concluding that declarer did not want diamonds led, returns a diamond. East has not done anything wrong. -- 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 Dec 11 11:02:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB01bc08217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:01:37 +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 eBB01Tt08212 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:01:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.183] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 145GPF-000Ewu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:01:25 +0000 Message-ID: <000601c06305$9f6bc3c0$b75608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:21:22 -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 "That Power, which erring men call Chance." ~ John Milton <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 9:12 AM Subject: [BLML] A strange accident > ------- \x/ -------- > Several questions comes to mind: > ------------ \x/ ---------- > > 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. > a) which club has really been played? > +=+ This would appear to depend on whether he faced the card first or announced it first. ~ 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 Dec 11 11:24:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB0OBN08267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:24:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBB0O2t08263 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:24:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.232.157] (helo=D457300) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 145Gkm-0007bM-00; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:23:40 +0000 Message-ID: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws" References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:22:45 -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 Adam wrote: > At 9:46 PM +0000 12/10/00, David Burn wrote: > >However... suppose that West, having divined your strategy from your > >acceptance of 2NT, decides to jump to six diamonds anyway, when left to > >his own devices, he would have proceeded with further asking bids. Has > >West acted in unethical fashion? > > No. > > Which law would you suppose West to have violated with his 6D call? > > To look at it another way, could West have known that his > insufficient bid would work to his advantage? I'd say not. Small point: East was the one that made the insufficient bid. West East 1C* 2D** 3D*** 2NT**** (1) Precision (2) Natural, game forcing (3) Asking bid in diamonds (4) Intended as 3NT, which would show five diamonds to two top honours. But the question was more one of philosophy than of legal technicality. Had East bid 3NT, as he would have done (and indeed thought he had done), then West would have continued to make asking bids, ending up (maybe) in six diamonds, and (maybe) giving South enough information to find the successful lead (which was a spade). But because of the irregularity committed by East, and because of South's reaction to it, West was able to modify his strategy in a way that simply could not have occurred had everything been "normal". Should West be allowed this "advantage", arising from his own side's irregularity, even though (as Adam correctly points out) neither East nor West "could have foreseen" the favourable consequences of East's inadvertent 2NT? The question is akin to one that caused some disturbance in England a few years ago. A player opened a Multi 2D in "first" seat with six spades to the jack, a heart void, and seven small minor-suit cards. He was not in first seat but second, however. His LHO chose not to condone the 2D opening; his RHO opened one diamond, and this player (whose partner was now barred) elected to overcall one *heart*. It happened that his opponents bid to six diamonds; he led a black card which his partner won; his partner started thinking. Declarer injudiciously claimed on the basis that the opening bidder had a weak 2H, whereupon the defence took a heart ruff which they otherwise had precious little chance of finding. Comments on a postcard, but the question really is this: Your side has committed an infraction. As a consequence of your opponents' actions over this infraction, your side is in a position to make a tactical move which would otherwise not have been available to you. Are you legally permitted to make this move? Secondarily, are you morally justified in making this move? (I add this question for the benefit of those who think - with undeniable justification - that merely because something is legal, that does not mean you can do 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 Mon Dec 11 11:40:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB0eCl08310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:40:12 +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-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 eBB0e3t08305 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:40:04 +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 145H0W-000Ctb-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:39:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 13:33:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A334E49.F9FDF417@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser >> >hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly >> >here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they >> >can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here. >> I do not understand this. If you upgrade a nine-point mini because >> you believe it to be worth ten HCP and open 1NT then: >> >> [a] In the ACBL you are playing an illegal system because you are not >> allowed to upgrade: Meckwell says so. >> >> [b] In the EBU there is no problem. >> > >I did not think that was what was being said. > >> If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal >> both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not >allowed. Why not? Are you saying that if you have agreed to play 15-17 1NT openings then it is illegal to open 1NT on KQJT9 AT9 QT QT9 ? >> Anyway I ruled A+/A- as per the regs: since this was a match I ruled 3 >> imps to the oppos, unless they had done better. >> >> Now the aggrieved party came back to me and asked whether it had made >> any difference that the bidding had been identical in the other room, ie >> that 1S had been opened there as well! >So that's -3IMPs to both sides. On what basis? -- 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 Dec 11 12:31:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB1VPx08427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:31:25 +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 eBB1VJt08423 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:31:20 +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 145Ho6-0008X3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:31:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 01:20:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article , David Stevenson > writes > >snip >> >>[b] In the EBU there is no problem. >> >> If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal >>both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. >> >but I still can't play any convention, even at level 4. The illegality >is not the problem, it's the stifling of conventions that stops us doing >it. You can play a 9-12 1NT at Level 4 - I do! You cannot play a 9-12 1NT by agreement at Level 3 but surely we do not follow the ACBL practice and assume that a pair is playing an illegal convention just because on one occasion they hold a 9-count? >>>I'd award 30% or the score attained. >> >> Wow! Vicious! >> >> Anyway I ruled A+/A- as per the regs: > >Use of an illegal bid fetches 60/30 ?? 60/40 in my view. -- 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 Dec 11 12:54:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB1s6N08483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:54:06 +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 eBB1s0t08479 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:54:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBAJ3T109802 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 19:03:29 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:37 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121019032902.09649@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, David Burn wrote: > The question is akin to one that caused some disturbance in England a > few years ago. A player opened a Multi 2D in "first" seat with six > spades to the jack, a heart void, and seven small minor-suit cards. He > was not in first seat but second, however. His LHO chose not to condone > the 2D opening; his RHO opened one diamond, and this player (whose > partner was now barred) elected to overcall one *heart*. It happened > that his opponents bid to six diamonds; he led a black card which his > partner won; his partner started thinking. Declarer injudiciously > claimed on the basis that the opening bidder had a weak 2H, whereupon > the defence took a heart ruff which they otherwise had precious little > chance of finding. Comments on a postcard, but the question really is > this: This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. > Your side has committed an infraction. As a consequence of your > opponents' actions over this infraction, your side is in a position to > make a tactical move which would otherwise not have been available to > you. Are you legally permitted to make this move? I think the "could have known" rule applies. It's common for a player to open the bidding out of turn and then be forced to shoot 3NT, which might make because of the lack of revealing auction. This is allowed, because the player could not expect shooting 3NT to work to his advantage compared to the opportunity to have a revealing auction. However, a psychic bid with a weak hand is a common tactical action, and it becomes better if partner is barred. -- 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 Dec 11 13:42:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB2gOn08599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:42:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBB2gIt08595 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:42:18 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 482BB48779; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:42:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 21:42:12 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Cc: "Bridge Laws" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:22 AM +0000 12/11/00, David wrote: >Small point: East was the one that made the insufficient bid. Point taken. >Secondarily, are you morally justified in making this move? (I add >this question for the benefit of those who think - with undeniable >justification - that merely because something is legal, that does >not mean you can do it.) In case we haven't been over this ground before I'll state my position "for the record." In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can tell one often missed. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 13:58:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB2vf908632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:57:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBB2vZt08628 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:57:36 +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, 10 Dec 2000 18:54:37 -0800 Message-ID: <00ca01c0631e$12bfc3e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A3353ED.CE70B5E6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient cuebid Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 18:57:12 -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: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 1:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient cuebid > William Watson wrote: > > > > Hello, I've been a pet-less lurker for a while on this list and have > > a problem that came up that might be interesting. > > > > Hello William, glad to hear from you ! > > > DLR North K8 > > VUL East-West 9832 > > 872 > > QJ93 > > AJ 94 > > KJT654 AQ > > A93 KQT654 > > T2 AK7 > > QT76532 > > 7 > > J > > 8654 > > > > N E S W > > P 1C(1) 1H(2) 2D(3) > > P 2H(4) 3S 3S > > > > 1: 1C=16+ any shape > > 2: 1H=spades > > 3: 2D=hearts > > 4: 2H=semi-automatic > > > > EW do not have specific agreements about a cuebid by west on second round. > > > > Does a 4S bid by west bar east? > > > > Spades is south's suit, so 4S by west is a cuebid. > I'd even have ruled under the old laws that 3S was a cuebid. > Anyway, clearly conventional and not correctible. > East would be barred. West cannot save his partner and > should make the final call for his side. > > Cue bids are not conventions if they show a high card in the suit, according to the Laws' definition of convention. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 14:27:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB3R2608754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:27:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBB3Qtt08750 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:26:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.24.156] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 145Jc3-0000aA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:26:52 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c06322$2da80d80$9c18073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> <00121019032902.09649@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:26:38 -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 David J Grabiner wrote: > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, David Burn wrote: > > > The question is akin to one that caused some disturbance in England a > > few years ago. A player opened a Multi 2D in "first" seat with six > > spades to the jack, a heart void, and seven small minor-suit cards. He > > was not in first seat but second, however. His LHO chose not to condone > > the 2D opening; his RHO opened one diamond, and this player (whose > > partner was now barred) elected to overcall one *heart*. It happened > > that his opponents bid to six diamonds; he led a black card which his > > partner won; his partner started thinking. Declarer injudiciously > > claimed on the basis that the opening bidder had a weak 2H, whereupon > > the defence took a heart ruff which they otherwise had precious little > > chance of finding. Comments on a postcard, but the question really is > > this: > > This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that > his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a > general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. I know of no such consensus - certainly, I have never played under any such regulation. If it is "different", then it is different in an ethical or moral rather than a legal sense. > > Your side has committed an infraction. As a consequence of your > > opponents' actions over this infraction, your side is in a position to > > make a tactical move which would otherwise not have been available to > > you. Are you legally permitted to make this move? > > I think the "could have known" rule applies. It's common for a player > to open the bidding out of turn and then be forced to shoot 3NT, which > might make because of the lack of revealing auction. This is allowed, > because the player could not expect shooting 3NT to work to his > advantage compared to the opportunity to have a revealing auction. > However, a psychic bid with a weak hand is a common tactical action, > and it becomes better if partner is barred. I think that you may not fully have appreciated the question. In the case of a player who bids out of turn and then shoots 3NT, that player has no knowledge of any relevant factor of the deal, and is taking an obvious gamble. In my example, the offending side already had a large amount of information, and were deliberately attempting to counter an opponent's strategy by following a "counter-strategy" that they certainly would not have followed had they not themselves broken the law. It is not enough to say: the insufficient 2NT bidder could not have known that his LHO would have a problem as to whether or not to condone 2NT, therefore any action by his side is legal. What has in effect happened is that, by "virtue" of your infraction, the opponents have been forced (or felt themselves forced) to place you in a more advantageous position than you would have been in had you not committed your infraction. Whatever anyone "could have known", should you be entitled to benefit in this way? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 14:27:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB3RlS08767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:27:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com (imo-r10.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBB3Rft08763 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id 7.a9.ec47988 (3705) for ; Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:27:21 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000 22:27:20 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a9.ec47988.2765a398_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_a9.ec47988.2765a398_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good comment, Adam. Thanks. Walt Flory ------------ --part1_a9.ec47988.2765a398_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Good comment, Adam. Thanks.

Walt Flory
------------ --part1_a9.ec47988.2765a398_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 Mon Dec 11 16:18:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB5IHG09095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:18:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBB5ICt09091 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:18:12 +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 QAA23828 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:11:46 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:12:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:12:33 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/12/2000 05:09:17 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky wrote: [big snip] >In case we haven't been over this ground >before I'll state my position "for the record." > >In life an action can be legal but immoral. >This is not possible in bridge. The difference >is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >its laws. Without the laws we have no context >for judging an action moral or immoral. This >is an important point, and so far as I can >tell one often missed. > >AW IMHO this is an even harder line than Edgar Kaplan would have taken. In a BW editorial discussing ethics and sportsmanship, Kaplan hypothesised a case of a palsied LOL who dropped half her cards face up. He implied that he would have called the TD and asked the TD to wave the penalty for exposed cards, because of the LOL's disability. However, the point of this editorial was that an opponent of the LOL who took advantage of her exposed cards to make an impossible contract was acting perfectly legally. Kaplan stated that *While you might think less of them as a person,* they should not be penalised for acting to their own advantage within the Laws of Bridge. I may be misinterpreting Kaplan, but I believe he was making two important points: 1. His private bridge morality was merely a subset of bridge legality; and 2. While he might disagree with the subset of bridge legality another person selected as their bridge morality, he would defend to the death their right to choose their bridge actions within the Laws. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 16:23:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB5NMS09117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:23:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBB5NGt09113 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:23:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike2 (user-2ives7u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.254]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA04897 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:23:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001211002158.017ad9ac@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:21:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:22 AM 12/11/2000 -0000, David B wrote: >Your side has committed an infraction. As a consequence of your >opponents' actions over this infraction, your side is in a position to >make a tactical move which would otherwise not have been available to >you. But in this case, the tactic (i.e., a leap to 6D to avoid giving anything away) most certainly would have been available to West absent the infraction. Your point, I presume, is that South's decision has somehow made this tactic more attractive. As a bridge matter, I find this highly speculative at best. South could quite as easily simply have decided to be a nice guy and let this no-harm infraction pass without penalty. Or he _could_ be hoping to lure you into exactly this maneuver, i.e., appear to be interested in hearing the details of the asking bids so that you will decide on your own to leap to 6D which he knows will fail, because of the bad breaks. Seem unlikely? Hardly more so than the scenario you propose. But I suppose we should not let the particulars of this case obscure the more interesting "ethical" problem. The truth is that the other side is virtually never disadvantaged by this sort of thing. They will either seek maximum advantage (which is usually considerable) by extracting the most favorable penalty, or they will call it a friendly and let you go on about your business. In either case, you are well within both your legal and ethical limits to do your best to salvage the hand, IMO. >Are you legally permitted to make this move? Secondarily, are you >morally justified in making this move? (I add this question for the >benefit of those who think - with undeniable justification - that merely >because something is legal, that does not mean you can do it.) To say that something is legal means _absolutely_ that one can do it. It is certainly an open question in many instances as to whether one _should_ do it. I assume this is the distinction you intended to draw. 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 Dec 11 16:37:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBB5b6V09146 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from johnson.mail.mindspring.net (johnson.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.177]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBB5b0t09142 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugg4.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.4]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA11957 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:36:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002201c06334$5e944b40$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 00:36:48 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Adam Wildavsky" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2000 7:22 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular > > Your side has committed an infraction. As a consequence of your > opponents' actions over this infraction, your side is in a position to > make a tactical move which would otherwise not have been available to > you. Are you legally permitted to make this move? Secondarily, are you > morally justified in making this move? (I add this question for the > benefit of those who think - with undeniable justification - that merely > because something is legal, that does not mean you can do it.) > > David Burn > London, England > Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears to me that L72A5 addresses this question very explicitly: "5. Offenders' Options Subject to Law 16C2, after the offending side has paid the prescribed penalty for an inadvertent infraction, it is appropriate for the offenders to make any call or play advantageous to their side, even though they thereby appear to profit through their own infraction." As long as 72B1 does not apply, such actions are explicitly permitted by Law. As far as ethical obligations, the following is from the WBF CoP in the section on ethics: "A contestant may only be penalized for a lapse of ethics where a player is in breach of the provisions of the laws in respect of the conduct of players. A player who has conformed to the laws and regulations is not subject to criticism. This does not preclude encouragement of a generous attitude to opponents, especially in the exchange of information behind screens. " As Adam has stated, in bridge "morality" is defined by the Laws of the game. An action that is legal cannot be "immoral". If I'm reading the CoP correctly, that is also the position of the WBF. 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 Mon Dec 11 22:44:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBBhJv09818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:43:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBBh0t09814 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:43:09 +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 MAA02770; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:38:29 +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 MAA06399; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:42:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211125411.007fb100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:54:11 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:12 9/12/00 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > >I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in >deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. > >We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is >customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to >save them squinting. > > >In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West >follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places >the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, >a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of >clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles >something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." > >Several questions comes to mind: > >1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner >has done? # He is ; law 9A2a >2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. > a) which club has really been played? # the Queen ; law 45C4a > b) is the other club a penalty card? # I would say it is a minor PC, though I can't find solid grounds for it ; one has to suppose that the 6 was inadvertently played. He said he plays the Queen (and this counts as a played card) and the 6 is on the baize ; same ruling as the case where a player pulls the queen, intending to play it, and the 6 falls on the baize. The key is that the player didn't intend any moment to play the 6. >3. Suppose the queen of clubs ISNT in West's hand. > Make sure you have an answer for how to handle whatever situation your >answers to question 2 create. (For example, suppose the director's >investigation makes it obvious to everyone at the table that declarer has >the CQ; how do you compensate for how that might change the defence?) # There is UI to East that West doesn't hold the CQ. Treat as UI. If the Queen has already been played, there is AI to everyone that a cow flew by. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 22:54:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBBsNc09849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:54:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBBsHt09845 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:54:17 +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 MAA18693; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:51:53 +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 MAA14659; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:54:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211130531.0082f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:05:31 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident In-Reply-To: <000601c06305$9f6bc3c0$b75608c3@dodona> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:21 10/12/00 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >"That Power, which erring men call Chance." > ~ John Milton AG : and that LL calls Guardian Angel ;-) >> >> 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. >> a) which club has really been played? >> >+=+ This would appear to depend on whether he >faced the card first or announced it first. ~ G ~ +=+ AG : yes, this is the key point. I assumed that the player named the card first, since this is usually how it's done. If the card is played, then named, the 6 is played ... but I don't see how the CQ could become a penalty card, as it wasn't seen. The best thing in this case is to state the 6 was played, and to disallow anybody to make any comments about the Queen. If West is so foolish as to say "but I do hold the Queen !", then it becomes MPC. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 22:57:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBBvms09865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:57:48 +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 eBBBvgt09861 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 22:57:43 +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 145RZN-000NTy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:56:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 03:50:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Wildavsky writes >In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in >bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action >moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can >tell one often missed. I do not know that it is missed so much as that not everyone agrees. In my view there are lots of things in bridge that are legal but immoral - taking advantage of opponents' obvious disabilities, for example. -- 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 Dec 11 23:04:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBC4PD09891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:04:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBC4It09887 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:04:19 +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 NAA24602; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:01:55 +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 NAA22241; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:04:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211131533.008304b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:15:33 +0100 To: Adam Wildavsky , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A unique claim and revoke In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:53 9/12/00 -0500, you wrote: >David, when I saw "Another claim and revoke!" I thought for a moment >you were going to mention a situation I've been saving "for a rainy >day". > >At the last NABC in Atlantic City in the qualifying round of a >National event declarer claimed the rest of the tricks. Had he made >no statement all would have been well, as he had more winners than he >needed. His clarifying statement, however, was "Ruff a club high in >dummy, ruff a diamond high in my hand, ruff a club high in dummy, >draw trump, and my hand is good." This would have been a fine >statement if not for the fact that his hand contained a diamond. Said >diamond was the Ace, and neither opponent was void, so unless >declarer did in fact revoke he had the rest. On the other hand, he >has as much as said that he plans to revoke! How do you rule? > >How did I hear about this case? Let's just say that I was a member of >the declaring side and that I was not dummy... AG : if the orignial statement can't be fulfilled, look at the most unfavorable case to the declarer, counting bad plays, very bad plays, but not absurd plays, *nor irragularities*. There is no rule to compel any player to commit an irregularity. So, the TD examines the play trick by trick. Trick one : ruff a club high. OK. Trick two : ruff a diamond. Oops. If declarer has only high diamonds in hand, allow him to play one. Hze makes all the tricks if no irrational play thereafter lets him lose one. If declarer has any non-high diamond in hand, make him play one. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 23:07:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBC7PT09906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:07:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBC7It09902 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:07:19 +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 NAA25701; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:05:00 +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 NAA24538; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:07:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211131839.00829650@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:18:39 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:46 10/12/00 -0000, David Burn wrote: >This was the title of an article in the March 1997 Bridge World that >discussed this auction: > >West East >1C* 2D** >3D*** 2NT**** > >(1) Precision >(2) Natural, game forcing >(3) Asking bid in diamonds >(4) Intended as 3NT, which would show five diamonds to two top honours. > >The director, duly called, determines that a correction to 3NT would be >conventional. He rules that you, South, may accept 2NT (in which case >there will be no further penalty), or reject it (in which case East may >make any call and West is barred thereafter). > >Your hand as South is: > >K953 KJ1043 3 876 > >If you accept 2NT, you give the opponents another round of asking bids. >If you reject it, you will force East to guess the final contract. Since >you do not fancy being on lead when he guesses six diamonds, you choose >to accept 2NT. The Bridge World, somewhat naively, asks its readers >whether East-West, having divined your strategy, can continue to respond >to asking bids with insufficient bids in order to maximise their >advantage. The answer to this is, of course, "No". > >However... suppose that West, having divined your strategy from your >acceptance of 2NT, decides to jump to six diamonds anyway, when left to >his own devices, he would have proceeded with further asking bids. Has >West acted in unethical fashion? AG : no. Law 72A5 provides for such a case. Note that South could have bluffed West ... double guesses and all those things. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 23:17:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBCGtP09936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBCGmt09932 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:16:49 +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 NAA28881; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:14:30 +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 NAA01927; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:16:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211132809.007fa6b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:28:09 +0100 To: Adam Wildavsky , "David Burn" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Cc: "Bridge Laws" In-Reply-To: References: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:42 10/12/00 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 12:22 AM +0000 12/11/00, David wrote: >>Small point: East was the one that made the insufficient bid. > >Point taken. > >>Secondarily, are you morally justified in making this move? (I add >>this question for the benefit of those who think - with undeniable >>justification - that merely because something is legal, that does >>not mean you can do it.) > >In case we haven't been over this ground before I'll state my >position "for the record." > >In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in >bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >its laws. AG : this is very near to quoting Claude Levi-Strauss : the characteristic of a game interaction is that it is defined by its laws and its laws only. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 11 23:34:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBCXu609973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:33:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBCXkt09964 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:33:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.175]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10862 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:33:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:09:14 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >In article , David Stevenson > > writes > > > >snip > >> > >>[b] In the EBU there is no problem. > >> > >> If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal > >>both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. > >> > >but I still can't play any convention, even at level 4. The illegality > >is not the problem, it's the stifling of conventions that stops us doing > >it. > > You can play a 9-12 1NT at Level 4 - I do! > > You cannot play a 9-12 1NT by agreement at Level 3 but surely we do > not follow the ACBL practice and assume that a pair is playing an > illegal convention just because on one occasion they hold a 9-count? > The problem with that type of argument is that you can never be certain that it is "on one occasion". Barring things like "I was tired", "I miscounted" and such, the fact that they do open the 9-count means they are playing 9-12. If they bid 2He over 1NT holding spades, as director you are to assume they are playing transfers. Barring evidence to the contrary, you say. But when that evidence to the contrary is impossibly otherwise, such evidence is self-serving. What I mean is that they are not going to write 9-12 on their CC, are they ? The only way to police "grey systems" is by being strict. You are not allowed to play 9-12, and you are not allowed to open a 9-count. The first is non-policeable, the second one is. If players know they will get A- they won't consider even opening it. -- 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 Dec 11 23:34:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBCXu509972 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:33:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBCXkt09963 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:33:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-175.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.175]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10851 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:33:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 11:03:20 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@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: > > > >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on > >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not > >allowed. > > Why not? Are you saying that if you have agreed to play 15-17 1NT > openings then it is illegal to open 1NT on > > KQJT9 > AT9 > QT > QT9 ? > No it is not. It only means that you are not playing 15-17, but actually 14.9-17. That is MI, although of course a very minor one, and one that may be considered "generally understood" when a reply is given 15-17, so no AS will be necessary. However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a 9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing 9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed system. I know I may be on thin ice here, but I hope you understand my point. -- 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 Dec 11 23:38:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBCcPX09998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:38:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBCcIt09994 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 23:38:19 +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 NAA06972; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:35:59 +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 NAA17755; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:38:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211134937.007ab760@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:49:37 +0100 To: Adam Wildavsky , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: References: <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:42 10/12/00 -0500, you wrote: >At 12:22 AM +0000 12/11/00, David wrote: > >In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in >bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action >moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can >tell one often missed. AG : in real life, bashing into your neighnbour's chest is not very kind. In US Football, which *is defined by its rules and its rules only*, you are allowed, even encouraged to. In real life, saying you intend to slay the King could lead you to the court. But if you say "checkmate" (lit. "king slain"), it won't happen. This is very near to quoting Claude Levi-Strauss : the characteristic of a game interaction is that it is defined by its laws and its laws only. 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 Dec 12 01:00:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBE0IH10139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:00:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBE0Bt10134 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:00:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBBE06H37723 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:00:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001211085243.00ab9880@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 09:00:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:01 PM 12/9/00, David wrote: > I do not understand this. If you upgrade a nine-point mini because >you believe it to be worth ten HCP and open 1NT then: > >[a] In the ACBL you are playing an illegal system because you are not >allowed to upgrade: Meckwell says so. Just for the record, it is Mr. Meckstroth who says so, in an article in the ACBL Bulletin some time back. Mr. Rodwell was not involved in the writing of that article, and there's no indication that he would have agreed with it. Indeed, when Mr. Meckstroth's article became embroiled in controversy, there were several ACBL officials who stated, in various forums considerably less public than the Bulletin, that the article reflected Mr. Meckstroth's personal interpretation of policy, and was not, despite Mr. Meckstroth's clear statement to the contrary in the article, the official policy of the ACBL. However, the ACBL has not since made any further statement on the matter in the Bulletin, and so Mr. Meckstroth's "personal opinion" is universally accepted in practice as the most recent official word on the subject. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 02:19:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBFJAM10303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:19:10 +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 eBBFJ4t10299 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:19:04 +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 145Uix-0000Zz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:18:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:28:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident References: <3.0.6.32.20001211125411.007fb100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001211125411.007fb100@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 writes >At 00:12 9/12/00 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >> >>I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in >>deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. >> >>We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is >>customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to >>save them squinting. >> >> >>In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West >>follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places >>the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, >>a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of >>clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles >>something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." >> >>Several questions comes to mind: >> >>1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner >>has done? > ># He is ; law 9A2a > >>2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. >> a) which club has really been played? > ># the Queen ; law 45C4a > >> b) is the other club a penalty card? > ># I would say it is a minor PC, though I can't find solid grounds for it ; >one has to suppose that the 6 was inadvertently played. He said he plays >the Queen (and this counts as a played card) and the 6 is on the baize ; >same ruling as the case where a player pulls the queen, intending to play >it, and the 6 falls on the baize. >The key is that the player didn't intend any moment to play the 6. The problem with that is that Gordon made it quite clear in his follow-up article that the 6 *was* the intended card, and he said the queen because he was thinking a trick ahead. -- 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 Dec 12 02:30:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBFU9310344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:30:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBFTwt10339 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:30:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d068.iae.nl [212.61.3.68]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id F25A820F71 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:29:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <004501c06387$40aa20c0$44033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:19:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 10:12 AM Subject: [BLML] A strange accident > > I was very, very tired at tonight's club game. Aside from coming in > deservedly last, I also managed to create a rather odd legal dilemma. > > We have a couple players with very poor eyesight in our club. It is > customary at their table to announce each card aloud as it is played, to > save them squinting. > > > In 3NT, declarer starts running a 5-card diamond suit in dummy. West > follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places > the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, > a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of > clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles > something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." > > Several questions comes to mind: > > 1. Is East right to immediately call attention to what his partner > has done? > > 2. Suppose the queen of clubs really is in West's hand. > a) which club has really been played? > b) is the other club a penalty card? > c) if you think the six is played and the queen is not a penalty card, > what obligations is East now under? In the dutch TD examination of 1981 there was the following problem: In trick 6 declarer played a diamont from dummy. At his turn to play he announced to play the jack from his own hand. At the same time he detached the king from his own hand and faced it on the table. The correct answer according to the committee could be found in Law 58B2: a player leads or plays two or more cards simultanously. Both cards are played: the jack Law 45C1, the king must be put in the played position Law 45C4a. Following Law 58B2 declarer designates the card he proposes to play. The other card is a penalty card.Law 50. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 02:44:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBFiSs10388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:44:28 +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 eBBFiMt10384 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 02:44:22 +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 QAA10875; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:42:03 +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 QAA23678; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:44:16 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001211165541.00822c20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:55:41 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: <005501c06322$2da80d80$9c18073e@D457300> References: <002e01c062f2$99c053e0$de40073e@D457300> <005701c06308$98958d80$de40073e@D457300> <00121019032902.09649@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:26 11/12/00 -0000, David Burn wrote: >I think that you may not fully have appreciated the question. In the >case of a player who bids out of turn and then shoots 3NT, that player >has no knowledge of any relevant factor of the deal, and is taking an >obvious gamble. In my example, the offending side already had a large >amount of information, and were deliberately attempting to counter an >opponent's strategy by following a "counter-strategy" that they >certainly would not have followed had they not themselves broken the >law. It is not enough to say: the insufficient 2NT bidder could not have >known that his LHO would have a problem as to whether or not to condone >2NT, therefore any action by his side is legal. What has in effect >happened is that, by "virtue" of your infraction, the opponents have >been forced (or felt themselves forced) to place you in a more >advantageous position than you would have been in had you not committed >your infraction. AG : this goes against logic. Suppose I decide randomly between the alternatives of letting the bid stand or demanding a sufficient bid. How can this help you ? Or, I decide never to condone the bid. Same question. If you mean it is best for the player, in any case, to make an insufficient bid and pay the penalty, then L23 applies, but my attitude as NOS has nothing to do with it. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 03:13:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBGDUS10496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:13:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBGDOt10492 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:13:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d425.iae.nl [212.61.5.171]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7274D20F8A for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:13:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000e01c0638d$509d5280$ab053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:12:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry for my mistake but the penalty card is not mentioned in the answer of the examination problem. I meant it as a general answer to such a problem. > > In the dutch TD examination of 1981 there was the > following problem: > > In trick 6 declarer played a diamont from dummy. > > At his turn to play he announced to play the jack from his > own hand. At > > the same time he detached the king from his own hand and > faced it on the table. > > The correct answer according to the committee could be > found in Law 58B2: a > > player leads or plays two or more cards simultanously. > Both cards are played: the jack > > Law 45C1, the king must be put in the played position > Law 45C4a. Following Law 58B2 > > declarer designates the card he proposes to play. The > other card is a penalty card.Law 50. (not in case the declarer played two cards) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 06:27:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBJNI810790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:23:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBJNCt10786 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:23:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBCWZG10262; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:32:35 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 12:00:05 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on > > >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not > > >allowed. > > > > Why not? Are you saying that if you have agreed to play 15-17 1NT > > openings then it is illegal to open 1NT on > > > > KQJT9 > > AT9 > > QT > > QT9 ? > > > > No it is not. It only means that you are not playing 15-17, > but actually 14.9-17. > > That is MI, although of course a very minor one, and one > that may be considered "generally understood" when a reply > is given 15-17, so no AS will be necessary. I wouldn't even call it MI. You have failed to inform your opponents that you are not a Walrus, which is a metter of general bridge knowledge. If it is MI, then adjustments for damage would be authorized. Say that an opponent overcalls, and eventually needs to get a diamond trick out of KJxx opposite xx. He has counted that you have only 12 points outside diamonds, so he plays you for the DA, going down when you have the DQ instead. I don't think any director would adjust. > However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a > 9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing > 9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed > system. Again, I don't think this is MI. The SO can place whatever regulations it wants on conventions, including requirements that depend on its pre4ferred valuation method. (Thus the ACBL's rule that no conventions can be used over 9-HCP openings of 1NT.) The ACBL standard also forbits using Stayman's count (4.5-3-2-1-0.5) and opening 1NT on 11-14 Stayman points, even without judgment. -- 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 Dec 12 06:46:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBJhGE10844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:43:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBJhAt10839 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:43:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-214.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.214]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 68A6337123; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:43:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003801c063a9$e251ac00$d6b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , "Grant Sterling" Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:37:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>> Marvin L. French wrote: >>> > >>> >For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. >>> > >>Marv >>San Diego, CA, USA > If we, in my country were able to translate this right, which is doubtful because we have the unpleasant arrogance to know better, TD's might give the non offenders 3NT plus 6 (tricks) and would ask David Burn to defend them (successsfully) if some AC would decide else. So Marvy try another one (and fail), ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 08:34:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLTKk11114 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:29:20 +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 eBBLTEt11110 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:29:14 +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, 11 Dec 2000 13:26:17 -0800 Message-ID: <019601c063b9$5cf16f40$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <003801c063a9$e251ac00$d6b5f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L45C4(b) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 13:28:45 -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 Okay, Mr. Literal, My shorthand was too short. What I meant was let's go back to the 1975 revoke Law: If the revoke trick was won by the revoking side, it is scored for the opponents. One trick subsequently won by the revoking side is scored for the opponents. Nice and simple, no elaborate conditions regarding a second trick. If that is not sufficient compensation for the NOS, the TD adjusts the score (L64C). Marv San Diego, CA, USA > > >>> Marvin L. French wrote: > >>> > > >>> >For example: Revoke established, two trick penalty. > >>> > > > > If we, in my country were able to translate this right, which is doubtful > because we have the unpleasant arrogance to know better, TD's might give > the non offenders 3NT plus 6 (tricks) and would ask David Burn to defend > them (successsfully) if some AC would decide else. > > So Marvy try another one (and fail), > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 08:40:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLbb511147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:37:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBLbVt11143 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:37:32 +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 QAA14161 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA23945 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:27 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that > his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a > general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. There was much discussion of this on BLML perhaps two or so years ago. (I don't remember the Subject line, but we coined the term "Rottweiler Coup." Someone reiterated the details: out of turn multi-2D, then psychic 1H while holding spades.) In my view, there was no consensus but rather two opposed camps. One camp insisted that a psych with partner barred was illegal or at least immoral. The other said that banning such psychs was equivalent to banning false cards by declarer. Of course L23 and L72B1 apply at the time of the original infraction. If you "could have known" that banning partner and then psyching might be a good idea, you get an adjusted score. (Perhaps also a chat with the C&E committee.) But if you bar partner in a position where you could not have wished to do so and then decide to psych, opinion is divided. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 08:40:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLbr511154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:37:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBLbkt11149 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:37:46 +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 QAA18657 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:33:14 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:36:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael writes: > If they bid 2He over 1NT holding spades, as director you are to >assume they are playing transfers. Why should I assume anything? I look at their convention card. Does it say it's a transfer? I *ask* them what it means in their system. How do they answer? Aside from that, I see no reason to look in the player's hand, so I'm not going to know he's holding spades. I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. But it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. 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/AwUBOjVJKL2UW3au93vOEQIOjwCg4+JwjiWjhKYmLQoNt4izNwnQmxkAn2E8 EDch+JHYicYCQNiZQcXMkLqI =PN7O -----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 Dec 12 08:48:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLja111191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:45:36 +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 eBBLjTt11186 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:45:29 +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 QAA21345 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:41:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:39:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:00 PM +0000 12/11/00, David J Grabiner wrote: >The ACBL standard also forbits using Stayman's count (4.5-3-2-1-0.5) >and opening 1NT on 11-14 Stayman points, even without judgment. Eh? Could you expand on this, please? Where is this prohibition? 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/AwUBOjVK9r2UW3au93vOEQLT/ACeND0EwlMvfIQDDKjQs5P41InueZoAn32p fAvb6CU6RBGIa1X1t6HfHgjs =DoSb -----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 Dec 12 08:52:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLnQe11210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:49:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBLnKt11206 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:49:21 +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 QAA14753 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:49:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA23967 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:49:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:49:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012112149.QAA23967@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Another claim and revoke! X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Law 63A3 seems > to imply that W has acquiesced to the claim by facing his cards Someone else mentioned the inconsistency between L63A3 and L69A. I have another question. L69A seems to say that no final acquiescence has occurred until the relevant side has made a call on the next board (or the round ends). Suppose a defender revokes, declarer immediately claims, and the defenders don't seem to disagree. All cards are put back in the board. Then, before anyone has called on the next board, one defender says "Wait a minute, I want to dispute the claim." Of course the claim will now be adjudicated under L70, no acquiescence having yet occurred, but is the revoke established? Does it make any difference if a defender, before putting his cards back, said something agreeing with the claim? (I'm fairly sure the answer to this last question is 'no', but it seems arguable.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 09:00:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBLvtp11240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBBLvnt11236 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 08:57:50 +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 QAA15123 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:57:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA23983 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:57:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:57:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012112157.QAA23983@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > My point has been that when a TD is called during or at the end of an > auction, the last call by the NOs may be changed under L21B1, but no > earlier ones. Thus this call may not be the subject of an adjustment > under L21B3 which refers to "When it is too late to change a call ...". Good reading! We have all read those words a thousand times, but I, for one, had never appreciated their significance. There's still a route to an adjusted score, though. Perhaps it falls under Kaplan's "Find another law." Both sides have violated L9B1a by failing to summon the director when attention was drawn to the irregularity (the change of explanation, which drew attention to the original MI). Since L9B1a provides no indemnity, the TD can go to L12A1 if someone has been damaged. He will also need to consider L11A. I am not necessarily _recommending_ this route, mind you, but the TD can use it if he sees the need. If you do go this way, I think you have to treat both sides as offending, although perhaps L75D1 ("must") suggests more burden on the side that gave the MI. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 09:41:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBMbhk11334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:37:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBMbbt11330 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:37:37 +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 OAA03863; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:37:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200012112237.OAA03863@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 11 Dec 2000 16:37:27 PST." <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 14:37:32 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: David J Grabiner > > This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that > > his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a > > general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. > > There was much discussion of this on BLML perhaps two or so years ago. > (I don't remember the Subject line, but we coined the term "Rottweiler > Coup." Someone reiterated the details: out of turn multi-2D, then > psychic 1H while holding spades.) > > In my view, there was no consensus but rather two opposed camps. One > camp insisted that a psych with partner barred was illegal or at least > immoral. The other said that banning such psychs was equivalent to > banning false cards by declarer. I don't remember this discussion, but something in this latest sub-thread caught my eye. What, I'd like to know, is the definition of a "psych" when partner is barred? Normally, we think of a psych as a call on a hand that grossly varies from what one's partnership agreements say that call shows, right? But when partner is barred, partnership agreements don't apply. (I'm aware that the Laws' definition of "psych" doesn't refer to partnership agreements; but it does indirectly refer to a "statement" of honor strength or suit length, where such statements normally can be made only in the context of a language, i.e. partnership agreements, in which to make the statement.) Comments? -- 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 Dec 12 10:24:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBBNOZ511458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:24:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBBNOTt11454 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 10:24:30 +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 ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:21:34 -0800 Message-ID: <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:24:03 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" > > I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your > stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. But > it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by > making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. > Eh? Could you expand on this, please? Where is this prohibition? 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 Dec 12 11:45:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC0iO511658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:44:24 +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-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 eBC0iCt11650 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:44:14 +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 145dY6-000CQB-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: <40$0$OBLRXN6Ewtm@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:41:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> John (MadDog) Probst writes >> >In article , David Stevenson >> > writes >> > >> >snip >> >> >> >>[b] In the EBU there is no problem. >> >> >> >> If you open 1NT because you always do with 9 HCP then that is illegal >> >>both in the ACBL and at Level 3 in the EBU. >> >> >> >but I still can't play any convention, even at level 4. The illegality >> >is not the problem, it's the stifling of conventions that stops us doing >> >it. >> >> You can play a 9-12 1NT at Level 4 - I do! >> >> You cannot play a 9-12 1NT by agreement at Level 3 but surely we do >> not follow the ACBL practice and assume that a pair is playing an >> illegal convention just because on one occasion they hold a 9-count? >> > >The problem with that type of argument is that you can never >be certain that it is "on one occasion". Barring things >like "I was tired", "I miscounted" and such, the fact that >they do open the 9-count means they are playing 9-12. If >they bid 2He over 1NT holding spades, as director you are to >assume they are playing transfers. >Barring evidence to the contrary, you say. >But when that evidence to the contrary is impossibly >otherwise, such evidence is self-serving. What I mean is >that they are not going to write 9-12 on their CC, are they >? > >The only way to police "grey systems" is by being strict. Why is it the only way? Why not ask them what is different about *this hand*? Self-serving statements are discounted somewhat, but not ignored. I do not think that you should change the rules because of difficulties in policing - well, and SO might change its rules, I suppose. >You are not allowed to play 9-12, and you are not allowed to >open a 9-count. >The first is non-policeable, the second one is. >If players know they will get A- they won't consider even >opening it. That may be true, but is not necessarily fair. -- 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 Dec 12 11:45:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC0iN411659 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:44:23 +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-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 eBC0iCt11649 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:44:14 +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 145dY6-000CQA-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:57:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A34A668.6598A061@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on >> >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not >> >allowed. >> Why not? Are you saying that if you have agreed to play 15-17 1NT >> openings then it is illegal to open 1NT on >> >> KQJT9 >> AT9 >> QT >> QT9 ? >No it is not. It only means that you are not playing 15-17, >but actually 14.9-17. > >That is MI, although of course a very minor one, and one >that may be considered "generally understood" when a reply >is given 15-17, so no AS will be necessary. > >However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a >9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing >9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed >system. > >I know I may be on thin ice here, but I hope you understand >my point. Whether I understand you or not is not the main point: I do not agree with you. Are you saying that a pair that plays 15-17 must always be within the range? You are putting system information above judgement? You are restricting style? It is accepted by good players that the Milton Work count is not accurate. Therefore, no good player uses it in isolation without further judgement: does that mean that *every* good player who quotes a point range is always guilty of misinformation? If a good player never goes outside the stated no-trump range then that probably means that they do not play the full range anyway so you should probably define such a range as 15.2 to 16.8. -- 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 Dec 12 12:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC16Qh11727 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:06:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBC16Kt11723 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:06:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBC171122130 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:07:01 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200012120107.eBC171122130@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 20:07:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "David Stevenson" at Dec 11, 2000 08:57:29 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: > > Are you saying that a pair that plays 15-17 must always be within the > range? You are putting system information above judgement? You are > restricting style? > > It is accepted by good players that the Milton Work count is not > accurate. Therefore, no good player uses it in isolation without > further judgement: does that mean that *every* good player who quotes a > point range is always guilty of misinformation? > I know that's a rhetorical question, but: There was a ruling from a Bermuda Bowl final that says exactly that. Either Flint or his partner passed an 11 count playing a big pass system and there was a min-information ruling when the US declarer played him for a card he "had" to have. Obviously inexperienced players like Martel and Stansby have to be protected from this type of evil behaviour. I'll try and dig up the hand. It's proabably the most astonishing ruling I've ever seen in a tournament of this calibre. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 13:06:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC262311874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:06:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBC25ut11870 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:05:57 +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 ; Mon, 11 Dec 2000 18:03:01 -0800 Message-ID: <01da01c063e0$043e74c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2000 17:59:27 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Herman De Wael writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >I do not make that distinction. If a pair opens a 1NT on > >> >9HCP then he believes that is his system. So it is not > >> >allowed. > > >> Why not? Are you saying that if you have agreed to play 15-17 1NT > >> openings then it is illegal to open 1NT on > >> > >> KQJT9 > >> AT9 > >> QT > >> QT9 ? > > >No it is not. It only means that you are not playing 15-17, > >but actually 14.9-17. > > > >That is MI, although of course a very minor one, and one > >that may be considered "generally understood" when a reply > >is given 15-17, so no AS will be necessary. > > > >However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a > >9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing > >9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed > >system. > > > >I know I may be on thin ice here, but I hope you understand > >my point. > > Whether I understand you or not is not the main point: I do not agree > with you. > > Are you saying that a pair that plays 15-17 must always be within the > range? You are putting system information above judgement? You are > restricting style? > Is not L40E1 pertinent here? 40E1. Right to Prescribe The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use,...(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method). I take this to mean that a stated HCP range may be varied a bit on a judgmental basis, and this cannot be a concern of the SO. 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 Dec 12 15:22:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC4LTx12244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:21:29 +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-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 eBC4LNt12240 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:21:24 +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 145gwJ-0009Nh-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:21:20 +0000 Message-ID: <1WlJsyBbcaN6EweL@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:18:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident References: <004501c06387$40aa20c0$44033dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <004501c06387$40aa20c0$44033dd4@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 <004501c06387$40aa20c0$44033dd4@default>, Ben Schelen writes > > Following Law 58B2 declarer designates the card he >proposes to play. The other card is a penalty card.Law 50. > WHAT!!!!! Try law 48 -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 15:55:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC4rf512337 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:53:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBC4rYt12333 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:53:34 +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 145hRR-000Nz8-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:53:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 04:50:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012112137.QAA23945@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 <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: David J Grabiner >> This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that >> his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a >> general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. > >There was much discussion of this on BLML perhaps two or so years ago. >(I don't remember the Subject line, but we coined the term "Rottweiler >Coup." Someone reiterated the details: out of turn multi-2D, then >psychic 1H while holding spades.) > "Psyche with partner silenced". Rottweiller is Richard Probst. He opened 2D OOT on Jxxxxx - xx Txxxx. Once partner was silenced he psyched 1H. The opponents bid to 6D showing a C singleton, Richard lead a club, partner won it and declarer banned a spade lead and claimed. At this point the ordure hit the windmill. TD ruled "down 1". AC overturned it; I posted the hand; the thread ran to 200 emails and we most of us finally concluded that *only because Richard knew the hand didn't belong to him*, he " ... could have known ... likely to damage ...". Had he had a decent 8 count we felt the result would have to stand. It's the 1-count that did him. cheers john >In my view, there was no consensus but rather two opposed camps. One >camp insisted that a psych with partner barred was illegal or at least >immoral. The other said that banning such psychs was equivalent to >banning false cards by declarer. > >Of course L23 and L72B1 apply at the time of the original infraction. >If you "could have known" that banning partner and then psyching might >be a good idea, you get an adjusted score. (Perhaps also a chat with >the C&E committee.) But if you bar partner in a position where you >could not have wished to do so and then decide to psych, opinion is >divided. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 21:00:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBC9xlk13005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:59:47 +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 eBC9xet13001 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:59:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.234] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 145mDg-000ACb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:59:37 +0000 Message-ID: <001001c06422$5bc24d60$ea5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012120107.eBC171122130@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 07:38:20 -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 "That Power, which erring men call Chance." ~ John Milton <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ron Johnson To: Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system ----------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > There was a ruling from a Bermuda Bowl final that says exactly that. > > Either Flint or his partner passed an 11 count playing a big pass > system and there was a min-information ruling when the US declarer > played him for a card he "had" to have. > > Obviously inexperienced players like Martel and Stansby have to > be protected from this type of evil behaviour. > > I'll try and dig up the hand. It's proabably the most astonishing > ruling I've ever seen in a tournament of this calibre. > > -- +=+ Well, Ron, if you can dig up the record it would be one to add to my collection. Worth looking into the regulations of the time governing strong pass systems, just in case they were as harsh and rigid as to prohibit deviation when using such an unfair arrangement, but subject to that a note of the AC members would help considerably in future selection. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 21:01:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCA0vA13018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:00:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBCA0lt13012 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:00:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.234] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 145mDk-000ACb-00; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:59:40 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c06422$5dc178c0$ea5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <3A3353ED.CE70B5E6@village.uunet.be> <00ca01c0631e$12bfc3e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient cuebid Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 09:57:37 -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 "That Power, which erring men call Chance." ~ John Milton <==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, December 11, 2000 2:57 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Insufficient cuebid > > > Cue bids are not conventions if they show a high card in the suit, > according to the Laws' definition of convention. > > Marv > mlfrench@writeme.com > +=+ If so, this statement does not stand up if the cue bid may be made alternatively on a void/singleton. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 12 23:18:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCCGvQ13348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:57 +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-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 eBCCGht13336 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:44 +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 145oMI-000CHO-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:16:40 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:35:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Sorry I forgot our convention References: <200012112157.QAA23983@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012112157.QAA23983@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> My point has been that when a TD is called during or at the end of an >> auction, the last call by the NOs may be changed under L21B1, but no >> earlier ones. Thus this call may not be the subject of an adjustment >> under L21B3 which refers to "When it is too late to change a call ...". > >Good reading! We have all read those words a thousand times, but I, >for one, had never appreciated their significance. > >There's still a route to an adjusted score, though. Perhaps it falls >under Kaplan's "Find another law." Both sides have violated L9B1a by >failing to summon the director when attention was drawn to the >irregularity (the change of explanation, which drew attention to the >original MI). Since L9B1a provides no indemnity, the TD can go to >L12A1 if someone has been damaged. He will also need to consider >L11A. > >I am not necessarily _recommending_ this route, mind you, but the TD >can use it if he sees the need. If you do go this way, I think you >have to treat both sides as offending, although perhaps L75D1 ("must") >suggests more burden on the side that gave the MI. Well, custom+practice suggests the reverse: many people believe that only non-offenders should ever call the TD. But my worries should by now be well-known: I do not like a reading of the Law that gives an advantage to those who do not follow the Laws over those that do. -- 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 Dec 12 23:18:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCCGt313346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:56 +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-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 eBCCGft13334 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:42 +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 145oMG-000CHQ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:16:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:44:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another claim and revoke! References: <200012112149.QAA23967@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012112149.QAA23967@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >> From: David Stevenson >> Law 63A3 seems >> to imply that W has acquiesced to the claim by facing his cards > >Someone else mentioned the inconsistency between L63A3 and L69A. I >have another question. L69A seems to say that no final acquiescence >has occurred until the relevant side has made a call on the next board >(or the round ends). > >Suppose a defender revokes, declarer immediately claims, and the >defenders don't seem to disagree. All cards are put back in the >board. Then, before anyone has called on the next board, one defender >says "Wait a minute, I want to dispute the claim." > >Of course the claim will now be adjudicated under L70, no acquiescence >having yet occurred, but is the revoke established? Does it make any >difference if a defender, before putting his cards back, said something >agreeing with the claim? (I'm fairly sure the answer to this last >question is 'no', but it seems arguable.) Perhaps then you could play devil's advocate, because not only do I believe the answer to be 'no', I cannot think of another interpretation. Whether he assented to the claim is irrelevant: if he raises an objection within the time limit given then acquiescence has not occurred, so the revoke is not established. Now for the interesting question: excluding Zones ? and ? [2 and 7? - no idea - any way, NAmerica and Oceania] may defenders ask each other "having none" after play has ended? -- 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 Dec 12 23:18:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCCGu813347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:56 +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-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 eBCCGft13333 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:16:41 +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 145oMG-000CHP-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:16:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 01:38:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >Herman De Wael writes: > >> If they bid 2He over 1NT holding spades, as director you are to >>assume they are playing transfers. > >Why should I assume anything? I look at their convention card. Does >it say it's a transfer? I *ask* them what it means in their system. >How do they answer? Aside from that, I see no reason to look in the >player's hand, so I'm not going to know he's holding spades. > >I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your >stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. But >it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by >making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. Now hang on there, young Ed: it exists in the ACBL, true. But this discussion concerns the applicability of a similar approach in non-ACBL SOs, and I do not believe despite what Herman says that this approach exists in Europe [apart from Antwerp, of course!]. -- 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 Dec 13 10:29:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCNRt613709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBCNRmt13705 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:48 +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 SAA29878 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:17:19 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:13:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson writes: > Now hang on there, young Ed: it exists in the ACBL, true. But this >discussion concerns the applicability of a similar approach in non-ACBL >SOs, and I do not believe despite what Herman says that this approach >exists in Europe [apart from Antwerp, of course!]. Damn. Anyone know where I can get a new brain? This one appears to be broken. :-( 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/AwUBOjazJr2UW3au93vOEQI1uwCg3WUOrWHNf76Qbu5Bzkx0H6XU6C4AoKvb BxQcX+UfRWrPuTjGat1yxaiq =Qj1B -----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 Dec 13 10:29:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCNREM13704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBCNR4t13700 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:27:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCBdPK12873 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:39:25 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 11:31:52 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <01da01c063e0$043e74c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01da01c063e0$043e74c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121211392502.12831@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Marvin L. French wrote: > Is not L40E1 pertinent here? > > 40E1. Right to Prescribe > > The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which > partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may > establish regulations for its use,...(such a regulation must not > restrict style and judgment, only method). > > I take this to mean that a stated HCP range may be varied a bit on a > judgmental basis, and this cannot be a concern of the SO. I take this to affect only the convention card. Players can play a bid as showing 15-17 HCP, or 15-17 things that look like HCP but are adjusted for other factors. The fact that there is no way to list on the second agreement on the convention card does not forbid it. It is not MI to list "15-17" if that is all the card has room for. However, there are other regulations which allow the SO to regulate conventions and agreements. Opening a 10=12 1NT with a 9-HCP hand is not MI if you believe that the hand is worth 10 HCP (and want partner to raise to game with 15), but the ACBL can still say that you cannot play Stayman in response to a 1NT opening which could be made on two aces and a jack. -- 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 Dec 13 10:47:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBCNlWS13756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:47:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBCNlPt13750 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:47:26 +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 SAA06121; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:37:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:32:08 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >From: "Ed Reppert" > > >> I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your >> stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. >But >> it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by >> making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. >> > >Eh? Could you expand on this, please? Where is this prohibition? Cute, Marv, but dangerous. At first, I thought you had tried to reply to my question in another message, which you copied here, but had sent your reply without actually saying anything. :-) I should have been more clear: the GCC states "CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP..." are disallowed. I was alluding to the fact that, if a pair agree that their 1NT is 10-12, and they agree any conventional responses or rebids (eg, Stayman), then if a member of that pair opens on a 9 count, his judgement is deprecated, and he is assumed to have an illegal agreement in violation of the quoted regulation. The reason I'm not certain it's legal is because it deprecates the player's judgement, and because it looks like an "end run" around the principle that bridge *is* a game of judgement. IOW, I think somebody didn't like the mini-NT, couldn't find a way to legislate it, specifically, out of existence, so took this route to do as much damage as possible to its users. Maybe I'm doing "somebody" a disservice, but that's what I think. 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/AwUBOja3pL2UW3au93vOEQIlHQCbBffBPJEr0N0yM/O8vnOqYl/nDzUAoLsJ jlT+17bOqssbLC1sHfQa4y1R =soKO -----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 Dec 13 11:15:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD0FFY13820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:15:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBD0FAt13816 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:15:10 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id F02584880E; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:12:07 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 16:11:56 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Cc: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 4:12 PM +1000 12/11/00, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >In a BW editorial discussing ethics and >sportsmanship, Kaplan hypothesised a case of >a palsied LOL who dropped half her cards face >up. He implied that he would have called the >TD and asked the TD to wave the penalty for >exposed cards, because of the LOL's >disability. Does anyone know the year and month? I'd like to look it up before I respond. As I recall bridgeworld.com indexes articles but not editorials. I'll also be checking (again!) on the relationship between ethics and morality. Any pointers would be appreciated. AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 13 12:36:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD1Zoe14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:35:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBD1Zkt14022 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:35:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot32.domain8.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da133591 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:36:00 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-129.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.129]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Dreamy-MailRouter V2.9c 17/1135082); 13 Dec 2000 11:35:59 Message-ID: <019701c064a4$b2e155a0$97e036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Another claim and revoke! Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:32:48 +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 David Stevenson wrote: >Now for the interesting question: excluding Zones ? and ? >[2 and 7? - no idea - any way, NAmerica and Oceania] may >defenders ask each other "having none" after play has ended? Yes, Zone 7 authorises "unless ..." in the last sentence of Law 61B. I cannot see any reference to time in Law 61B, but I fail to see why a defender would want to ask his partner if he'd revoked at the end of play. I cannot see how he could gain anything by asking the question, so why would he want to do so? 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 Dec 13 12:54:20 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD1rws14079 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:53:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBD1rpt14075 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:53:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike2 (user-2ives78.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.232]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA25056 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:53:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001212205228.0179fb44@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:52:28 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <01da01c063e0$043e74c0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:59 PM 12/11/2000 -0800, Marvin wrote: >Is not L40E1 pertinent here? > >40E1. Right to Prescribe > >The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which >partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may >establish regulations for its use,...(such a regulation must not >restrict style and judgment, only method). > >I take this to mean that a stated HCP range may be varied a bit on a >judgmental basis, and this cannot be a concern of the SO. > What a charming view! But to imagine that SO's in general (or ours, at any rate) would accept that L40 places any restriction on their right to regulate is hopelessly at odds with sad experience. 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 Dec 13 13:39:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD2cxl14211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:38:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBD2crt14206 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:38:53 +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, 12 Dec 2000 18:38:01 -0800 Message-ID: <001501c064ad$c5555e80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:28:36 -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: > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > >I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your > >stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. But > >it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by > >making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. > > Now hang on there, young Ed: it exists in the ACBL, true Ed & David, is it too much to ask that you cite the source for a statement of this sort? It's a big pain, and time-consuming, to go looking for it without success, as I have done. 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 Dec 13 15:55:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD4sUl14599 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:54:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu03.email.msn.com [207.46.181.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBD4sOt14595 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:54:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.23.203 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:54:15 -0800 Message-ID: <143101c064c0$0c3d0d40$6324173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <200012120107.eBC171122130@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> <001001c06422$5bc24d60$ea5608c3@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 20:49:15 -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 > <==> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ron Johnson > To: > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 1:07 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > > > ----------------- \x/ ----------------- > > > > > There was a ruling from a Bermuda Bowl final that says exactly > that. > > > > Either Flint or his partner passed an 11 count playing a big pass > > system and there was a min-information ruling when the US declarer > > played him for a card he "had" to have. > > > > Obviously inexperienced players like Martel and Stansby have to > > be protected from this type of evil behaviour. > > > > I'll try and dig up the hand. It's proabably the most astonishing > > ruling I've ever seen in a tournament of this calibre. Lew Stansby checked the records of the 1987 Bermuda Bowl in Jamaica, during which he played 48 boards against Flint/Sheehan and found no such hand or appeal. Perhaps you have another pair in mind? 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 Wed Dec 13 16:07:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD57Pw14648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:07:25 +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 eBD57Lt14644 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:07:21 +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 QAA12516; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:00:49 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:01:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular To: adam@tameware.com...C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:01:33 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 13/12/2000 04:58:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A different Bridge World editorial discussed a "sportmanship" situation which occurred in a qualifying match in a Bermuda Bowl (I think it was the 1976 Bowl). The question there was whether it was sporting for a team not in contention to defeat a *cold* game contract being declared by a contending team because of a Laws technicality. Kaplan decreed that it was always sporting for a team to act in its own interests. However, Kaplan ruled the other way on a similar example. In the last match of a Sunday Times Pairs (round-robin of Butler Pairs, long matches with elite partnerships) a leading pair was playing opponents with no hope of finishing in the money. One of the no-hopers perpetrated a ridiculous preempt. He got lucky, keeping the contending pair out of a cold game. As a result, the contending pair missed out on first place, while their opponents' dismal position was not materially improved. Kaplan stated that a ridiculous preempt was ethical if a player/partnership believed that such an action was a winning strategy in general, or against the current opponents in particular. But he opposed unusual actions as unsportmanslike if they were taken merely to hinder (or help) particular opponents, or to create artificial excitement, merely because the player concerned had nothing to lose/gain. A long standing editorial position of the Bridge World is that many sportsmanship and ethical problems can be prevented from occurring by proper structuring of tournaments. For example, the chance of a contending team meeting a non-contending team in the final round of the qualifying matches for the Australian Interstate Championships is minimal. These events (in Open, Women's, Seniors' and Youth categories) are run as an eight team double round- robin of 24 board matches in the qualifying, followed by a 60 board final between the top two teams. After the first round-robin, the pair number for each team in the final round-robin is changed to become identical to their half- time position. This second round-robin sees the top four teams each playing the four *bunnies* initially. The final three matches of the qualifying are a mini-round-robin between the top four. There is also a carry-forward to the final of 10% of the difference of the VPs of 1st and 2nd, to reduce the incentive for a certain qualifyer to coast home (or dump). 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 Dec 13 18:43:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD7gH915001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:42:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBD7gBt14997 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:42:12 +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, 12 Dec 2000 23:41:22 -0800 Message-ID: <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:36:21 -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" > > > > >> I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your > >> stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. > >But > >> it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by > >> making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. > >> > > > >Eh? Could you expand on this, please? Where is this prohibition? > > Cute, Marv, but dangerous. At first, I thought you had tried to reply > to my question in another message, which you copied here, but had > sent your reply without actually saying anything. :-) > > I should have been more clear: the GCC states "CONVENTIONAL > RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT'S > CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls > with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP..." are disallowed. That's better, but the statement was quite clear, and you should have been more correct. It isn't that you can't open 1NT on 9 HCP, but that you can't use conventions after opening 1NT if your partnership agreement includes 9 HCP in the range of an opening 1NT bid. That regulation falls within an SO's power to regulate conventions, per L40D. > I was > alluding to the fact that, if a pair agree that their 1NT is 10-12, > and they agree any conventional responses or rebids (eg, Stayman), > then if a member of that pair opens on a 9 count, his judgement is > deprecated, and he is assumed to have an illegal agreement in > violation of the quoted regulation. The reason I'm not certain it's > legal is because it deprecates the player's judgement, and because it > looks like an "end run" around the principle that bridge *is* a game > of judgement. IOW, I think somebody didn't like the mini-NT, couldn't > find a way to legislate it, specifically, out of existence, so took > this route to do as much damage as possible to its users. Maybe I'm > doing "somebody" a disservice, but that's what I think. If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be regulated, going by L40E. L40E: The SO may prescribe a convention card...and may establish regulations for its use,..(such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method). People say this opinion has been contradicted somewhere, but I can't find anything official in print, and am still looking for it. Was it "Meckwell"? Rodwell is on the ACBL LC, Meckstroth sits in on C&C meetings but is not a member. Neither can speak for the Board of Directors, the sole authority for issuing ACBL regulations. 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 Dec 13 20:35:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBD9XXV15229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:33:33 +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.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 eBD9XPt15225 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 20:33:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from BRIAN ([24.180.160.52]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001213093321.RWXW10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 01:33:21 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:34:12 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005101c064d8$2642cf00$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 Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:36:21 -0800, Marv French wrote: > >If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, >and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or >frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid >outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be >considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership >agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be >regulated, going by L40E. > >L40E: The SO may prescribe a convention card...and may establish >regulations for its use,..(such a regulation must not restrict style >and judgment, only method). > >People say this opinion has been contradicted somewhere, but I can't >find anything official in print, and am still looking for it. Was it >"Meckwell"? Rodwell is on the ACBL LC, Meckstroth sits in on C&C >meetings but is not a member. Neither can speak for the Board of >Directors, the sole authority for issuing ACBL regulations. > I can narrow the search a bit for you, Marv. Before I moved permanently to the USA, my wife-to-be sent me a copy of Meckstroth's article in the ACBL Bulletin (or whatever the house mag is called, she's no longer a member). The article was solely under Meckstroth's name, no mention of Rodwell whatsoever. In the article, Meckstroth basically put the view that, while it was perfectly reasonable to open most bids on lighter hands than your advertised range if you had compensating shape / fillers / whatever, a 10-12 1NT opener was in some way excluded from this because it was especially devastating to opps for some reason, and you were therefore not allowed to open a 1NT advertised as 10-12 HCP with a 9 HCP hand, no matter how good the fillers were. I was totally amazed by this, and asked Pat to scan the next few mags. for a "clarification" by someone, but she told me it never appeared. Yes, I know that an article in the ACBL mag doesn't have the effect of a pronouncement from the relevant committee, but as I recall saying to Pat at the time, when a player of Meckstroth's calibre writes an article like that in the official magazine, and it isn't contradicted in the next issue or two, people ARE going to start believing that it IS a correct account of the rules. I clearly remember Pat sending me the article, and that I was living in the UK at the time, so I can definitely tie it down to between August 1995 and April 1997. My guess is that you should start your search in the middle of that period, and work outwards. Now, please note I'm not saying that this is the only source of this information. It may well have been published elsewhere. All I know for sure is that it WAS published in the ACBL house mag, and I'm confident that Pat is a careful enough reader that when I explicitly asked her to look for a correction, and she couldn't find one, that there wasn't one published, at least in the next couple of issues. Maybe it produced some comment on rec.games.bridge? You might save yourself some work by going to www.deja.com, and looking up Meckstroth's name - wade through the many requests for sources of their system notes, and you might find a more accurate reference to the article. 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 Wed Dec 13 21:15:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDAF3T15318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 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 thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBDAEvt15313 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23315 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:14:51 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3610F4.F40688BC@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:50:12 +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] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I did not want to comment on the first thing David wrote, but I do have sensible comments on the second : David J Grabiner wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Dec 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > No it is not. It only means that you are not playing 15-17, > > but actually 14.9-17. > > > > That is MI, although of course a very minor one, and one > > that may be considered "generally understood" when a reply > > is given 15-17, so no AS will be necessary. > > I wouldn't even call it MI. You have failed to inform your opponents > that you are not a Walrus, which is a metter of general bridge > knowledge. > > If it is MI, then adjustments for damage would be authorized. Say that > an opponent overcalls, and eventually needs to get a diamond trick out > of KJxx opposite xx. He has counted that you have only 12 points > outside diamonds, so he plays you for the DA, going down when you have > the DQ instead. I don't think any director would adjust. > Semantic difference. I say it is MI, but minor MI, which the opponents should realize. You say it is no MI. Neither of us would adjust. > > However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a > > 9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing > > 9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed > > system. > > Again, I don't think this is MI. The SO can place whatever regulations > it wants on conventions, including requirements that depend on its > pre4ferred valuation method. (Thus the ACBL's rule that no conventions > can be used over 9-HCP openings of 1NT.) The ACBL standard also > forbits using Stayman's count (4.5-3-2-1-0.5) and opening 1NT on 11-14 > Stayman points, even without judgment. > Again I am not saying that it is MI, or rather I am, but minor MI without damage. But David's second point is important. Suppose I play modified Stayman count (double that), and announce my NT range is 20-24 MSP. Is this allowed ? Well, as far as MI is concerned, there should be no problem. An SO can force me to express my range in "general terms" in HCP, but they cannot force me to use any particular method of hand evaluation. I explain to you that in general terms, 20-24 MSP equals 10-12 HCP. Is my system allowed ? Now I open 1NT on KQTx JTx QJT T98 (9HCP, but 20MSP) Now you should say that in my system, this is a real opening, not some psyche or such, and since this is only 9HCP, that is not permitted. And you'd be right. In order for my system to be permitted, I should say it as "20-24 MSP, unless only 9HCP". Then it becomes permitted again. What is the difference between my story and that of the player who simply says "10-12" and also opens the hand above ? Nothing is different, and that is why it should not be allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 13 21:15:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDAFBv15324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:15:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBDAF4t15319 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:15:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23336 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:14:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A361173.F8AF4B83@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:52:19 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@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: > > > I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your > stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. But > it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not by > making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. > The rule I am proposing is not as you write, but rather : "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your stated range is 10-12 AND if a stated range of 9-12 would be illegal" I believe it is the only sensible way to deal with gray systems. -- 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 Dec 13 21:15:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDAFKl15329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:15:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBDAFCt15325 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:15:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-69.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.69]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA23442 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:15:08 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 12:58:05 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@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: > > > > >However, when you say you are playing 10-12, and then open a > >9 count, it means that you are in actual fact playing > >9.9-12. While equally small a MI, this is also an unallowed > >system. > > > >I know I may be on thin ice here, but I hope you understand > >my point. > > Whether I understand you or not is not the main point: I do not agree > with you. > As is your privilige. > Are you saying that a pair that plays 15-17 must always be within the > range? You are putting system information above judgement? You are > restricting style? > No I am not. > It is accepted by good players that the Milton Work count is not > accurate. Therefore, no good player uses it in isolation without > further judgement: does that mean that *every* good player who quotes a > point range is always guilty of misinformation? > Yes he is, but only what I'd call "minor MI", which the opponents should realize. Call it MI or not, does not matter. I shall follow general practice and not call it MI any more. Opponent's should realize that all explanations are "grey", and the degree of greyness can be asked. > If a good player never goes outside the stated no-trump range then > that probably means that they do not play the full range anyway so you > should probably define such a range as 15.2 to 16.8. > But the argument here is not about MI, but about permissible systems. stating "15-17" is not MI when you are playing 14.9-17.1, OK ? stating "10-12" is not MI when you are playing 9.9-12.1, also. But the SO says you cannot play less than 10. So playing 9.9-12.1 should be considered an infraction. And saying it is 10-12, while not exactly MI, does not change 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 Wed Dec 13 23:59:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDCuxH15672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:56:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBDCurt15668 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:56:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBDCulH08141 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:56:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:57:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A3610F4.F40688BC@village.uunet.be> References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:50 AM 12/12/00, Herman wrote: >Suppose I play modified Stayman count (double that), and >announce my NT range is 20-24 MSP. Is this allowed ? >Well, as far as MI is concerned, there should be no problem. >An SO can force me to express my range in "general terms" in >HCP, but they cannot force me to use any particular method >of hand evaluation. >I explain to you that in general terms, 20-24 MSP equals >10-12 HCP. >Is my system allowed ? > >Now I open 1NT on KQTx JTx QJT T98 (9HCP, but 20MSP) > >Now you should say that in my system, this is a real >opening, not some psyche or such, and since this is only >9HCP, that is not permitted. I should be allowed to use common sense. I should say that this is a real opening in ANY system, regardless of evaluation method, in which QJ/QJ2/Q432/Q432 is a real opening. >And you'd be right. In order for my system to be permitted, >I should say it as "20-24 MSP, unless only 9HCP". Then it >becomes permitted again. So if I learned bridge from a book that taught MSP, have been using it around the kitchen table for years, and am perfectly content with it, I must now learn the Work HCP count (thinking "whatever that is"), then modify my bidding methods according to it, before I may come out and play in the duplicate legally. >What is the difference between my story and that of the >player who simply says "10-12" and also opens the hand above >? >Nothing is different, and that is why it should not be >allowed. That is why it SHOULD be allowed. "Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment." 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 Dec 14 02:01:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDF0M515925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:00:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBDF0Ft15921 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 02:00:16 +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 KAA29776 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA02425 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:00:09 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 10:00:09 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012131500.KAA02425@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Brian Meadows > In the article, Meckstroth basically put the view that, while it was perfectly > reasonable to open most bids on lighter hands than your advertised range if you > had compensating shape / fillers / whatever, a 10-12 1NT opener was in some way > excluded from this because it was especially devastating to opps for some > reason, and you were therefore not allowed to open a 1NT advertised as 10-12 HCP > with a 9 HCP hand, no matter how good the fillers were. > Yes, I know that an article in the ACBL mag doesn't have the effect of a > pronouncement from the relevant committee, but as I recall saying to Pat at the > time, when a player of Meckstroth's calibre writes an article like that in the > official magazine, and it isn't contradicted in the next issue or two, people > ARE going to start believing that it IS a correct account of the rules. Brian's memory accords with mine. I recall sending a rebuttal to the Bulletin shortly after Meckstroth's article appeared, but it wasn't printed. (As I recall, the editor told me he was sending my letter to the C&C committee; I heard nothing further.) I doubt mine was the only rebuttal sent. In practice, I would be surprised to find an ACBL director who allowed a 1NT opening on 9 HCP, no matter how good the hand looks otherwise. This in spite of the fact that there is no official regulation stating that normal judgment cannot be used. > From: Eric Landau > I should be allowed to use common sense. ... ... > "Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment." This statement is from L40E, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't apply to convention regulations under L40D. Thus the ACBL (or any SO) _could_ adopt a regulation to the effect "no conventions are allowed if your 1NT opening may be made on any hand whatsoever that counts to only 9 HCP." In practice, this regulation is enforced in the ACBL even though it does not officially exist. (The actual text on the GCC prohibits all conventions after "natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP." It says nothing either pro or con about using judgment when counting the points.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 14 04:16:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDHFV216321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:15:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBDHFPt16317 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 04:15:25 +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, 13 Dec 2000 09:14:35 -0800 Message-ID: <006101c06528$3b48d520$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 09:11:23 -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 Brian Meadows wrote, helpfully: > > In the article, Meckstroth basically put the view that, while it was perfectly > reasonable to open most bids on lighter hands than your advertised range if you > had compensating shape / fillers / whatever, a 10-12 1NT opener was in some way > excluded from this because it was especially devastating to opps for some > reason, and you were therefore not allowed to open a 1NT advertised as 10-12 HCP > with a 9 HCP hand, no matter how good the fillers were. > > I was totally amazed by this, and asked Pat to scan the next few mags. for a > "clarification" by someone, but she told me it never appeared. > > Yes, I know that an article in the ACBL mag doesn't have the effect of a > pronouncement from the relevant committee, but as I recall saying to Pat at the > time, when a player of Meckstroth's calibre writes an article like that in the > official magazine, and it isn't contradicted in the next issue or two, people > ARE going to start believing that it IS a correct account of the rules. > > I clearly remember Pat sending me the article, and that I was living in the UK > at the time, so I can definitely tie it down to between August 1995 and April > 1997. My guess is that you should start your search in the middle of that > period, and work outwards. Thank you, Brian, but I am not interested in the opinions of someone who lacks authority to turn those opinions into an ACBL regulation. By the way, there is no "relevant committee" that can issue regulations, which must come from the Board of Directors via its minutes. The Competition & Conventions committee has an advisory role only. While ACBL Chief Tournament Director can issue regulatory interpretations of BoD actions, anything his office publishes must be traceable to a BoD decision, ACBL LC minutes, or the Laws themselves. The same is true of NABC AC guidelines that appear in the NABC Appeals casebooks. If not so traceable, they are personal opinions only, as Rich Colker is always careful to make clear. 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 Dec 14 07:06:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDK56w16731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:05:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe23.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBDK4wt16726 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 07:04:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:04:43 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.22.221.218] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 14:06:50 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Dec 2000 20:04:43.0625 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF2A5D90:01C0653F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2000 5:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident | Roger Pewick writes | | >| Same laws for everyone. From the description, it seems to have been a | >| mechanical error saying "queen of clubs" so may be changed under L45C4B, | | >I agree, it seems to be a mechanical error. However, I do believe that | >45C4b refers to correcting an inadvertant designation, not correcting a | >play. Also, in the case the designation was not corrected without pause for | >thought- I don't even think it was changed. | | Interesting view. Let us look at the original wording. | | Gordon Bower writes | | >West | >follows to 3 rounds, pauses a moment to think about his discards, places | >the six of clubs on the table, and announces "queen of clubs". East, | >a second or two later, says "partner, that isn't the queen." The queen of | >clubs is not in the dummy and has not previously been played. West mumbles | >something like "oh, yeah, I guess that's a six." | | So, to change it under L45C4B we need four things: | | [1] For it to be a designation | [2] For it to be inadvertent | [3] For there to be a change or an attempt I am still looking in L45C4b for where it talks about attempting to change a designation. It seems quite relevant that the standard set by law, to correct without incurring penalty, is to actually do so. roger pewick houston, tx | [4] For the change or attempt to be without pause for thought | | So, what do we think? | | [2] seems to be accepted - the player did not mean to play the CQ at | that moment. [4] seems fine to me - his comment "oh, yeah, I guess | that's a six" seems to have been immediately after realisation. | | But was it a designation? Did the player try and change it? | | Actually, I think it was a designation: "This is the card I propose to | play and here it is". ["No it's not!!!"] | | And I believe that the comment was a change of the designation. | | So the change is permitted under L45C4B. | | -- | 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/ | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 14 08:04:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDL4PB16864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:04:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBDL4It16860 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:04:19 +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 PAA08900; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:59:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:01:55 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >But the SO says you cannot play less than 10. >So playing 9.9-12.1 should be considered an infraction. >And saying it is 10-12, while not exactly MI, does not >change this. Actually, I was, um, er, I mistyped earlier. Yeah, that's what it was. :-) What the ACBL regulation actually says is that if you, by agreement, open 1NT on less than 10 HCP, you may not use *any* conventions thereafter. Since many (most?) play at least Stayman even with a mini-NT, they cannot *agree* that their range goes below 10. The problem, in my view, comes when in fact *any* time a player opens with a 9 point hand, he is *assumed* to have done so *by agreement*. This is the position that Meckstroth apparently incorrectly characterized as the "official ACBL" position. A rebuttal was mentioned here, that the ACBL says this is *not* their official position, but that rebuttal didn't say what that official position is. And in practice I have the impression, at least, that a lot of ACBL TDs will rule as if it *is* the official position. Law 40 gives an SO the right to regulate conventions. Well and good. However, *this* regulation has the effect of regulating the (natural) mini-NT opening. I believe that was its intent, and I believe that because that was its intent it violates the spirit, at least, of the laws. That's why I characterized it as illegal. I suppose if the SO says you can't play a less than 10 point NT opening, then a TD would have to rule doing so an infraction, but if that's the case, I think the regulation ought to be changed or dropped. Do Belgian regulations actually ban the less than 10 point opening? 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/AwUBOjfkSL2UW3au93vOEQJ9KgCfXsDltDbmWXULEDqiCYyzEUUIhh0Anj62 xkz9R9oZMF0T1nM2SSYmhr54 =aRhO -----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 Dec 14 08:15:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBDLEs916898 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:14:54 +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 eBDLElt16894 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:14:48 +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 QAA11842; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:09:38 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:10:05 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:36 PM -0800 12/12/00, Marvin L. French wrote: >That regulation falls within an SO's power to regulate >conventions, per L40D. As I said in a reply to Herman, just posted, I disagree. I believe the intent of the regulation was to prohibit opening 1NT on less than 10 points. As 1NT in this case is a natural bid, Law 40 gives an SO no authority to regulate it. >If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, >and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or >frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid >outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be >considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership >agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be >regulated, going by L40E. Neither do I. :-) >L40E: The SO may prescribe a convention card...and may establish >regulations for its use,..(such a regulation must not restrict style >and judgment, only method). > >People say this opinion has been contradicted somewhere, but I can't >find anything official in print, and am still looking for it. Was it >"Meckwell"? Rodwell is on the ACBL LC, Meckstroth sits in on C&C >meetings but is not a member. Neither can speak for the Board of >Directors, the sole authority for issuing ACBL regulations. There were a few messages a couple of days ago that discussed this. Apparently Meckstroth wrote an article for the Bulletin claiming (or implying) that the official ACBL position is in effect "you can't open a 9 point 1NT", but this was later rebutted with the statement "that's not the official policy". The poster who mentioned that rebuttal didn't say what the official policy is, nor whether the rebuttal said what it is. Maybe it's time for another "ask Mr. Blaiss." :-) 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/AwUBOjfmkr2UW3au93vOEQJuRACg0ZID3rz9iZ5WQxbvQ0vx+k2lcb4An2v/ 8D3oSZDQO34PPaqiGqNovRSA =VoAA -----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 Dec 14 12:58:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBE1sfx17518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:54:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBE1sZt17514 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:54:36 +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, 13 Dec 2000 17:53:45 -0800 Message-ID: <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:54:10 -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: > > Marvin L. French wrote: > >That regulation falls within an SO's power to regulate > >conventions, per L40D. > > As I said in a reply to Herman, just posted, I disagree. I believe > the intent of the regulation was to prohibit opening 1NT on less than > 10 points. As 1NT in this case is a natural bid, Law 40 gives an SO > no authority to regulate it. Ed, you are begging the question. You make an assumption as to intent, with no real evidence for it, and then reason as if it is fact. I see no such intent in the words that say no conventions may be used if a partnership's 1NT opening has (an agreed) lower value of 9 HCP or less. You could be right, but I don't see the evidence, unless ACBL TDs have been secretly instructed to automatically rule against 9 HCP 1NT openings. Which I doubt. > > Maybe it's time for another "ask Mr. Blaiss." :-) Yes, he is the best authority, but remember that he is not the one who makes the rules. 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 Dec 14 13:59:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBE2ubX17675 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:56:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBE2uVt17671 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:56:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ives0v.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.112.31]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id VAA14028 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:56:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001213215511.017ab52c@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 21:55:11 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$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 11:36 PM 12/12/2000 -0800, Marv wrote: > >That's better, but the statement was quite clear, and you should >have been more correct. It isn't that you can't open 1NT on 9 HCP, >but that you can't use conventions after opening 1NT if your >partnership agreement includes 9 HCP in the range of an opening 1NT >bid. That regulation falls within an SO's power to regulate >conventions, per L40D. I respectfully dissent. I realize that this is the position of the big boys, but that is more a political matter than any obvious derivation from the language of the Laws per se. Indeed, this broad reading of L40D effectively nullifies the restrictions apparently placed on the SOs' power to regulate broader issues of style and judgement, not to mention psychic bids. Can the SO's use their unfettered power to restrict your right to open 1nt on Herman's KQTx JTx QJT T98 while allowing Eric's QJ/QJ2/Q432/Q432? Not by my reading of the Laws, but in reality, who's gonna stop 'em? Grattan has made it perfectly clear that the WBFLC is not inclined to volunteer for the job. 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 Dec 14 15:34:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBE4VJ717944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:31:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBE4VDt17940 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 15:31:13 +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 XAA14328; Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:26:18 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 23:24:41 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Ed, you are begging the question. Am I? I confess that after all the times I've heard that phrase used (and used it myself) and even after watching several "debates" about its meaning on the net, I'm *still* not sure what it means. :-) >You make an assumption as to intent, with no >real evidence for it, and then reason as if it is fact. Not quite. I drew a conclusion, based on what I understand to be the history of the regulation and the use to which it is put. Then I reasoned from that conclusion. Granted, I haven't researched it in depth, and I may well be wrong, but to say what you say here is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. Perhaps I should have ringed my reasoning with caveats: "*If* my conclusion is correct..." and so on, but I wasn't aware that the requirements of this forum were so rigorous. >I see no such intent in the words that say no >conventions may be used if a partnership's 1NT opening >has (an agreed) lower value of 9 HCP or less. You could >be right, but I don't see the evidence, unless ACBL TDs >have been secretly instructed to automatically rule against >9 HCP 1NT openings. Which I doubt. So do I. But that doesn't preclude that they would actually rule that way. Especially if they're familiar with Meckstroth's article in the Bulletin. I grant you that a literal reading of the regulation itself doesn't lead to the conclusion I reached, but then there's Meckstroth's article, and the tales I've heard of TDs' rulings on the subject. > > Maybe it's time for another "ask Mr. Blaiss." :-) > >Yes, he is the best authority, but remember that he is not the one who makes >the rules. I am aware of that. He *is* however the senior expert on them, as chief TD. has been set up as the official source for answers to such questions, and while he doesn't seem to be the one answering (or at least, not the one doing the dirty work of *writing* the answer :-) I doubt the BoD is answering them, either. Maybe we should differentiate between club TDs and higher level ones. I have very little experience with the latter, but what I do have leads me to believe they are generally better than the former (at least, around here). So maybe most tournament TDs don't rule that way, but some club TDs do. Or maybe nobody does, and all the (admittedly, anecdotal) evidence I've seen is BS. One of the reasons I'm concerned (mildly) about this is that I'm considering trying to convince some of my partners to try Romex - the Forcing Club part of which includes the mini-NT. And I'd rather not be pissed off by some TD telling me I can't use my judgement to decide that my 9 point hand is really worth upgrading to 10. Maybe I shouldn't worry about that, but... :-) 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/AwUBOjhNCL2UW3au93vOEQJspwCfYXkWV1rlAxXSbRk6L+g58i8po4EAoIl/ PAAyHNKepbFUJchu7f5Be21H =rukg -----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 Dec 14 22:18:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEBHC118911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:17:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.163]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEBGst18905 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:16:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from p52s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.83] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 146WF6-0001iK-00; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:08:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c065be$3ee8a700$535993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "cathie ritchie" , "Ron Endicott" , "paul endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Lynn & Dan Hunt" , "Lord Faulkner of Worcester" , "Christine Francin" , "Christina MacEachen" , "Carol von Linstow" , "anna" Cc: "Antonio Riccardi" , "Richard Fleet" , "Nick Doe" , "David Martin" , "David Burn" , "Max Bavin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Linda Trent" , "Laurie Kelso" , "Karen Graham" , "David Stevenson" , "bridge-laws" , "Barrie Partridge" Subject: [BLML] General distress call Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:04:16 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott +=+ My telephone line at home has been weather damaged. Repair will not be possible until next Tuesday p.m. 19th December. Nothing sent to the dodona address will be read until after that day. Please use this, the gester, address for emails until then. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 14 23:06:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEC6L619054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEC6Bt19046 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07444 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:06:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A375B32.1E1BDC6D@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:19:14 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@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: > > > Now hang on there, young Ed: it exists in the ACBL, true. But this > discussion concerns the applicability of a similar approach in non-ACBL > SOs, and I do not believe despite what Herman says that this approach > exists in Europe [apart from Antwerp, of course!]. > Well, as far as the rule of 19 is concerned, the approach is the accepted one in Belgium. As for the ROTW, it should be the approach. It is the sensible thing to do. -- 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 Dec 14 23:06:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEC6aU19061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEC6St19057 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07512 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:06:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:37:35 +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] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@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: > > > > >Now I open 1NT on KQTx JTx QJT T98 (9HCP, but 20MSP) > > > >Now you should say that in my system, this is a real > >opening, not some psyche or such, and since this is only > >9HCP, that is not permitted. > > I should be allowed to use common sense. I should say that this is a > real opening in ANY system, regardless of evaluation method, in which > QJ/QJ2/Q432/Q432 is a real opening. > Well, but that is exactly what the SO is trying to say. No hand of only 9HCP can be a "real opening". They want to limit the lower bound by which you can open. Now whether or not we agree with this (just as a sidebar - I don't), we have to apply it. And the only way to apply such a regulation is to create a definition of what is "weak" and then stick to it. The definition is "less than 10 HCP". Basta. > >And you'd be right. In order for my system to be permitted, > >I should say it as "20-24 MSP, unless only 9HCP". Then it > >becomes permitted again. > > So if I learned bridge from a book that taught MSP, have been using it > around the kitchen table for years, and am perfectly content with it, I > must now learn the Work HCP count (thinking "whatever that is"), then > modify my bidding methods according to it, before I may come out and > play in the duplicate legally. > Yes indeed you must. I don't believe this is a huge requirement. I dont believe that anyone who has only played round the kitchen table will ever open a 9HCP hand, whatever system he used. And if he is, tough luck ! Those are the rules, learn them. They are as simple as possible ! > >What is the difference between my story and that of the > >player who simply says "10-12" and also opens the hand above > >? > >Nothing is different, and that is why it should not be > >allowed. > > That is why it SHOULD be allowed. "Such a regulation must not restrict > style and judgment." > Look Eric, the SO wants to ban light openings. So it must define a light opening. How can it do so, if everyone starts saying "style and judgment". You Americans should really learn to formulate some regulations in advance, not go to the US Supreme Court afterwards, shouting "style and judgment". -- 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 Dec 14 23:06:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEC6M719055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEC6Bt19047 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 23:06:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-180.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.180]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA07452 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:06:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:26:10 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$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: > > > If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, > and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or > frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid > outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be > considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership > agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be > regulated, going by L40E. > This is not a matter of judgment. It is playing a different card evaluation method. The regulation says that you are not allowed (or under restrictions), to use a system under which 9HCP hands can be opened 1NT. Saying that a particular 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP does not make it anything else than a 9HCP hand that in your system is worth a 1NT opening. So you are playing a system under which you open certain 9HCP hands with 1NT. And that is an illegal system. You are allowed to use whatever form of card evaluation that you want. But you are not allowed to use a system in which 9HCP hands are opened 1NT. This should really not be under 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 Dec 15 00:03:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBED2ao19199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:02:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBED2Tt19195 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:02:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBED2Np73835 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:02:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001214075347.00aad260@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:03:07 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <006101c06528$3b48d520$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:11 PM 12/13/00, Marvin wrote: >Brian Meadows wrote, helpfully: > > > Yes, I know that an article in the ACBL mag doesn't have the effect > of a > > pronouncement from the relevant committee, but as I recall saying > to Pat >at the > > time, when a player of Meckstroth's calibre writes an article like that >in the > > official magazine, and it isn't contradicted in the next issue or two, >people > > ARE going to start believing that it IS a correct account of the rules. > > > > I clearly remember Pat sending me the article, and that I was living in >the UK > > at the time, so I can definitely tie it down to between August 1995 and >April > > 1997. My guess is that you should start your search in the middle of >that > > period, and work outwards. > >Thank you, Brian, but I am not interested in the opinions of someone who >lacks authority to turn those opinions into an ACBL regulation. I detect a triumph for the revisionists. I don't have the article to hand, but I recall it fairly well. Mr. Meckstroth did not just say that it was illegal to open 1NT on less than 10 HCP (if playing conventions in the subsequent auction), which would be a statement of opinion or interpretation, whether so qualified or not. Rather, he explicitly stated that the BoD had made this determination, which he was reporting. That is either a statement of fact or a misstatement of fact, and, as Brian points out, there has been nothing in the Bulletin since to suggest that latter. To suggest that the article does not stand as an official statement of policy would be to take the position that nothing published in the Bulletin other than the official BoD minutes (or perhaps an article written by an actual BoD member) can ever state official policy. 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 Dec 15 00:14:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEDEJs19237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:14:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBEDEDt19233 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:14:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBEDE8u35947 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:14:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001214080519.00aea350@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:14:52 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@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 12:37 PM 12/13/00, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > That is why it SHOULD be allowed. "Such a regulation must not restrict > > style and judgment." > >Look Eric, the SO wants to ban light openings. So it must >define a light opening. How can it do so, if everyone >starts saying "style and judgment". It could borrow from the lawbook, and use the "King or more below" test: If a player playing 10-12 NT opens a 9 HCP hand, we can ask whether adding a king to the hand, giving 12 HCP, would produce what would be judged a valid 13-15 NT opener. The SO may be entitled to control the extent to which partnerships may vary from their agreements based on style and judgment, but should not be placing restrictions on the extent to which you may deviate from your announced NT range which vary depending on what that range is, punishing only those whose range they disapprove of but not others who take essentially identical judgment positions. 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 Dec 15 00:28:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEDSYf19277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:28:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBEDSRt19273 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:28:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-4.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBEDSMP40796 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:28:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001214082332.00aaae60@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 08:29:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: References: <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:24 PM 12/13/00, Ed wrote: > >You make an assumption as to intent, with no > >real evidence for it, and then reason as if it is fact. > >Not quite. I drew a conclusion, based on what I understand to be the >history of the regulation and the use to which it is put. Then I >reasoned from that conclusion. Granted, I haven't researched it in >depth, and I may well be wrong, but to say what you say here is a bit >of a stretch, to say the least. In this case, history is rather definitive. In fact, the ACBL BoD *did* rule that opening 1NT on less than 10 HCP was flatly illegal. But their own LC (which, IIRC, was still chaired by Mr. Kaplan at the time) informed them that this was an illegal regulation, and they then promptly withdrew it and substituted the regulation which is currently in force. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for arguing about their motivation. 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 Dec 15 05:34:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEIXXc19834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:33:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBEIXLt19829 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 05:33:26 +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 MAA28947 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:34:00 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 12:33:53 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$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 12:26 PM 12/13/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >"Marvin L. French" wrote: >> >> >> If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, >> and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or >> frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid >> outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be >> considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership >> agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be >> regulated, going by L40E. >> > >This is not a matter of judgment. >It is playing a different card evaluation method. > >The regulation says that you are not allowed (or under >restrictions), to use a system under which 9HCP hands can be >opened 1NT. I think this is where we disagree. Don't you acknowledge a difference between a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands are _always_ opened; a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands are usually opened [perhaps 'open 9-pointers unless the points are all quacks or all in the short suits']; a pair that plays a system where 9-pt. hands are not opened except under special circumstances [it has concentrated values and extra spot cards]; and finally a pair that plays a system where 9-pt. hands are never opened? We agree that the ACBL rule effectively forbids the first [by deprivation of conventions] and the second. I hold, however, that the third system does _not_ include 9-pt. openers [even though rare 9-pt. hands qualify], and so is not ruled out. The same, mutatis mutandis, for the rule of 18 [etc.]. In David S's original case, I think the hand was so unusually strong that opening 1S on it does not constitute an agreement to open 17-rule hands. But when it was shown that the pair also opened the later, much weaker hand, it became clear that this pair _did_, in fact, have an illegal agreement. [I.e, 17-rule openings were _standard_ for them.] >Saying that a particular 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP does not >make it anything else than a 9HCP hand that in your system >is worth a 1NT opening. So you are playing a system under >which you open certain 9HCP hands with 1NT. And that is an >illegal system. Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? >You are allowed to use whatever form of card evaluation that >you want. >But you are not allowed to use a system in which 9HCP hands >are opened 1NT. > >This should really not be under discussion. Do you think the regulation is _that_ obvious? Clearly, I don't. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 15 06:36:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEJa4M19950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:36:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEJZwt19946 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:35:59 +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 ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:35:09 -0800 Message-ID: <010001c06605$0c038200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001214075347.00aad260@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:35:36 -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; > To suggest that the article does not > stand as an official statement of policy would be to take the position > that nothing published in the Bulletin other than the official BoD > minutes (or perhaps an article written by an actual BoD member) can > ever state official policy. > I wouldn't put it that way. My position is: Nothing published in the Bulletin that is not traceable to the BoD minutes, ACBL LC minutes, or the Laws, can be considered official ACBL policy. Of course if ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss instructs ACBL TDs to follow some policy, or authors an article stating some policy, that policy becomes *de facto* official even if it can't be directly traced to one of those sources. I don't think that is a problem. It sometimes happens that Gary (who attends all meetings pertinent to policy) knows the intent of a committee, having heard the discussions, better than what is conveyed by minutes of the committee (which he may have written!). 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 Fri Dec 15 06:56:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBEJuDN19987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:56:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBEJu8t19983 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 06:56:08 +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 ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:55:18 -0800 Message-ID: <010d01c06607$dcb61aa0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00be01c06570$c38b4240$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001214082332.00aaae60@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 11:52:54 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At Ed wrote, replying to Marv's statement > > > >You make an assumption as to intent, with no > > >real evidence for it, and then reason as if it is fact. > > > >Not quite. I drew a conclusion, based on what I understand to be the > >history of the regulation and the use to which it is put. Then I > >reasoned from that conclusion. Granted, I haven't researched it in > >depth, and I may well be wrong, but to say what you say here is a bit > >of a stretch, to say the least. > > In this case, history is rather definitive. In fact, the ACBL BoD > *did* rule that opening 1NT on less than 10 HCP was flatly > illegal. But their own LC (which, IIRC, was still chaired by Mr. > Kaplan at the time) informed them that this was an illegal regulation, > and they then promptly withdrew it and substituted the regulation which > is currently in force. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for arguing > about their motivation. Whatever their motivation, I don't see that the present regulation prohibits minor variances based on "style or judgment." The same thing happened with weak two bids many years ago when they were new. The ACBL ruled that weak twos had to fall within a certain range. Johnny Crawford exceeded that range by 1 HCP in one of the first NABCs held here in the West, the feisty older opposing pair called the TD, and he was penalized. I seem to remember that they increased the top limit by 1 HCP after that, but later the whole notion was recognized as illegal. Perhaps these ACBL doings prompted the WBF LC to add a statement to the definition of "Convention" in 1997: "However, an agreement as to overall strength does not make a call a convention." 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 Fri Dec 15 14:23:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBF3LmT21033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:21:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r13.mail.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBF3Lft21029 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:21:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id k.6c.5ec69ba (16343); Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:21:08 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:21:08 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system To: cfgcs@eiu.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6c.5ec69ba.276ae824_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_6c.5ec69ba.276ae824_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus you are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a 1N opening. Walt Flory ------------ --part1_6c.5ec69ba.276ae824_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's
and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an
implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus you
are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a
1N opening.

Walt Flory
------------

--part1_6c.5ec69ba.276ae824_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 Fri Dec 15 14:40:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBF3eIj21096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:40:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hall.mail.mindspring.net (hall.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBF3eBt21092 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:40:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhid.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.77]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA13668 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:40:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <016101c06648$b659f0c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 22:40:04 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Meadows" To: Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Here are the relevant quotes from Meckstroth's articles in the ACBl Bulletin. I have posted them here before, about a year and a half ago. >From Aug '95: "...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with 14, why not here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump is not destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a destructive device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is considered to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in that pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini notrump. So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point notrump? Two things: (1) call the director to report it and (2) fill out a player memo for the recorder in your district. Destructive methods such as these deserve attention." >From Nov '95 (further explanation of the first article): "...The literal meaning of the term 'destructive' applies to the mini- 1NT only in regards to 9-point openers. The ACBL policy disallows bids that are purely destructive in nature. A 1NT opening of less than 10 HCP is in this family. The only reason this is apporached so severely is because of the rules and regulations regarding 1NT openings. A pair who opens a 9-point NT more than once is considered to have an implies agreement. Bear in mind as well that, unless you are willing to forego playing conventions over 1NT, you are now allowed to have an explicit agreement that a 1 NT opener can be a 9-point hand (sic). A few responses expressed concern that this type of strict regulation might creep into other situations at bridge. Be assured this will NOT happen. To occasionally deviate from one's normal high-card range for a particular bid, such as a point range for a weak two-bid, is considered normal. Players will always have the right to exercise their bridge judgment..." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 15 19:14:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBF8DKC21836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:13:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBF8DEt21832 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:13:15 +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 ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:12:26 -0800 Message-ID: <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:10:52 -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 Walt Flory wrote: > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus you > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > 1N opening. > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. 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 Fri Dec 15 19:23:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBF8NPN21879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:23:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBF8NJt21875 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:23:20 +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 ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:22:31 -0800 Message-ID: <018f01c06670$3e7fb120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> <016101c06648$b659f0c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:13:55 -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 Thanks, Hirsch, for digging up these interesting Meckstroth opinions again. Some of us are losing short-term memory capability. :)) Marv > > Here are the relevant quotes from Meckstroth's articles in the ACBl > Bulletin. I have posted them here before, about a year and a half > ago. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 15 20:48:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBF9mCj22107 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:48:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r18.mail.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBF9m6t22102 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 20:48:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.34.) id 7.75.d99992f (17378) for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:47:51 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <75.d99992f.276b42c7@aol.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 04:47:51 EST Subject: [BLML] (no subject) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_75.d99992f.276b42c7_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: Unknown sub 292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_75.d99992f.276b42c7_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marv, I certainly agree with the spirit of your comment. But do we have anything we can use to fight it with, or do we just have to grit our teeth and groan and moan? Walt _____ Walt Flory wrote: > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus you > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > 1N opening. > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. Marv San Diego, CA, USA --part1_75.d99992f.276b42c7_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marv,

I certainly agree with the spirit of your comment.

But do we have anything we can use to fight it with, or do we just have to
grit our teeth and groan and moan?

Walt
_____


Walt Flory wrote:

>
> My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's
> and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an
> implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus
you
> are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a
> 1N opening.
>
That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a
partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney.

Marv
San Diego, CA, USA

--part1_75.d99992f.276b42c7_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 Fri Dec 15 22:50:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFBmMF22522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:48:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFBmFt22518 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 22:48:16 +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 eBFBmAs17302 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:11 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBFBmAp01254 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:10 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:09 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 LAA16534 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:08 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA26856 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:08 GMT Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:48:08 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200012151148.LAA26856@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I'm all for style and judgement and freedom to experiment ("the freedom to play tartan two against little old ladies" as some EBU wag had it). But... SOs wish to regulate the minimum strength of NT openers, either by banning conventions over them or using L40D "a King or more below average strength". To implement this, they have to be able to define the boundary between permitted hand (which you may agree to open 1NT) and non-permitted hand (which you may not agree to open 1NT). This boundary has to be practically determinable (by players and TDs). If the boundary is determined in terms of "equivalent to 10 HCP" people will claim K32 K32 Q32 J982 is worth 10HCP because (in their judgement) 98s are very useful. In the absence of a practical definition of "equivalent to 10 HCP", regulators seem forced to use "10 HCP", i.e. HCP with no exceptions/ adjustments. It may be crude but it is practical. I can live with this. At least we (players and TDs) know where we stand. I people don't like having their style and judgement compromised, they should agree to play 1NT as equivalent to 11-13 HCP, and then they can upgrade as many (all!) 10 counts as much as they like. I'm not really sure what people think is a workable alternative: if "equivalent to 10 HCP" as judged by some panel of the great and good (or by ACs who will give different answers), how are people to know what they can up-grade and what they can't? Equally, if "equivalent to 10 HCP" is to be used, would it be not permitted to agree to open QJ2 QJ2 Q32 Q432 (if we can up-grade, surely we must down-grade 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 00:04:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFD3XP22725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:03:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFD3Rt22721 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:03:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBFD3LH16413 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:03:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001215075709.00aea100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:04:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:33 PM 12/14/00, Grant wrote: > Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, >or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? The "rule" seems to be that you cannot ever open a 9-point 1NT, systemic or otherwise, ever, period. I play in an area which is widely believed to have the most knowledgeable directors in the ACBL. The practice at our unit game is to give an automatic matchpoint penalty to a pair playing 10-12 NTs (with conventions in the subsequent auction) for any 1NT opening on fewer than 10 HCP, regardless of holding. 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 Dec 16 00:10:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFDAC422757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:10:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFDA4t22752 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:10:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-55.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.55]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA08745 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:09:59 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A38C10C.C34B8486@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:46:04 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@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 > > >But the SO says you cannot play less than 10. > >So playing 9.9-12.1 should be considered an infraction. > >And saying it is 10-12, while not exactly MI, does not > >change this. > Ed has three different points to make. > Actually, I was, um, er, I mistyped earlier. Yeah, that's what it > was. :-) What the ACBL regulation actually says is that if you, by > agreement, open 1NT on less than 10 HCP, you may not use *any* > conventions thereafter. Since many (most?) play at least Stayman even > with a mini-NT, they cannot *agree* that their range goes below 10. > The problem, in my view, comes when in fact *any* time a player opens > with a 9 point hand, he is *assumed* to have done so *by agreement*. > This is the position that Meckstroth apparently incorrectly > characterized as the "official ACBL" position. A rebuttal was > mentioned here, that the ACBL says this is *not* their official > position, but that rebuttal didn't say what that official position > is. And in practice I have the impression, at least, that a lot of > ACBL TDs will rule as if it *is* the official position. > "Assumed to have done so by agreement". There are two possible sets of reasons why a player could open 1NT on a 9 count. 1) he could have miscounted 2) he could have done it intentionally Obviously some players will try to hide 2) as 1), but I'm certain the TD is able to detect this, and we are talking here of people who ethically confirm that they had seen all 13 cards correctly and opened 1NT. Obviously the 1) case is always allowed, and covered under L40A. Well, what else can you say of the 2) case but that it must be assumed to be done by agreement. Do you really believe a player who says of a particularly nice 9HCP hand that his partner does not know this? Is it important that partner knows it ? He wants to show 10HCP and he does, even if he only has 9. There is no other way of assuming this but to assume it is part of the agreements. > Law 40 gives an SO the right to regulate conventions. Well and good. > However, *this* regulation has the effect of regulating the (natural) > mini-NT opening. I believe that was its intent, and I believe that > because that was its intent it violates the spirit, at least, of the > laws. That's why I characterized it as illegal. I suppose if the SO > says you can't play a less than 10 point NT opening, then a TD would > have to rule doing so an infraction, but if that's the case, I think > the regulation ought to be changed or dropped. > That is a totally different matter. Whether the ACBL has done something that it can, I don't care. Whether the ACBL has done something that is good for bridge, It doesn't matter what I think. > Do Belgian regulations actually ban the less than 10 point opening? No they don't, but we do still have a rule of 18. And it is interpreted like I say here. Only sensible solution if you want to ban certain things. If you want to ban 4-card openings, then there is no other way but to say "4-card openings are banned". (this is just an example - I'm not suggesting that they should be) -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 00:10:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFDAZH22771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFDASt22765 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:10:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBFDANu26310 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:10:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001215080531.00aea560@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 08:11:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <010001c06605$0c038200$fb981e18@san.rr.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001214075347.00aad260@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:35 PM 12/14/00, Marvin wrote: >Eric Landau wrote; > > > To suggest that the article does not > > stand as an official statement of policy would be to take the position > > that nothing published in the Bulletin other than the official BoD > > minutes (or perhaps an article written by an actual BoD member) can > > ever state official policy. > > >I wouldn't put it that way. My position is: > >Nothing published in the Bulletin that is not traceable to the BoD >minutes, >ACBL LC minutes, or the Laws, can be considered official ACBL policy. So if an article claims to be citing one of these official sources, and no contradiction of that claim appears in print, are the members really expected to do the tracing for themselves before they accept the policies as written? Or should they just believe what they read? And which do we expect to be the case in real life? >Of course if ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss instructs ACBL TDs to follow some >policy, or >authors an article stating some policy, that policy becomes *de facto* >official even if it can't be directly traced to one of those sources. >I don't >think that is a problem. It sometimes happens that Gary (who attends all >meetings pertinent to policy) knows the intent of a committee, having >heard >the discussions, better than what is conveyed by minutes of the committee >(which he may have written!). I guess the bottom line is that the oft-discussed and sometimes Draconianly enforced ACBL policy on NT openings isn't the "real" policy, but merely the "de facto official" one! For those of us who like to play the 10-12 NT, it is a very real problem. Take my word for it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 00:39:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFDdJn22864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:39:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFDdCt22859 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 00:39:13 +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 OAA05146; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:34:51 +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 OAA26011; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:39:06 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:50:37 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] self-serving ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, This strange problem I encountered, but could not help in solving (not accredited), involves determining how self-serving an argument was : Teams - good players - North is of international level. N/S vulnerable. 73 AJ109 Q83 K543 AK104 J85 K Q98532 62 K5 QJ9872 106 Q962 76 AJ10974 A W N E S 1C P 2H 3D P P P South enquired about the 2H bid and was told it was strong. When East passed, it was obvious something had gone wrong, but it seemed too late to let the bidding go back, because it was South who received the information (after all, had he known it was weak, he could have doubled - at least it is possible). It was quickly established that there was indeed MI, E/W's CC mentioning WJR at 2-level. North said that, had she known 2H was weak, she could have bid 3NT over 3D, and won it (by the way, 3NT was bid and made at the other table). Now E/W developed an interesting argument : How could North think 2H was genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? Also, the jump could not have been of the distributional species (8 solid and out), seeing North's heart holding. My question is : is this reasoning convincing enough to qualify North's pass as gambling ? If North had been able to determine the jump couldn't be strong, she could have passed, and have it both ways (either East reopens and is doubled, or she calls the TD). If it is, how do you adjudicate the score ? Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 01:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFEBuN22982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:57 +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 eBFEBft22967 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-193.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.193]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02207 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:11:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3A1F94.EA382C53@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:41:40 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> 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 regulation says that you are not allowed (or under > >restrictions), to use a system under which 9HCP hands can be > >opened 1NT. > > I think this is where we disagree. Don't you acknowledge a > difference between a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands > are _always_ opened; a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands > are usually opened [perhaps 'open 9-pointers unless the points are all > quacks or all in the short suits']; a pair that plays a system > where 9-pt. hands are not opened except under special circumstances [it > has concentrated values and extra spot cards]; and finally a pair that > plays a system where 9-pt. hands are never opened? > We agree that the ACBL rule effectively forbids the first [by > deprivation of conventions] and the second. I hold, however, that the > third system does _not_ include 9-pt. openers [even though rare 9-pt. > hands qualify], and so is not ruled out. Look here Grant, you are to be recommended for trying to put a boundary somewhere. But why should that boundary be set at the third. Why not simply at the fourth ? That one is the easy one. If you allow the third but not the second, you are in need of a quantification, and this adds problems that are unnecessary. > The same, mutatis mutandis, for > the rule of 18 [etc.]. In David S's original case, I think the hand was > so unusually strong that opening 1S on it does not constitute an agreement > to open 17-rule hands. But when it was shown that the pair also opened the > later, much weaker hand, it became clear that this pair _did_, in fact, > have an illegal agreement. [I.e, 17-rule openings were _standard_ > for them.] > So if you only know about the first one, you allow it, but if you also know about the second, you disallow them both ? While they may be sitting at adjoining tables ? > >Saying that a particular 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP does not > >make it anything else than a 9HCP hand that in your system > >is worth a 1NT opening. So you are playing a system under > >which you open certain 9HCP hands with 1NT. And that is an > >illegal system. > > Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, > or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? > I don't understand this. If you mean what I think you mean, then the answer is "how can you ever tell the difference ?". If it quacks like a duck ... > >You are allowed to use whatever form of card evaluation that > >you want. > >But you are not allowed to use a system in which 9HCP hands > >are opened 1NT. > > > >This should really not be under discussion. > > Do you think the regulation is _that_ obvious? Clearly, I don't. > A fact that truly amazes 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 Sat Dec 16 01:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFEBsM22981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:54 +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 eBFEBit22970 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-193.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.193]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02253 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:11:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3A20E7.CB3B9C03@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:47:19 +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] Permitted system References: <200012151148.LAA26856@tempest.npl.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks Robin, for this well thought-of submission. I invite all of you to read it once again : Robin Barker wrote: > > I'm all for style and judgement and freedom to experiment > ("the freedom to play tartan two against little old ladies" > as some EBU wag had it). > > But... > > SOs wish to regulate the minimum strength of NT openers, > either by banning conventions over them or using L40D "a > King or more below average strength". > > To implement this, they have to be able to define the > boundary between permitted hand (which you may agree to > open 1NT) and non-permitted hand (which you may not agree > to open 1NT). > > This boundary has to be practically determinable (by players > and TDs). > > If the boundary is determined in terms of "equivalent to 10 HCP" > people will claim K32 K32 Q32 J982 is worth 10HCP because (in > their judgement) 98s are very useful. > > In the absence of a practical definition of "equivalent to 10 HCP", > regulators seem forced to use "10 HCP", i.e. HCP with no exceptions/ > adjustments. It may be crude but it is practical. > > I can live with this. At least we (players and TDs) know where we > stand. I people don't like having their style and judgement > compromised, they should agree to play 1NT as equivalent to 11-13 HCP, > and then they can upgrade as many (all!) 10 counts as much as they like. > > I'm not really sure what people think is a workable alternative: if > "equivalent to 10 HCP" as judged by some panel of the great and good > (or by ACs who will give different answers), how are people to know what > they can up-grade and what they can't? Equally, if "equivalent to 10 HCP" > is to be used, would it be not permitted to agree to open QJ2 QJ2 Q32 Q432 > (if we can up-grade, surely we must down-grade as well) ? > > Robin > I couldn't have said it better. -- 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 Dec 16 01:12:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFEBrI22980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFEBgt22969 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:11:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-193.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.193]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA02230 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:11:38 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:45:11 +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] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$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: > > Walt Flory wrote: > > > > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus > you > > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > > 1N opening. > > > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a > partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. > Exactly. If something is allowed once, it must be allowed forever. You cannot allow something a first time and not a second one. You can not use arguments like "it's the first time". When something happens, you must always check if it is "within reason" or "out of the blue". The first makes it systemic, the second doesn't. Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. -- 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 Dec 16 03:39:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGcqG23422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:52 +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-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 eBFGcSt23397 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:30 +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 146xsD-000Dgx-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:38:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:47:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <001501c064ad$c5555e80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001501c064ad$c5555e80$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 > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Ed Reppert wrote: > >> > >> >I don't particularly like the "you can't open 1NT on 9HCP if your >> >stated range is 10-12" rule; I'm not at all certain it's legal. >But >> >it *does* exist, and a TD should therefore enforce it - but not >by >> >making assumptions when there is evidence to be had. >> >> Now hang on there, young Ed: it exists in the ACBL, true > >Ed & David, is it too much to ask that you cite the source for a >statement of this sort? It's a big pain, and time-consuming, to go >looking for it without success, as I have done. I was basing my comments on what you and other posters have written here and on RGB on several occasions. The main thrust of my argument was concerning an EBU reg, so I did not see any particular necessity to find a more precise source for a peripheral matter. -- 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 Dec 16 03:39:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGcmV23421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFGcWt23405 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:33 +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 146xsD-000Dgy-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:38:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:16:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A strange accident References: <002f01c061ff$164d66e0$874c5c18@midsouth.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 Roger Pewick writes >From: David Stevenson >| So, to change it under L45C4B we need four things: >| >| [1] For it to be a designation >| [2] For it to be inadvertent >| [3] For there to be a change or an attempt > >I am still looking in L45C4b for where it talks about attempting to change a >designation. It seems quite relevant that the standard set by law, to >correct without incurring penalty, is to actually do so. I see what you mean, but it seems an unduly harsh. "Oh god, I did not mean that, I meant to play the C6." You would allow a change? "Oh god, I did not mean that, I meant to play something else." You would not allow a change? As for an authority to allow such a change, the EBL TD Guide says: EBL #45.5 A change of designation of a card played is permitted provided it is "without pause for thought". The principle is that no change of mind should be involved, it should only be a correction of an inadvertent error in naming the card that was intended to be played. Following such a change there is provision for opponent to withdraw a card played after the error and before attention was drawn to it. (See Law 47E). Note: it is our recommendation that where Declarer inadvertently designates a card he should need only attempt without pause to change the designation, when calling for a card from dummy, to be in time. It must be clear that his intention is to change the designation, and the first nomination must be inadvertent - it must not constitute a change of mind. For example, it has been ruled that where Declarer named a card in dummy with the lead in his own hand this could not be considered inadvertent. See Example 45. -- 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 Dec 16 03:39:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGckt23419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:46 +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 eBFGcSt23398 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:30 +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 146xsD-000Dgz-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:38:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:18:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another claim and revoke! References: <019701c064a4$b2e155a0$97e036cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <019701c064a4$b2e155a0$97e036cb@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 writes >David Stevenson wrote: >>Now for the interesting question: excluding Zones ? and ? >>[2 and 7? - no idea - any way, NAmerica and Oceania] may >defenders ask >each other "having none" after play has ended? > > >Yes, Zone 7 authorises "unless ..." in the last sentence of Law 61B. > >I cannot see any reference to time in Law 61B, but I fail to see >why a defender would want to ask his partner if he'd revoked >at the end of play. I cannot see how he could gain anything by >asking the question, so why would he want to do so? His own personal ethics require it? But in the actual case, when does play really end when there has been a claim? When it is too late to withdraw acquiescence, perhaps? -- 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 Dec 16 03:39:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGcqf23423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:52 +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-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 eBFGcZt23412 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:36 +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 146xsD-000Dgv-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:38:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:37:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>But the SO says you cannot play less than 10. >>So playing 9.9-12.1 should be considered an infraction. >>And saying it is 10-12, while not exactly MI, does not >>change this. > >Actually, I was, um, er, I mistyped earlier. Yeah, that's what it >was. :-) What the ACBL regulation actually says is that if you, by >agreement, open 1NT on less than 10 HCP, you may not use *any* >conventions thereafter. Since many (most?) play at least Stayman even >with a mini-NT, they cannot *agree* that their range goes below 10. >The problem, in my view, comes when in fact *any* time a player opens >with a 9 point hand, he is *assumed* to have done so *by agreement*. >This is the position that Meckstroth apparently incorrectly >characterized as the "official ACBL" position. A rebuttal was >mentioned here, that the ACBL says this is *not* their official >position, but that rebuttal didn't say what that official position >is. And in practice I have the impression, at least, that a lot of >ACBL TDs will rule as if it *is* the official position. > >Law 40 gives an SO the right to regulate conventions. Well and good. >However, *this* regulation has the effect of regulating the (natural) >mini-NT opening. I believe that was its intent, and I believe that >because that was its intent it violates the spirit, at least, of the >laws. That's why I characterized it as illegal. I suppose if the SO >says you can't play a less than 10 point NT opening, then a TD would >have to rule doing so an infraction, but if that's the case, I think >the regulation ought to be changed or dropped. I think a reg that says you may never open a 1NT opening under any circumstances on less than 10 HCP unless you play no conventions thereafter is legal, but that is not what the English regs say, and those are the actual regs that Herman says bar all 9-counts. -- 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 Dec 16 03:39:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGckY23420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:46 +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 eBFGcSt23399 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:38:30 +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 146xsD-000Dgu-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:38:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:34:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A37B3DF.445E9016@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 >Look Eric, the SO wants to ban light openings. So it must >define a light opening. How can it do so, if everyone >starts saying "style and judgment". > >You Americans should really learn to formulate some >regulations in advance, not go to the US Supreme Court >afterwards, shouting "style and judgment". So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may not open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree with you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. -- 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 Dec 16 03:50:42 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFGoVT23493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:50:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFGoOt23489 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:50:25 +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 KAA20862 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:51:08 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:50:59 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A3A1F94.EA382C53@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> 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 12/15/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> I think this is where we disagree. Don't you acknowledge a >> difference between a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands >> are _always_ opened; a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands >> are usually opened [perhaps 'open 9-pointers unless the points are all >> quacks or all in the short suits']; a pair that plays a system >> where 9-pt. hands are not opened except under special circumstances [it >> has concentrated values and extra spot cards]; and finally a pair that >> plays a system where 9-pt. hands are never opened? >> We agree that the ACBL rule effectively forbids the first [by >> deprivation of conventions] and the second. I hold, however, that the >> third system does _not_ include 9-pt. openers [even though rare 9-pt. >> hands qualify], and so is not ruled out. > >Look here Grant, you are to be recommended for trying to put >a boundary somewhere. >But why should that boundary be set at the third. Why not >simply at the fourth ? Because the third better approximates what the regulation is allegedly supposed to be preventing. The regulation is supposed to prevent destructive openings, and a 9-pt hand full of tens and nines opened 1NT, or the original 17-rule hand presented by DWS opened 1S, are not destructive openings. >That one is the easy one. If you allow the third but not >the second, you are in need of a quantification, and this >adds problems that are unnecessary. No, you're in need of a TD. I am not of the Burn school--I am happy to have regulations that allow TD's evaluative discretion. I acknowledge that sometimes they'll get them wrong. >> The same, mutatis mutandis, for >> the rule of 18 [etc.]. In David S's original case, I think the hand was >> so unusually strong that opening 1S on it does not constitute an agreement >> to open 17-rule hands. But when it was shown that the pair also opened the >> later, much weaker hand, it became clear that this pair _did_, in fact, >> have an illegal agreement. [I.e, 17-rule openings were _standard_ >> for them.] >> > >So if you only know about the first one, you allow it, but >if you also know about the second, you disallow them both ? >While they may be sitting at adjoining tables ? A TD rules on the evidence he has. If all the evidence I have is the bidding for the first hand, and if the player tells me that _he doesn't ordinarily open 17-rule hands but made an exception for this one due to it's obvious strength_, and I believe him, then I allow it. If, OTOH, I have evidence that the player opens 'ordinary' 17-rule hands like the second one, then the player has an illegal agreement, and so I do indeed rule all his 17-rule bids to be illegal. >> >Saying that a particular 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP does not >> >make it anything else than a 9HCP hand that in your system >> >is worth a 1NT opening. So you are playing a system under >> >which you open certain 9HCP hands with 1NT. And that is an >> >illegal system. >> >> Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, >> or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? >> > >I don't understand this. >If you mean what I think you mean, then the answer is "how >can you ever tell the difference ?". If it quacks like a >duck ... You can ask the player if he ordinarily opens 9-pt hands 1NT. If he says 'yes', and is playing conventions, he has an illegal system. If he says 'no', then I ask him why he made an exception for this hand. If the hand is QJT9 QJT JT9 QT9 and he says "I made an exception because of the tremendous power of those tens and nines", I'd allow it unless I had evidence that he was lying. If the hand is QJ32 QJ2 J32 Q32 he's going to have a tough time convincing me. :) >> >You are allowed to use whatever form of card evaluation that >> >you want. >> >But you are not allowed to use a system in which 9HCP hands >> >are opened 1NT. >> > >> >This should really not be under discussion. >> >> Do you think the regulation is _that_ obvious? Clearly, I don't. >> > >A fact that truly amazes me. Well, I agree that the 9-pt regulation as explained by Meckstroth _is_ that obvious. Obvious to the point of stupidity, I'd say, but obvious. I'm not so sure about the rule of 18. >Herman DE WAEL -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 Dec 16 04:17:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFHGil23572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:16:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFHGbt23568 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 04:16:38 +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 MAA04990 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:16:33 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA13751 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:16:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 12:16:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012151716.MAA13751@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > How could North think 2H was > genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an > overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? This is entirely the wrong question, and it should be given virtually no weight in the decision. The only question to be asked of North's pass is whether it was "irrational, wild, or gambling," given the information at hand. Yes, something strange is going on, but I don't think passing to see what happens next is ridiculous. South's overcall of a strong JS can be quite weak, although of course it needs a good suit to bid vulnerable at the three-level. The correct question to ask is what North would have done _given correct information_. And of course there's the question David brought up in another thread: when was the MI discovered, and when was the TD called? That has a big effect on the adjustment that can be provided. What *should* have happened is that East explains the MI immediately after his pass. Then the TD is called, and North gets to decide what to do. (In fact, the TD is supposed to be called *before* East explains the MI.) Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is North supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that South's 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he made the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 05:26:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFIPPA23739 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:25:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFIPJt23735 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 05:25:20 +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 ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:24:31 -0800 Message-ID: <01cb01c066c4$58370d80$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <75.d99992f.276b42c7@aol.com> Subject: [BLML] 9 HCP 1NT opening Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 10:15:43 -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 Walt Flory wrote: > Marv, > > I certainly agree with the spirit of your comment. > > But do we have anything we can use to fight it with, or do we just have to > grit our teeth and groan and moan? I'll start by asking ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss the following: A pair plays a 10-12 HCP 1NT opening. On rare occasions one of the pair opens 1NT with a hand such as S-K107 H-A98 D-9876 C-Q108, making the bridge judgment (per L40E1) that the hand is better than some containing 10 HCP. Partner will count on 10 HCP, but this hand will not disappoint her. Question: Is this pair allowed to use conventions after a 1NT opening? We'll know more when I receive the reply. Marv > Walt Flory wrote: > > > > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus > you > > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > > 1N opening. > > > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a > partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. > > 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 Sat Dec 16 06:31:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFJVAT23896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 06:31:10 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFJV3t23891 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 06:31:04 +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 ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:30:15 -0800 Message-ID: <023301c066cd$86fb0320$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012151716.MAA13751@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 11:24:27 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > From: alain gottcheiner > > How could North think 2H was > > genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an > > overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? > > This is entirely the wrong question, and it should be given virtually > no weight in the decision. The only question to be asked of North's > pass is whether it was "irrational, wild, or gambling," given the > information at hand. Yes, something strange is going on, but I don't > think passing to see what happens next is ridiculous. South's overcall > of a strong JS can be quite weak, although of course it needs a good > suit to bid vulnerable at the three-level. > > The correct question to ask is what North would have done _given > correct information_. And of course there's the question David brought > up in another thread: when was the MI discovered, and when was the TD > called? That has a big effect on the adjustment that can be provided. > > What *should* have happened is that East explains the MI immediately > after his pass. Then the TD is called, and North gets to decide what > to do. (In fact, the TD is supposed to be called *before* East > explains the MI.) > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is North > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that South's > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he made > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? Neither. He should just let the auction stand and accept whatever score adjustment, if any, the TD decides to make. Here is a good example of why players should glance at the opposing CC instead of inquiring about a particular bid (not following L20F1). The CC is more trustworthy than a bidder's partner. Failing to use this information source can indirectly lead to an opposing MI infraction, as in this case. Not good. An argument could be made for adjusting the E/W score only. ACBL practice is for the TD to take both players away from the table, separately, to ask them what they would have done absent the UI. Whether that is appropriate is a matter of dispute right now, but can someone tell us why a player who can change a call is taken away from the table, interrogated, sent back to the table, and then asked if s/he wants to change hir last call? What UI can come from the answer to the question: "Do you want to change your last call because of the misinformation?"? 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 Sat Dec 16 07:04:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFK43n23993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:04:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFK3ut23989 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:03:57 +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 PAA06486 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:08:26 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012152008.PAA06486@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <016101c06648$b659f0c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <0jge3t8ik5t1k5b9pvkdqohtegbv1e7orl@4ax.com> <016101c06648$b659f0c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:08:26 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 14 December 2000 at 22:40, "Hirsch Davis" wrote: > Yes, thanks for dredging up the Meckstroth papers. I found the exact wording of them very disturbing, but reasonable. >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meadows" >To: >Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 4:34 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > > >Here are the relevant quotes from Meckstroth's articles in the ACBl >Bulletin. I have posted them here before, about a year and a half >ago. > [reformatting for ~70 char lines] >>From Aug '95: > >"...A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 points is deemed to be >destructive...So is it OK to open a great 9-point hand that is worth >10? No. It's certainly OK to open a 15-17 point NT with 14, why not >here? 'Borrowing' a point to open a strong notrump is not >destructive in any way, but the mini notrump is a destructive >device...A pair who opens 1NT on a 9-point hand is >considered to have an agreement. A second occurrence will result in >that pair's not being allowed to play any conventions over their mini >notrump. > >So what should you do if someone opens a 9-point notrump? Two things: >(1) call the director to report it and (2) fill out a player memo >for the recorder in your district. Destructive methods such as >these deserve attention." > >>From Nov '95 (further explanation of the first article): > >"...The literal meaning of the term 'destructive' applies to the >mini-1NT only in regards to 9-point openers. The ACBL policy >disallows bids that are purely destructive in nature. A 1NT opening >of less than 10 HCP is in this family. The only reason this is >apporached so severely is because of the rules and regulations >regarding 1NT openings. A pair who opens a 9-point NT >more than once is considered to have an implied agreement. Bear in >mind as well that, unless you are willing to forego playing >conventions over 1NT, you are now[later errataed to "not", I believe - >mdf] allowed to have an explicit agreement that a 1 NT opener >can be a 9-point hand (sic). A few responses expressed concern >that this type of strict regulation might creep into other situations >at bridge. Be assured this will NOT happen. To occasionally deviate >from one's normal high-card range for a particular bid, such as a point >range for a weak two-bid, is considered normal. Players will always >have the right to exercise their bridge judgment..." > I've given my rebuttal to these articles before (basically, I disagree with his statement of "facts" about what constitutes a destructive 1NT opener, and his argument in Nov '95 drops many more premises of this unquestionable, but unsubstantiated nature) but a couple of points, in particular, to this discussion: 1)I do not believe that there is anyone who will come up to me and honestly say that a 9-HCP 1NT opening is "purely destructive". More preemptive than constructive, certainly. Very difficult to defend against, and common enough that it frequently throws the opponents out of their nice natural auction? Of course. But lumping it in with "1S overcall of a strong 1C shows 13 cards and a willingness to play at the 2 level somewhere"? Hardly. 2)He states as a fact, twice, that two 9-point NT openers is considered to be an implied agreement, therefore conventions over this is banned. Those that want an official cite of the regulation need not ask me - ask Meckstroth. He's the one that is blatantly stating this as fact, I'm just repeating what a respected member of both the ACBL and the ACBL Laws Committee says. And if you get an answer, please let me know ;-). 3)I like that bit at the end there about "creep into other situations". The exact same regulation (GCC, Disallowed, #7) contains the note that "DISALLOWED: CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENCE TO AN OPPONENT'S CONVENTIONAL DEFENCE...weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit". I can't see how if the clipped part of this regulation (about <10HCP NTs) is going to be enforced as strictly as "twice in a lifetime = agreement -> no conventions", that the part about weak twos isn't. Maybe I'm just cynical. I have a personal stake in this (as, I expect, does Eric Landau) - I play EHAA. EHAA two-bids are at least as destructive as a 9-12 NT (hmm, I wonder why the 9-12 NT was in EHAA until it was regulated away), I freely admit. So I take the same care about not opening 2S on KQT875 5 T98 T98 (as opposed to 86432 A7 983 Q54, which is an automatic 2S opener - it's Problem #1 in the EHAA book) that I do about not opening KQT9 KJT9 T98 T9 1NT(10-12). One interesting side-note: as far as I can understand, the restrictions on sub-10HCP NTs are in effect in any sanctioned ACBL game, including the International Team Trials; the restrictions on wide-range weak twos are waived at Superchart level (Spingold, ITT, that kind of event). It might just be a thinko by the reviewers, though, that removed "and #7 under DISALLOWED" from the Superchart listing when they added it to the MidChart. Where I stand on the regulation? Well, if they want to protect the LOLs, then make a slightly expanded chart (the MidChart is *much* more permissive than the GCC, even though it is usually only used to add multi-meaning 2bids), and make that the default chart for Flight A (not Stratified, but S/Flighted or Flighted) and Open games. The fact that this restriction is in effect even for players that are competing for the chance to represent the USA in competition where they are going to have to expect 9-12NTs (and, even, play them - Meckwell plays 9-12 outside the ACBL) simply boggles my mind. Do I want to be "protected"? No. Ok, yes. For conventions that are difficult to defend against, and unusual, I like the requirement that "you must provide a useful defence for your opponents' use. That one is easy to live with - and I will certainly use it if I need to. How do I stand on the enforcement? Well, if their goal is to ban insanely weak NTs and excessively wide-ranging or "pick off their suit" weak twos, then this is a very effective way of doing so, and hard limits are the best, politically, way of enforcing it. Just make the hard limits "official ACBL policy" so it can be battled, rather than this current weaselability they have put in. Note: this judgement probably doesn't apply to the EBL, where players trust the directing staff to be right. I do, but many people here don't - witness the many people who say "it's not worth calling the director; I'm more likely to get a good score from them using the UI than I am of getting a correct ruling, and it only annoys the opponents". We still have a "TD call = calling the cops on me" attitude here - at least enough of us do to make the game unpleasant. This all should change, and then "trust the director's judgement" might be easier to promulgate. Does this affect "style and judgement?" No - if your style and judgement says that KQT9 KJT9 T9 T98 is a 10-count, we won't disagree with you. But you can't play any conventions over that opening, nonetheless. It's no more restricting "style and judgement" than it is "regulating non-conventional methods". And you can take that last sentence any way you think I might have meant it :-). Michael. P.S. Sorry to post and run, but I will have sporadic (at best) email access until Jan 9, and so am unsubscribing so as not to fill my mailbox. Personal replies will get to me (sometime). In fact, posting this is at least partly a good opportunity to let you all know this. mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 07:05:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFK55B24006 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:05:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFK4xt24002 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:04:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFDEq601367; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:14:52 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:01:18 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121513145105.01228@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, Herman De Wael wrote: > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. I don't believe that the CC is misfilled because of the analogy in other cases. Many players play that a 2NT opening is 20+ to 22 HCP; they will open 2NT on KJx AQ AQJTx Kxx, a good 20 count. Other players play that the range is 21 to 22 HCP and will open the above hand 1D. However, even playing the second range, I will open 2NT on AQT Ax AQTxx Axx, counting extra for all four aces, and I have done this twice with the same partner. I don't think "21-22" on our card is incorrect, as it indicates that I open 2NT on hands I judge to be worth 21-22. Filling out the card with "20+-22" would be more misleading. This is independent of the SO's right to regulate agreements. You are allowed to agree to open 2NT on hands which actually have 21-22 HCP, or on hands with any number of HCP which you judge to be worth 21-22 points. You may be forbidden from playing conventions over an opening 1NT which is made on hands which you judge to be worth 10 or even 11 points if they do not contain at least 10 standard points. You may also be forbidden from playing conventions on a weak 2-bid which is made on on hands which you judge to be worth 5-11 points but is opened on some 4-counts and 12-counts; however, the ACBL has chosen not to bar this. -- 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 Dec 16 07:18:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFKIM224048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:18:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFKIGt24044 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:18:16 +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 PAA06718 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:22:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012152022.PAA06718@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20001215075709.00aea100@127.0.0.1> References: <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001215075709.00aea100@127.0.0.1> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:22:45 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 15 December 2000 at 8:04, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:33 PM 12/14/00, Grant wrote: > >> Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, >>or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? > >The "rule" seems to be that you cannot ever open a 9-point 1NT, >systemic or otherwise, ever, period. > I'm waiting for the first time my 3rd seat "8-no game opposite a 9-count" NT comes up. The director call should be fun (we abide by the "no conventions" rule after this). >I play in an area which is widely believed to have the most >knowledgeable directors in the ACBL. The practice at our unit game is >to give an automatic matchpoint penalty to a pair playing 10-12 NTs >(with conventions in the subsequent auction) for any 1NT opening on >fewer than 10 HCP, regardless of holding. > That has to be wrong. For one thing, you can't get a penalty for opening that hand - but you can if you then Stayman, or even if you could (unless the opening is a psych, of course). Of course, were I directing, I would simply say "you now have an implied agreement. You may not play any conventions over this 10-12 NT for the remainder of this session. I will record this, and if it happens again at this club, you will be barred from playing conventions over any 10-12 NT at this club. I do this, because your "10-12" contains hands with fewer than 10HCP, and the GCC says you can't play conventions over that. Sorry, I don't makes the rules, I justs enforces 'em." Of course, in my club (at least in the open game), I'd override that part of the GCC. I'd probably also add those sections of the MidChart that deal with "strange" two-level weak bids (with defences, of course). And I'd have a Scientist night once a month or so that would be at least full MidChart, with other things allowed on J.Probst's basis (approved by me, posted with defence a week beforehand for those that are going to have to defend against it). Michael. PS: Hate to post-and-run, but I will be unsubscribed from BLML until early Jan. My email access will be sporadic at best, and the regular traffic will fill up my mailbox within a week. Personal replies will still get through, of course, but I don't guarantee a timely response. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 07:20:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFKKlo24069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:20:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFKKet24065 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:20:41 +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 PAA12886 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:20:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA13949 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:20:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:20:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is North > > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that South's > > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he made > > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? > From: "Marvin L. French" > Neither. He should just let the auction stand and accept whatever score > adjustment, if any, the TD decides to make. Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final call. This choice is binding, i.e. North will not get an adjustment if he chooses badly. (This is what David S. so forcefully pointed out in another thread.) I _think_ North should choose on the basis that 3D would have been bid over a correct explanation of the prior 2H bid. If 3D would not have been bid, we are into adjusted-score territory anyway. Do other blml readers agree? If you agree, is it AI to North that South _also_ wanted to bid 3D over a strong 2H bid? I think 'yes' may be implied by L16C1, but that law does not apply directly because there is no withdrawn call. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 07:28:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFKSLI24094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFKSDt24090 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 07:28:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFDcDi01383 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:38:13 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:17:44 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <00121513381206.01228@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, alain gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > This strange problem I encountered, but could not help in solving (not > accredited), involves determining how self-serving an argument was : > > Teams - good players - North is of international level. > N/S vulnerable. > > 73 > AJ109 > Q83 > K543 > > AK104 J85 > K Q98532 > 62 K5 > QJ9872 106 > > Q962 > 76 > AJ10974 > A > > W N E S > > 1C P 2H 3D > P P P > Now E/W developed an interesting argument : How could North think 2H was > genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an > overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? I don't buy it, because a player cannot be expected to work out the fine details after being misinformed. Many players will play a jump shift on a hand such as xx KQxxx x AQJxx with a side suit and a big fit. That's only 12 points, which leaves four for South to hold KJT9xxxx of diamonds and out (normal in this position) and 14 for West. The only problem with this example is that South and West must have nine spades between them. It might even be barely possible to construct such hands; give East xxx KQxxx - AQJxx and South and West can each have four. In any case, a player is entitled to assume that he has been properly informed if it is reasonable; expecting North to work all of this out will cause problems when he makes a slow pass. There is also the possibility that West has psyched; he was in first seat at favorable vulnerability. If that is the case, North wants to pass and then douhle East in 3H or 3NT. The term "self-serving" should not be used here. It's usually used to disparage an argument with no evidence, such as a claim that a player had no option other than to make the bid suggested by UI. But in general, E-W are entitled to present arguments to the TD/AC about issues that should be covered in the hearing. This argument should be given the same weight as if a member of the AC thought of it. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 08:06:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFL5xs24210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:05:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFL5qt24206 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet04.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.4]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00813 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:05:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001215160426.017ab0f8@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:04:26 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <200012151148.LAA26856@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:48 AM 12/15/2000 GMT, Robin wrote: > >I'm all for style and judgement and freedom to experiment >("the freedom to play tartan two against little old ladies" >as some EBU wag had it). > >But... > >SOs wish to regulate the minimum strength of NT openers, >either by banning conventions over them or using L40D "a >King or more below average strength". You are precisely right that this is the aim of (at least one) SO. Wisely or otherwise, this authority is not granted to them under the Laws. >I'm not really sure what people think is a workable alternative: if >"equivalent to 10 HCP" as judged by some panel of the great and good >(or by ACs who will give different answers), how are people to know what >they can up-grade and what they can't? Equally, if "equivalent to 10 HCP" >is to be used, would it be not permitted to agree to open QJ2 QJ2 Q32 Q432 >(if we can up-grade, surely we must down-grade as well) ? The workable alternative is to allow players the freedom and flexibility provided for in the Laws. Good methods will, in the long run, succeed, while poor methods will not. Of course another alternative would be to explicitly grant SO's wider latitude in regulating not just conventions, but systems and styles as well. While this would not be my first choice, it would at least bring the de facto status of regulation in line with the Laws. And maybe the SO's really do need this type of authority to promote the interests of bridge in their respective regions. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 08:08:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFL8bE24229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:08:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFL8Ut24225 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:08:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet04.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.4]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05795 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:08:27 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001215160710.017af954@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:07:10 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20001215075709.00aea100@127.0.0.1> References: <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$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 08:04 AM 12/15/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: >At 01:33 PM 12/14/00, Grant wrote: > >> Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, >>or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? > >The "rule" seems to be that you cannot ever open a 9-point 1NT, >systemic or otherwise, ever, period. > >I play in an area which is widely believed to have the most >knowledgeable directors in the ACBL. The practice at our unit game is >to give an automatic matchpoint penalty to a pair playing 10-12 NTs >(with conventions in the subsequent auction) for any 1NT opening on >fewer than 10 HCP, regardless of holding. > In contravention of the Laws, of course, and lacking even the official published sanction of the ACBL. But if the ACBL is free to flout the Laws, why shouldn't club officials make up their own Laws as well? Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 08:26:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFLQ0x24287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:26:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFLPrt24283 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:25:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivet04.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.116.4]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05760 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:25:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001215162433.017a31c0@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:24:33 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@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 02:50 PM 12/15/2000 +0100, Alain wrote: >My question is : is this reasoning convincing enough to qualify North's >pass as gambling ? If North had been able to determine the jump couldn't be >strong, she could have passed, and have it both ways (either East reopens >and is doubled, or she calls the TD) The theory offered by EW is interesting, and might even describe what actually happened at the table. But it is only one among a number of plausible explanations for North's pass. North is faced with a difficult problem in trying to sort out the truth of the situation. For one thing, South's bid takes on a different meaning after the strong jump shift (potentially much more distributional and fewer HCP than over a WJR). And either or both of the opposing bids could be based on highly distributional assets as well, including likely diamond shortness. So North cannot necessarily be sure that anyone has lied. But even if the auction demonstrably suggests the presence of more high cards than are in the standard deck, North cannot with any confidence know how what would have caused this. Perhaps West is the culprit (he passed, after all), and East really does hold the promised values for his jump shift. Bidding 3nt in that case does not seem particularly prudent. Or maybe partner is operating. The point is that this thorny problem is the direct consequence of the MI. The only way I could be convinced to treat North as having played for the double shot is if I know that North is well-acquainted with the methods of this EW pair. Mike Dennis -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 08:54:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFLsH824357 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:54:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFLsBt24353 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 08:54:12 +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 QAA20795 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA14078 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012152154.QAA14078@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Because of advancing dementia, I wrote: > Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the > TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the > auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final > call. This was wrong, as a correspondent kindly pointed out to me. EW became defenders, so the MI cannot be corrected until the end of the hand. Let's imagine a slightly different situation... North is surprised to find East passing after making a supposedly strong JS, looks at the CC, discovers the MI, and calls the TD. (Is that enough acronyms?) *Now* North gets his pass back and has to make a decision, and my question is relevant. (This suggests, by the way, that North will do better _not_ to look at the CC or at least not to draw attention to the MI.) > > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is North > > > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that South's > > > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he made > > > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 09:43:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFMh9s24481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:43:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from suntan.tandem.com (suntan.tandem.com [192.216.221.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBFMh3t24477 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:43:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from gateway.tandem.com (dss1.mis.tandem.com [130.252.223.220]) by suntan.tandem.com (8.9.3/2.0.1) with SMTP id OAA03703; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:42:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by gateway.tandem.com (4.20/4.11) id AA29497; 15 Dec 0 14:42:47 -0800 Date: 15 Dec 0 14:41:00 -0800 From: FARLEY_WALLY@Tandem.COM Message-Id: <200012151442.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As a matter of interest, I ran a number of the hands proposed as extremes of 9 HCP holdings through a K&R (aka CCCC) evaluator. I was mildly surprised at the results, but nothing truly shocking showed up. The lowest, as expected, was the dreaded QJ QJ2 Q432 Q432 at 6.60/5.38 (The numbers are 'standard K&R/Danny Kleinman's modified K&R') Then: KQTx T98 QJT JTx 8.50/7.91 often chosen as a 'good' 9HCP KT7 A98 9876 QT8 8.60/8.64 what mfr submitted to Gary Blaiss KT7 AT9 9876 QT8 9.00/9.04 AT9 AT9 9876 JT9 10.20/10.24 AT9 xx xxx AJT98 11.50/11.54 AT9 T9 JT9 AT987 11.70/11.44 best I found at 5-3-3-2 or flatter The order of the last two was counter-intuitive to me. Obviously, K&R puts a high premium on Aces in combination with lesser spot cards. The range (in a well-known (IMO) and respected valuation system) of hands with the 'same' Milton Work HCPs is rather large. Since I have been vocal in my displeasure with the ACBL's evisceration of the Laws in furtherance of their own aims (however noble those may be), I should also express my displeasure at the Rule of 18. I will soften my comment with the note that its application, as discussed in this group recently, seems to be appropriately flexible in the EBU. I. too, would be willing to argue that Jx xxx AQxxxx xx is "a King or more below average strength" and that JTxxx AQTxx x xx is not. There might be interesting discussions about (say) Qx xx AQTxxxx xx, or the original Qxx xx AQxxxx xx, but at least these are subject to evaluation, rather than being held to a formula where QJ QJ2 Q432 Q432 = AT9 T9 JT9 AT987. -- Regards, WWFiv Wally Farley Los Gatos, CA {ACBL District 21} ------------ ORIGINAL ATTACHMENT -------- SENT 12-15-00 FROM SMTPGATE (cfgcs@eiu.edu) At 02:41 PM 12/15/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Grant Sterling wrote: >> I think this is where we disagree. Don't you acknowledge a >> difference between a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands >> are _always_ opened; a pair that plays a system whereby 9-pt. hands >> are usually opened [perhaps 'open 9-pointers unless the points are all >> quacks or all in the short suits']; a pair that plays a system >> where 9-pt. hands are not opened except under special circumstances [it >> has concentrated values and extra spot cards]; and finally a pair that >> plays a system where 9-pt. hands are never opened? >> We agree that the ACBL rule effectively forbids the first [by >> deprivation of conventions] and the second. I hold, however, that the >> third system does _not_ include 9-pt. openers [even though rare 9-pt. >> hands qualify], and so is not ruled out. > >Look here Grant, you are to be recommended for trying to put >a boundary somewhere. >But why should that boundary be set at the third. Why not >simply at the fourth ? Because the third better approximates what the regulation is allegedly supposed to be preventing. The regulation is supposed to prevent destructive openings, and a 9-pt hand full of tens and nines opened 1NT, or the original 17-rule hand presented by DWS opened 1S, are not destructive openings. >That one is the easy one. If you allow the third but not >the second, you are in need of a quantification, and this >adds problems that are unnecessary. No, you're in need of a TD. I am not of the Burn school--I am happy to have regulations that allow TD's evaluative discretion. I acknowledge that sometimes they'll get them wrong. >> The same, mutatis mutandis, for >> the rule of 18 [etc.]. In David S's original case, I think the hand was >> so unusually strong that opening 1S on it does not constitute an agreement >> to open 17-rule hands. But when it was shown that the pair also opened the >> later, much weaker hand, it became clear that this pair _did_, in fact, >> have an illegal agreement. [I.e, 17-rule openings were _standard_ >> for them.] >> > >So if you only know about the first one, you allow it, but >if you also know about the second, you disallow them both ? >While they may be sitting at adjoining tables ? A TD rules on the evidence he has. If all the evidence I have is the bidding for the first hand, and if the player tells me that _he doesn't ordinarily open 17-rule hands but made an exception for this one due to it's obvious strength_, and I believe him, then I allow it. If, OTOH, I have evidence that the player opens 'ordinary' 17-rule hands like the second one, then the player has an illegal agreement, and so I do indeed rule all his 17-rule bids to be illegal. >> >Saying that a particular 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP does not >> >make it anything else than a 9HCP hand that in your system >> >is worth a 1NT opening. So you are playing a system under >> >which you open certain 9HCP hands with 1NT. And that is an >> >illegal system. >> >> Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, >> or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? >> > >I don't understand this. >If you mean what I think you mean, then the answer is "how >can you ever tell the difference ?". If it quacks like a >duck ... You can ask the player if he ordinarily opens 9-pt hands 1NT. If he says 'yes', and is playing conventions, he has an illegal system. If he says 'no', then I ask him why he made an exception for this hand. If the hand is QJT9 QJT JT9 QT9 and he says "I made an exception because of the tremendous power of those tens and nines", I'd allow it unless I had evidence that he was lying. If the hand is QJ32 QJ2 J32 Q32 he's going to have a tough time convincing me. :) >> >You are allowed to use whatever form of card evaluation that >> >you want. >> >But you are not allowed to use a system in which 9HCP hands >> >are opened 1NT. >> > >> >This should really not be under discussion. >> >> Do you think the regulation is _that_ obvious? Clearly, I don't. >> > >A fact that truly amazes me. Well, I agree that the 9-pt regulation as explained by Meckstroth _is_ that obvious. Obvious to the point of stupidity, I'd say, but obvious. I'm not so sure about the rule of 18. >Herman DE WAEL -Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 10:02:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFN1p324550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:01:51 +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 eBFN1it24544 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:01:45 +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 SAA23208 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:01:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA14174 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:01:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:01:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012152301.SAA14174@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: FARLEY_WALLY@tandem.com > KQTx T98 QJT JTx 8.50/7.91 often chosen as a 'good' 9HCP > KT7 A98 9876 QT8 8.60/8.64 what mfr submitted to Gary Blaiss > KT7 AT9 9876 QT8 9.00/9.04 > AT9 AT9 9876 JT9 10.20/10.24 > AT9 xx xxx AJT98 11.50/11.54 > AT9 T9 JT9 AT987 11.70/11.44 best I found at 5-3-3-2 or flatter > > The order of the last two was counter-intuitive to me. I ran the last two plus another one through a C version of Jeff Goldsmith's K&R evaluator and found the results below. (In this version, '2' is a spot card.) S: AT9 H: 22 D: 222 C: AJT98 hcp = 9 K&R = 11.35 S: AT9 H: T9 D: JT9 C: AT987 hcp = 9 K&R = 11.20 S: AT9 H: 22 D: JT9 C: AT987 hcp = 9 K&R = 11.10 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 16 10:39:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBFNdS024644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:39:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBFNdLt24639 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:39:22 +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 PAA27812; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:39:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200012152339.PAA27812@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-reply-to: Your message of "15 Dec 0 14:41:00 -0800 ." <200012151442.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:39:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Walley Farley wrote: > As a matter of interest, I ran a number of the hands proposed as extremes > of 9 HCP holdings through a K&R (aka CCCC) evaluator. I was mildly > surprised at the results, but nothing truly shocking showed up. > > The lowest, as expected, was the dreaded QJ QJ2 Q432 Q432 at 6.60/5.38 > (The numbers are 'standard K&R/Danny Kleinman's modified K&R') > Then: > KQTx T98 QJT JTx 8.50/7.91 often chosen as a 'good' 9HCP > KT7 A98 9876 QT8 8.60/8.64 what mfr submitted to Gary Blaiss > KT7 AT9 9876 QT8 9.00/9.04 > AT9 AT9 9876 JT9 10.20/10.24 > AT9 xx xxx AJT98 11.50/11.54 > AT9 T9 JT9 AT987 11.70/11.44 best I found at 5-3-3-2 or flatter > > The order of the last two was counter-intuitive to me. Obviously, K&R > puts a high premium on Aces in combination with lesser spot > cards.... I previously discovered that K&R doesn't value JT9 tripleton very highly---very little more than xxx. I tried this up because once, on OKB, I opened a marginal flat hand because I held JT9 tripleton---I wouldn't have opened it with just Jxx. Partner later raised my 1NT to 3NT with a void IN AN UNBID SUIT, and in the post-mortem blamed me because he thought I shouldn't have opened. Sigh. Anyway, K&R's evaluation is baffling to me, since opposite any holding except small cards or AKQ tripleton in partner's hand (or some short-suit holdings like stiff ace), JT9 has a higher trick-taking potential than xxx. One other small point: "R" just stated, in the January 2001 BW, that the R in K&R isn't really accurate, since it was really K's evaluation system and R contributed just "discussion and computer programming". -- 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 Dec 16 12:07:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG172r24850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:07:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBG16tt24845 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:06:56 +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 1475oB-000Fkr-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:06:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:57:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@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 writes >Dear blmlists, > >This strange problem I encountered, but could not help in solving (not >accredited), involves determining how self-serving an argument was : > >Teams - good players - North is of international level. >N/S vulnerable. > > 73 > AJ109 > Q83 > K543 > >AK104 J85 >K Q98532 >62 K5 >QJ9872 106 > > Q962 > 76 > AJ10974 > A > >W N E S > >1C P 2H 3D >P P P > >South enquired about the 2H bid and was told it was strong. >When East passed, it was obvious something had gone wrong, but it seemed >too late to let the bidding go back, because it was South who received the >information (after all, had he known it was weak, he could have doubled - >at least it is possible). >It was quickly established that there was indeed MI, E/W's CC mentioning >WJR at 2-level. > >North said that, had she known 2H was weak, she could have bid 3NT over 3D, >and won it (by the way, 3NT was bid and made at the other table). >Now E/W developed an interesting argument : How could North think 2H was >genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an >overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? >Also, the jump could not have been of the distributional species (8 solid >and out), seeing North's heart holding. > >My question is : is this reasoning convincing enough to qualify North's >pass as gambling ? If North had been able to determine the jump couldn't be >strong, she could have passed, and have it both ways (either East reopens >and is doubled, or she calls the TD). >If it is, how do you adjudicate the score ? I rule under Director's error, and give N/S 3NT, and E/W 3D. When it was discovered there was MI the Director is required to give North her call back, and then we would have found out *for sure* whether she was going to bid 3NT or 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 Sat Dec 16 14:26:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG3PAY25210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:25:10 +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-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 eBG3P1t25202 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:25:02 +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 1477xu-00017X-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: <$PGFhwBjZsO6EwH8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:33:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012152154.QAA14078@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012152154.QAA14078@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner writes >Because of advancing dementia, I wrote: >> Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the >> TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the >> auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final >> call. > >This was wrong, as a correspondent kindly pointed out to me. EW >became defenders, so the MI cannot be corrected until the end of >the hand. Oh no, Steve, it is not that simple. You hear that 2H is strong, which means FG on this particular auction. You find 3D is passed out and you call the TD [the original blurb made it clear that the TD was called at that time]. While the defenders are not permitted to correct the MI the TD can take West away from the table, and get East to explain his partnership agreements. Now he is required to give North her call back - and now we find whether she really would bid 3NT. As I have argued in another post, my actual ruling is based on Director's error because apparently this did not happen. -- 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 Dec 16 14:26:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG3PAS25209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:25:10 +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-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 eBG3P1t25201 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:25:02 +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 1477xu-00017Y-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 03:24:55 +0000 Message-ID: <7fBEV1B+csO6Ewmn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 01:37:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00121513381206.01228@psa836> In-Reply-To: <00121513381206.01228@psa836> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes >The term "self-serving" should not be used here. It's usually used to >disparage an argument with no evidence, such as a claim that a player >had no option other than to make the bid suggested by UI. But in >general, E-W are entitled to present arguments to the TD/AC about >issues that should be covered in the hearing. This argument should be >given the same weight as if a member of the AC thought of it. It is amazing how far certain words apparently change in meaning for no good reason. Are North's remarks self-serving? Of course they are. All that means is that they should be taken with a degree more scepticism than evidence that is not self-serving. There is no logic at all for describing self-serving arguments as those without supporting evidence: they should properly be described as self-serving arguments without supporting evidence. -- 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 Dec 16 18:07:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG76Yv25830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:06:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBG76St25825 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 18:06:29 +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 ; Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:05:40 -0800 Message-ID: <029c01c0672e$acbe8ee0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00121513381206.01228@psa836> <7fBEV1B+csO6Ewmn@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:00:04 -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 > David J Grabiner writes > > >The term "self-serving" should not be used here. It's usually used to > >disparage an argument with no evidence, such as a claim that a player > >had no option other than to make the bid suggested by UI. But in > >general, E-W are entitled to present arguments to the TD/AC about > >issues that should be covered in the hearing. This argument should be > >given the same weight as if a member of the AC thought of it. > > It is amazing how far certain words apparently change in meaning for > no good reason. Are North's remarks self-serving? Of course they are. > All that means is that they should be taken with a degree more > scepticism than evidence that is not self-serving. There is no logic at > all for describing self-serving arguments as those without supporting > evidence: they should properly be described as self-serving arguments > without supporting evidence. > David S. has been saying this repeatedly for several years now, and every time he does I note what my two favorite American dictionaries say about the term: First: "Serving one's own interests often in disregard of the truth" (no alternative meaning given) Second: "1. Preoccupied with one's own interest, often disregarding the truth..." "2. Serving to further one's own selfish interest." Other dictionaries omit the allusion to possible lying, but all agree that a "self-serving" argument is not a reasonable defense of one's position, but is at best highly subjective in a selfish way. To characterize someone's defensive statements as "self-serving" is not a neutral observance, but is indeed disparaging, as David G. says. I would go further and consider it insulting for a TD/AC to call someone's sincere argument "self-serving." A more polite description is "possibly self-serving," and I have long urged NABC casebook commentators to use that instead (without success). Is this interpretation an Americanism? Does anyone have access to the OED? 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 Sat Dec 16 19:08:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG88FV26009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:08:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBG881t26000 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:08:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-181.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.181]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25015 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:07:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3A27AA.715BA7C9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:16:10 +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] Permitted system References: <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20001215075709.00aea100@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 01:33 PM 12/14/00, Grant wrote: > > > Is the rule that you cannot _ever_ open a systematic 9-pt. 1NT, > >or that you cannot _standardly_ open 9-pt. 1NT's? > > The "rule" seems to be that you cannot ever open a 9-point 1NT, > systemic or otherwise, ever, period. > Being the one who seems to be the most in favour of this rule, I'd like to correct this somewhat. add : "provided it is done by a pair playing 10-12 on a hand that this player tries to sell as "almost 10"". I would not be forbidden opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, but then I am playing 15-17 and this would be a psyche. > I play in an area which is widely believed to have the most > knowledgeable directors in the ACBL. The practice at our unit game is > to give an automatic matchpoint penalty to a pair playing 10-12 NTs > (with conventions in the subsequent auction) for any 1NT opening on > fewer than 10 HCP, regardless of holding. > Eric did add "to a pair playing 10-12 NT". This is important. -- 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 Dec 16 19:08:55 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBG88Bm26008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:08:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBG882t26001 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:08:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-181.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.181]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA25019 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:07:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3A298A.AE785A0E@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 15:24:10 +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] self-serving ? References: <3.0.6.32.20001215145037.007b7100@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: > > Dear blmlists, > > This strange problem I encountered, but could not help in solving (not > accredited), involves determining how self-serving an argument was : > > Teams - good players - North is of international level. > N/S vulnerable. > > 73 > AJ109 > Q83 > K543 > > AK104 J85 > K Q98532 > 62 K5 > QJ9872 106 > > Q962 > 76 > AJ10974 > A > > W N E S > > 1C P 2H 3D > P P P > > South enquired about the 2H bid and was told it was strong. > When East passed, it was obvious something had gone wrong, but it seemed > too late to let the bidding go back, because it was South who received the > information (after all, had he known it was weak, he could have doubled - > at least it is possible). > It was quickly established that there was indeed MI, E/W's CC mentioning > WJR at 2-level. > > North said that, had she known 2H was weak, she could have bid 3NT over 3D, > and won it (by the way, 3NT was bid and made at the other table). > Now E/W developed an interesting argument : How could North think 2H was > genuinely strong, because with an opening in W, 10 HCP in N, and an > overcall (at red, at the 3-level) in South, there was no place for it ? > Also, the jump could not have been of the distributional species (8 solid > and out), seeing North's heart holding. > > My question is : is this reasoning convincing enough to qualify North's > pass as gambling ? If North had been able to determine the jump couldn't be > strong, she could have passed, and have it both ways (either East reopens > and is doubled, or she calls the TD). > If it is, how do you adjudicate the score ? > > Alain. > There could be several reasons why North passed : 1) West has psyched 2) East has psyched 3) South has psyched 4) everyone has exactly one point less than normal for their bid 5) there are genuiely 45 points in the pack :-) 6) North is not paying attention 7) North has figured out that the explanation is wrong and is trying a double shot The point is that North has no option but to believe the explanation, since it could still be 1-6. Besides, what would a call by North signify to South ? North has enough to know that the explanation might be wrong, but South has not. So bidding on could be quite difficult. In cases like this, I do not want to rule against North. It's just to complex to have to say to people : "you could figure out it was wrong". The same does not apply if North has checked the CC in advance, and then still doesn't act. Now there is a real double shot. -- 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 Dec 16 21:59:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGAvwx26474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:57:58 +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 eBGAvit26454 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:57:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00228 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:57:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3B2D87.39BCBFCC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:53:27 +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] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@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: > > > So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may not > open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree with > you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. > Well David, I wish you luck in trying to curb the exact thing you are wishing to curb. Better not have a regulation at all than one that you yourself make unenforceable. -- 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 Dec 16 21:59:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGAw1h26475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:58:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGAvkt26456 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:57:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00234 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:57:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3B344B.E23E6DB0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:22:19 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@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: > > > I think a reg that says you may never open a 1NT opening under any > circumstances on less than 10 HCP unless you play no conventions > thereafter is legal, but that is not what the English regs say, and > those are the actual regs that Herman says bar all 9-counts. > We always come back to the same issues, which we have resolved, I think: - The ACBL has contoured L40D by the manner we all know. It comes down to the same as ruling the system illegal. Maybe the ACBL method is illegal. - The ACBL regulation is silly. I agree. - Other countries have different regulations, some of them equally silly. I agree. But none of these things is important. What is important is how we, as TDs, must interpret a regulation that some SO has handed down in all their wisdom. Equally important may well be how we, when putting on our SO hats, should write a regulation such that it is legal and enforceable. First of all the legal point. Forgetting for a moment L40D, which can be contoured as the ACBL shows, we must still work with L40A. Therefore it is incorrect to write statements like "you are forbidden to open 1NT on 9HCP or less". That simply is not true. If you open 1NT because you miscounted or psyched, that is allowed. We should remember this and move on, and write "you are forbidden to open 1NT on 9HCP or less", understanding that some form of "by agreement" must be in that statement. OK, we've eliminated psyches and miscounts, now let's get down to business. The SO wants to write a regulation stating that you are not allowed to play a system in which you open 1NT below some minimum. (I shall from now on use the example of the mini-no-trump, I do believe you understand that this is only an example and that the principles are applicable to all regulations). That minimum must be defined. As several of us have pointed out, this definition ought to be clear and simple. The SO cannot, or does not want to ban you using hand evaluation methods that are different from Milton-Work (is that the name ?). If I want to use MSP (something I invented last week - of no importance) and announce my 1NT range as 20-24, I am allowed to do so, provided I give my opponents a full explanation of MSP, and probably a rough translation into HCP as well. So the only thing the SO can really say is that if, systematically, I open a hand that does not conform to it's criteria, this means that my system is illegal. If all hands that contain 20MSP also contain 10HCP, then my system is legal. But if some hands that contain 20MSP concur to just 9HCP, my system is illegal. Of course I can make my system legal again by saying that I will not open 9HCP, even if 20 or even 21 MSP. The only way this can be checked is by checking all my 1NT openers. As soon as ONE of them has only 9HCP, AND I maintain that in my system, this is a true 1NT opener (by it having 20MSP), I have proven that my system is illegal. ONCE is enough ! The same is true if I use the hand valuation method HCP+JS (HCP+style and judgment). If I describe the 1NT opening in my system 10-12 HCPS&J, and I open a 9HCP hand, and then say that this hand is worth 10HCPS&J, then I have also proven that my system is illegal. Whenever someone opens a hand, willingly, that falls below the barrier by which an illegal system is described, he has proven that he is playing an illegal system. Whenever someone opens a 9HCP hand with 1NT, he is foul of the regulation. Which leaves one single question. What is the barrier ? Some of you seem to believe that the barrier (in the ACBL example) is 10HCPS&J. If that is the case, then you are correct in opening the cited hands. >From David's reply, I gather that the EBU has this sort of barrier. >From Michael's reply, the ACBL uses a true HCP barrier. However, I strongly suggest to SO's that they use a simple barrier. 10HCP it is. Everyone knows that, and it is clear. A barrier of 10HCPS&J only leads to more questions : what is enough, 2 tens? and so on. Only by placing a barrier somewhere, and then applying that barrier strictly, can regulations of this nature be used. Personally, I'd prefer it if barriers like this are not used. But the SO's seem to want them. Invariably, someone wishes to push against this barrier, and makes a lot of noise about it. Go complain to the SO that made the regulation, I say. Good luck, I say. You have my support, I say. But you have just scored AV- on this board, I say. -- 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 Dec 16 21:59:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGAw3c26477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:58:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGAvot26465 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:57:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00243 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:57:45 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3B36CE.1C115E0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:33:02 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > > >That one is the easy one. If you allow the third but not > >the second, you are in need of a quantification, and this > >adds problems that are unnecessary. > > No, you're in need of a TD. I am not of the Burn school--I am happy > to have regulations that allow TD's evaluative discretion. I acknowledge > that sometimes they'll get them wrong. > > >> The same, mutatis mutandis, for > >> the rule of 18 [etc.]. In David S's original case, I think the hand was > >> so unusually strong that opening 1S on it does not constitute an agreement > >> to open 17-rule hands. But when it was shown that the pair also opened the > >> later, much weaker hand, it became clear that this pair _did_, in fact, > >> have an illegal agreement. [I.e, 17-rule openings were _standard_ > >> for them.] > >> > > > >So if you only know about the first one, you allow it, but > >if you also know about the second, you disallow them both ? > >While they may be sitting at adjoining tables ? > > A TD rules on the evidence he has. If all the evidence I have is > the bidding for the first hand, and if the player tells me that _he doesn't > ordinarily open 17-rule hands but made an exception for this one due to > it's obvious strength_, and I believe him, then I allow it. > If, OTOH, I have evidence that the player opens 'ordinary' 17-rule > hands like the second one, then the player has an illegal agreement, and so > I do indeed rule all his 17-rule bids to be illegal. > But David, why should you make a rule that needs the TD's judgment ? When all you are making is a rule that says 9.8 in stead of 10 ? What's the difference between those rules ? Yours allows slightly more opening hands. OK, but so what ? My rule protects LOLs a bit better. We can go on until eternity whether a rule of 10 or 11 be better, or indeed 10.5 or 9.8. There's no use in that discussion, the SO has done that. OTOH, my rule is simple, whereas yours requires judgment. TD's sometime do get it wrong. Why then give them more difficult rules when easier ones are just as effective ? -- 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 Dec 16 21:59:23 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGAw2d26476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:58:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGAvlt26457 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:57:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-183.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.183]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA00238 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:57:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3B35A8.8D51F3EF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:28:08 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > >But why should that boundary be set at the third. Why not > >simply at the fourth ? > > Because the third better approximates what the regulation is > allegedly supposed to be preventing. The regulation is supposed to > prevent destructive openings, and a 9-pt hand full of tens and nines > opened 1NT, or the original 17-rule hand presented by DWS opened 1S, are > not destructive openings. > Why ? Sorry Grant, but I happen to believe that a 10HCP 1NT opening is very destructive. Why do you suggest that a 10HCP opening is not destructive, a 9.8 one neither, but a 9 point one suddenly is ? It doesn't make sense. There is no "absolute" reason why 10 should be allowed. But the SO has decided that 10 is allowed, anything less isn't. Personally, I'd prefer the limit to be set at 11. But I tolerate 10. I don't tolerate the limit to be set at 11.5 though, or 9.8, because then I need a way to determine these decimals, and neither as a Director, nor as a player, I like a complex regulation. -- 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 Dec 17 03:11:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGG9V227282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:09:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGG9Ot27277 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 03:09:24 +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 QAA28882 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 16:09:14 GMT Message-ID: <3A3B93EB.2C697C04@meteo.fr> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:10:19 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a écrit : > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > Walt Flory wrote: > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > > > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > > > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus > > you > > > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > > > 1N opening. > > > > > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a > > partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. > > > > Exactly. > > If something is allowed once, it must be allowed forever. > > You cannot allow something a first time and not a second > one. > > You can not use arguments like "it's the first time". > > When something happens, you must always check if it is > "within reason" or "out of the blue". The first makes it > systemic, the second doesn't. > > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. If you want to talk about quantification, i think it's a little more intricated than you say. When you give HCP ranges in the form of 10-12, 13-16 ... , you are using a discrete ladder which is only a rough approximation of a sound evaluation function which should use a continuous ladder, and might allow you to quantify your judgement when it tells you some hand is slightly stronger than another one. When you pretend to use the ranges 7-9, 10-12 and 13-15, it is in fact an over-simplifaction to write down the reality which is that the ranges (perforce touching intervals) are 7.5-9.5, 9.5-12.5, 12.5-15.5. This is why a regulation founded upon an imperfect discrete ladder, with "no man's lands" between integer numbers, leads to the paradoxes you are struggling with. JP Rocafort > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE 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 Sun Dec 17 04:38:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGHbdQ27561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:37:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBGHbVt27557 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:37:32 +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 LAA07976 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:38:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001216113803.007cea00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:38:03 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A3B344B.E23E6DB0@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think we have nailed down the problem quite nicely here: Herman wrote: >But none of these things is important. >What is important is how we, as TDs, must interpret a >regulation that some SO has handed down in all their wisdom. >Equally important may well be how we, when putting on our SO >hats, should write a regulation such that it is legal and >enforceable. OK, let us separate those two questions. Let us deal with the first question first--how do we interpret what has been laid down for us, at least for those who do not live under the auspices of the ACBL. {I take it that, Marvin's quite reasonable qualms aside, the ACBL interpretation has been handed down to us on a tablet from Mr. Meckstroth.} >First of all the legal point. Forgetting for a moment L40D, >which can be contoured as the ACBL shows, we must still work >with L40A. [quite reasonable qualifications snipped] >The SO wants to write a regulation stating that you are not >allowed to play a system in which you open 1NT below some >minimum. >(I shall from now on use the example of the mini-no-trump, I >do believe you understand that this is only an example and >that the principles are applicable to all regulations). Fair enough. >That minimum must be defined. > >As several of us have pointed out, this definition ought to >be clear and simple. Again, here perhaps we part company. The SO did not lay down a clear and precise definition. They laid down a definition without making any explicit specification regarding whether _any_ 9-pt 1NT opening on any occasion by a 10-12 NT'er consitutes an illegal range. They didn't say. Perhaps you want clear and precise regulations, but this isn't the regulation you have been handed. >The SO cannot, or does not want to ban you using hand >evaluation methods that are different from Milton-Work (is >that the name ?). >If I want to use MSP (something I invented last week - of no >importance) and announce my 1NT range as 20-24, I am allowed >to do so, provided I give my opponents a full explanation of >MSP, and probably a rough translation into HCP as well. >So the only thing the SO can really say is that if, >systematically, I open a hand that does not conform to it's >criteria, this means that my system is illegal. >If all hands that contain 20MSP also contain 10HCP, then my >system is legal. But if some hands that contain 20MSP >concur to just 9HCP, my system is illegal. Of course I can Begging the question. I say that if the majority of 9-pt hands do not contain 20MSP, then your system is legal. >make my system legal again by saying that I will not open >9HCP, even if 20 or even 21 MSP. > >The only way this can be checked is by checking all my 1NT >openers. As soon as ONE of them has only 9HCP, AND I >maintain that in my system, this is a true 1NT opener (by it >having 20MSP), I have proven that my system is illegal. >ONCE is enough ! Begging the question, again. That is, perhaps, what you would have written the regulation to say had you written the regulation. But the actual regulation does not say that. >The same is true if I use the hand valuation method HCP+JS >(HCP+style and judgment). If I describe the 1NT opening in >my system 10-12 HCPS&J, and I open a 9HCP hand, and then say >that this hand is worth 10HCPS&J, then I have also proven >that my system is illegal. > >Whenever someone opens a hand, willingly, that falls below >the barrier by which an illegal system is described, he has >proven that he is playing an illegal system. > >Whenever someone opens a 9HCP hand with 1NT, he is foul of >the regulation. > >Which leaves one single question. What is the barrier ? This is the question you should have asked first. I agree that if you have an agreement to open hands that fall below the barrier, that you have an illegal agreement. >Some of you seem to believe that the barrier (in the ACBL >example) is 10HCPS&J. If that is the case, then you are >correct in opening the cited hands. >>From David's reply, I gather that the EBU has this sort of >barrier. >>From Michael's reply, the ACBL uses a true HCP barrier. So now I'm confused, Herman. Do you agree that the EBU has a barrier of 10HCPS&J? If so, then you agree with me that it is ok to open a 9HCP hand in the EBU, by agreement, if the hand contains sufficient S&J value to upgrade it to 10. We both agree that the ACBL, unless and until the Meckstroth interpretation is repudiated, has a solid 9-pt barrier. >However, I strongly suggest to SO's that they use a simple >barrier. This is a different question. Although I do not agree with you, I can see your reasons for holding this view, and I acknowledge that they are good reasons. I think there are good reasons on the other side, too. But the important thing is that this is a different question. There is no reason to assume that we should interpret actual regulations in light of what regulations we think the SO should have made. >10HCP it is. Everyone knows that, and it is clear. >A barrier of 10HCPS&J only leads to more questions : what is >enough, 2 tens? and so on. And I'm more than willing to live with that. >Only by placing a barrier somewhere, and then applying that >barrier strictly, can regulations of this nature be used. Why? Only if we do this can the regulations be applied without question or judgment, I agree. I have nothing against judgment, and am willing to live with questions. >Personally, I'd prefer it if barriers like this are not >used. But the SO's seem to want them. >Invariably, someone wishes to push against this barrier, and >makes a lot of noise about it. >Go complain to the SO that made the regulation, I say. Good >luck, I say. You have my support, I say. But you have just >scored AV- on this board, I say. I don't mind the regulation, really. But, then again, I interpret it such that you might not have an A- on this board. :) >Herman DE WAEL 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 Sun Dec 17 04:46:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGHk3427596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:46:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBGHjut27592 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 04:45:57 +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 LAA08571 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:46:48 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001216114634.007bec50@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:46:34 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A3B35A8.8D51F3EF@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:28 AM 12/16/2000 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> Because the third better approximates what the regulation is >> allegedly supposed to be preventing. The regulation is supposed to >> prevent destructive openings, and a 9-pt hand full of tens and nines >> opened 1NT, or the original 17-rule hand presented by DWS opened 1S, are >> not destructive openings. >> > >Why ? > >Sorry Grant, but I happen to believe that a 10HCP 1NT >opening is very destructive. Why do you suggest that a >10HCP opening is not destructive, a 9.8 one neither, but a 9 >point one suddenly is ? OK, fair enough, I'll rephrase my point: There are some hands that contain 9 HCP that are as strong as or stronger than many hands that contain 10 HCP. Ergo, if the SO rules that opening 1 NT on 'normal' 10 HCP hands is not destructive, then it cannot be destructive to open 1NT on a 9-pt hand that is actually stronger than the average 10. I am not asking you to lower the limit to 9.8 HCP. I am saying that there are 9 HCP hands that are worth _more than 10_. {With regard to DWS's 1S hand, I would definately say that it is not a destructive opening--there is a very good chance of a major suit game opposite a partner with a normal opener!} >It doesn't make sense. There is no "absolute" reason why 10 >should be allowed. But the SO has decided that 10 is >allowed, anything less isn't. > >Personally, I'd prefer the limit to be set at 11. That would be fine with me. But there are 10-pt hands worth more than the average 11-pt hand.... :) >But I tolerate 10. I also tolerate 10, but I think that some 9's are worth more than 10. :) >Herman DE WAEL 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 Sun Dec 17 05:10:15 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGI9nr27652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:09:49 +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 (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGI9gt27648 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:09:43 +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 ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:08:55 -0800 Message-ID: <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:07:08 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is North > > > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that South's > > > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he made > > > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? > > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > Neither. He should just let the auction stand and accept whatever score > > adjustment, if any, the TD decides to make. > > Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the > TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the > auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final > call. This choice is binding, i.e. North will not get an adjustment > if he chooses badly. (This is what David S. so forcefully pointed > out in another thread.) This can't be right. North has to choose without knowing what South would done absent the MI? And if he guesses wrong, no redress? There must be some exceptions to David S's general rule, and this is surely one of them. 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 Sun Dec 17 05:30:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGITtv27715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:29:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBGITmt27711 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:29:49 +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 ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:29:00 -0800 Message-ID: <031201c0678e$1eec6640$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012152154.QAA14078@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:20:55 -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 Steve Willner wrote: > Because of advancing dementia, I wrote: > > Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the > > TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the > > auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final > > call. > > This was wrong, as a correspondent kindly pointed out to me. EW > became defenders, so the MI cannot be corrected until the end of > the hand. Why not? East passes, the MI is obvious, the TD is called by N/S, and North is given the option of changing the pass to a bid. Isn't this the right procedure, assuming the opening lead has not been faced? 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 Sun Dec 17 05:40:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGIdvA27750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:39:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGIdpt27746 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:39:52 +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 ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:39:02 -0800 Message-ID: <031a01c0678f$86291f00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:37:39 -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 Marv wrote: > > Walt Flory wrote: > > > > > My understanding is that the ACBL ruling is that if you play 10-12 pt NT's > > and have ever opened a 9 hcp NT with a given partner that you have an > > implicit partnership agreement that your NT range includes 9 hcp and thus > you > > are barred under ACBL regulation from using any conventional responses to a > > 1N opening. I have asked ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss to clarify his TD organization's implementation of the HCP regulation that says no conventions allowed if the lower end of a 1NT opening is less than 10 HCP. No answer yet. > > > That reminds me of the oft-recited TD rule that one psych constitutes a > partnership agreement, so one cannot psych with that partner anymore. Baloney. Deja vue all over again... A TD tells me that ACBL TDs have have been instructed to tell any person who plays 10-12 1NT openings, but who opens a 9 pointer, that that is their last such occurrence as long as their card shows 10-12. No automatic penalty applies for the first occurrence, but since a second such bid would indicate implicit agreement of other than 10-12 it should be penalized insofar as the card is incorrectly marked. She goes on to say that the ACBL takes this power from Law 40D. She understands that I may have some difficulty with this apparent conflict with 40E1 but thinks it is reasonable. I wonder how the ACBL keeps track of such rulings. 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 Sun Dec 17 06:49:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGJnGc29423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:49:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBGJn9t29418 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:49:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug3l.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.117]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA11748 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001801c06799$3cf329c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20001215160710.017af954@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:49:00 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 4:07 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > At 08:04 AM 12/15/2000 -0500, Eric wrote: > >I play in an area which is widely believed to have the most > >knowledgeable directors in the ACBL. The practice at our unit game is > >to give an automatic matchpoint penalty to a pair playing 10-12 NTs > >(with conventions in the subsequent auction) for any 1NT opening on > >fewer than 10 HCP, regardless of holding. > > > > In contravention of the Laws, of course, and lacking even the official > published sanction of the ACBL. But if the ACBL is free to flout the Laws, > why shouldn't club officials make up their own Laws as well? > > Mike Dennis > -- If I've got the quotes untangled correctly, I believe Eric plays at WBL events. The DIC of the WBL unit game is an ACBL Tournament Director. WBL tournaments are run by a National Tournament Director, who is the Chief TD of the Mid-Atlantic Bridge Conference and supervises all ACBL TDs in his region. Eric is not talking about poorly trained club directors. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 17 06:49:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGJmXM29400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:48:33 +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.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 eBGJmOt29392 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:48:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F652D7CEB for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:48:14 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:48:14 +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 eBGJmSt29395 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have been asked what the precise meaning of L63B is. I thought I knew. Then I sought out the approximately 80 historical BLML messages on the subject, and now I no longer know. In the following, I will quote the available official material and try to summarize what it might mean. L63B and L43B2b both require us to correct a revoke, yet issue a penalty as if the revoke had been established. L63B says: >When there has been a violation of Law 61B, the revoker >must substitute a legal card and the penalty provisions >of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been established. (L61B is the one that forbids defenders to ask each other about revokes; it is a zonal option, and is not in effect in the ACBL.) L43B2 says: >If dummy, after violation of the limitations listed in >A2 preceding: >[...] >(b) is the first to ask declarer if a play from declarer's > hand constitutes a revoke, declarer must substitute a > correct card if his play was illegal, and the penalty > provisions of Law 64 apply as if the revoke had been > established. It seems obvious to me that in the case of a defender (i.e., the L63B case), the withdrawn card becomes a penalty card - this must surely be covered by L49. (And nobody I could find in the BLML archives have argued otherwise.) It also seems obvious to me that the interpretation should clearly be the same for L63B as for L43B2b - the wordings above are very similar. But this may not be the case - the last WBFLC indications on the subjects seem to differ. The last WBFLC ruling on L63B is, I believe, the interim ruling from Malta, dated 1999-06-19. It was posted to BLML that same day by Mark Newton on behalf of Grattan, and it says (I have snipped the question to which it was the answer): >This law has lost some of its shape since it was amended in 1997. There >has been some confusion and it is important to read Law 63B with some care. > Today, Saturday, June 19,1999, in Malta, I have spent some time in conference >with Ton Kooijman on the subject and we have reached an agreement which he >has authorized me to publish as an interim ruling of the WBF Laws Committee. >(We are persuaded it is unlikely to be changed when the WBFLC next convenes >but it is open to the Committee to review the ruling at that time.) > >The ruling is that, whilst a legal card is to be substituted for the revoke card, in >applying the penalty from Law 64 the Director must disregard the substitution >of a legal card and consider the revoke trick with the revoke card established. >If that card wins the trick then Law 64A1 applies. If the Director is of the opinion >that a subsequent card would then win a trick for the offending side there is a >two trick penalty. But if the revoke card would not win the trick Law 64A2 >applies and in determining the penalty the Director is to form his opinion as to >whether the offending player would subsequently win a trick with a card that >could have been played legally to the revoke trick. The number of tricks to be >transferred is limited to tricks won on and after the revoke trick when the hand >is played with the legal card substituted. > >Grattan Endicott >Secretary, WBF Laws Committee, >19 June, 1999. > >[p.s. as an expression solely of personal opinion my view is that the 1987 law >was simpler, cleaner, and to be desired. I can't think why 'x' had to disturb it >and I would return to it.] During the BLML discussion of that ruling, David Martin asked whether it also applied to L43B2b. Mark Newton posted a reply on 1999-06-22: >You ask, reference the interim ruling on Law 63B: 'Does this interpretation also apply to >Law 43B2(b)?' > >Reply from Ton Kooijman and Grattan Endicott: Yes. The last WBFLC ruling on L43B2b is, I believe, the minutes from Bermuda, 2000-01-12, from which the relevant part is: >The question of the `two trick penalty in Law 64', see >Law 43B2(c)*, was revisited. It was agreed that the >wording of the minute in Ocho Rios requires >amendment. Accordingly the committee confirmed its >position that the legal card which is substituted for >the first card determines ownership of the revoke >trick. This card is played subsequently to the >revoke. Law 64 is then to be applied so that there may >be a two trick penalty but not necessarily so. In the following, I will not distinguish between L63B and L43B2b, but simply try to imagine ways in which one or both of the rulings above may be interpreted in relation to the number of tricks to be transferred: ***** Interpretation (A): * We correct the revoke. * We apply L64, using the corrected card and the corresponding (ultimate) trick ownership to choose between L64A1 and L64A2. * We subtract the penalty trick(s) from the number of tricks actually won by the offenders. This is what the Bermuda ruling seems to me to say: the words about revoke trick ownership seem rather pointless unless they are intended for use in establishing the penalty size - otherwise there would no sensible reason to point out that the corrected card determines the trick ownership. On the other hand, the words about the corrected card being played subsequent to the revoke could mean that my interpretation is wrong here. (A) is also the way I would naturally interpret the law text itself. It has the problem, as earlier BLML discussions have pointed out, that in some situations a violation of L61B results in one more trick to the defender than they would have received if the revoke had actually become established. That problem can possibly be solved by using L72B1 in those situations. ***** Interpretation (B): * We correct the revoke. * We apply L64 to an hypothetical situation in which the revoke had not been corrected, using the TD's judgement to decide how the play would have developed. * We subtract the penalty trick(s) from the number of tricks actually won by the offenders, if necessary limiting the penalty so that the non-offenders do not get more than 13 tricks. This seems to me to be the literal reading of the Malta ruling. As pointed out by David S on BLML long ago, this can lead to very strange results, since the penalty is based on a hypothetical situation but is added to the real result. David's example was one where the non-offenders got an absurdly good result, but I strongly suspect that it is also possible to create an example where they do not get a suitable compensation (so that we will have to use L64C). ***** Interpretation (C): * We correct the revoke. * We apply L64 to an hypothetical situation in which the revoke had not been corrected, using the TD's judgement to decide how the play would have developed. * We give the non-offenders the largest of (1) the number of tricks they actually won with the revoke corrected, and (2) the number of tricks they would have won in the hypothetical situation, including the revoke penalty tricks. This is an attempt to read the Malta ruling in a just slightly less literal way in order to get a more reasonable result. By applying the hypothetical penalty to the hypothetical situation, we can avoid the absurd results that we otherwise risk. I suspect that this may actually be what was intended. I do not believe it was suggested in the discussion following the Malta decision - and that surprises me. ***** Which one is the right one? Taking the WBFLC rulings literally, the right interpretation seems to be (A) for L43B2b and (B) or (C) for L63B. This, however, is inconsistent with Ton and Grattan's statement that the Malta L63B ruling also covers L43B2b. Or we could assume that the part of the Bermuda ruling that mentions ownership of the revoke trick does not refer to establishment of the penalty, and use (B) or (C) in both cases. Or we could assume that the Bermuda ruling has superceded the Malta ruling and use (A) in both cases. But if this is the case, then the Bermuda ruling really ought to have mentioned L63B as well as L43B2b. And if we do use the Malta ruling (for L63B and possibly also for L43B2b), do we use (B) with its very strange results or do we use (C)? My personal preference would be (A) for its simplicity. My second choice would be (C), because at least it does not generate absurd results. Of course, the only sensible long-term solution is to change both laws so that the revoke is established and not corrected. The L64 penalty is designed for a revoke that has not been established, and trying to use it for a corrected revoke only leads to problems. -- 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 Dec 17 06:57:59 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGJvgB29670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBGJvVt29659 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:32 +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 147NSP-00020z-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:57:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:38:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> <3A3B2D87.39BCBFCC@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A3B2D87.39BCBFCC@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may not >> open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree with >> you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. >> > >Well David, I wish you luck in trying to curb the exact >thing you are wishing to curb. > >Better not have a regulation at all than one that you >yourself make unenforceable. That's silly. Anyway, it is not unenforceable. -- 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 Sun Dec 17 06:58:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBGJvgS29672 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBGJvVt29658 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 06:57:32 +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 147NSP-000KVf-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:57:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 14:41:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A3B36CE.1C115E0@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A3B36CE.1C115E0@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 >But David, why should you make a rule that needs the TD's >judgment ? Because we do not believe in trying to get robots to play bridge: we want bridge players. Bridge players use judgement: when evaluating what bridge players will do we want to allow them that judgement. [s] >TD's sometime do get it wrong. Why then give them more >difficult rules when easier ones are just as effective ? Because the easier ones are unfair, demeaning and deleterious to the game of bridge. -- 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 Sun Dec 17 12:24:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBH1NCY09199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:23:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBH1N3t09191 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:23:05 +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 UAA13694 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:22:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA28469 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:22:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:22:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From David Grabiner: > >But in > >general, E-W are entitled to present arguments to the TD/AC about > >issues that should be covered in the hearing. This argument should be > >given the same weight as if a member of the AC thought of it. > From: David Stevenson > Are North's remarks self-serving? Of course they are. > All that means is that they should be taken with a degree more > scepticism than evidence that is not self-serving. There is no logic at > all for describing self-serving arguments as those without supporting > evidence: they should properly be described as self-serving arguments > without supporting evidence. I think perhaps the point David G. was trying to make is that there is a difference between a "self-serving argument" and a "self-serving statement." The latter, when subjective and unsupported by concrete evidence, is properly given very little weight. ("Even without the UI, I certainly would have...." Well, we all know what to make of that!) A self-serving argument -- or any argument, for that matter -- is different. It's a matter of logic, law, and regulation and can be evaluated on its merits. Of course it won't surprise any of us to find that many self-serving arguments turn out to be invalid once they are examined, but there's no reason to treat self-serving _arguments_ differently than any other kind of argument. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 17 14:12:26 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBH3BS412309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBH3BLt12302 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 14:11:22 +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 ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:10:32 -0800 Message-ID: <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:01:36 -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: > A self-serving argument -- or any argument, for that matter -- is > different. It's a matter of logic, law, and regulation and can be > evaluated on its merits. Of course it won't surprise any of us to find > that many self-serving arguments turn out to be invalid once they are > examined, but there's no reason to treat self-serving _arguments_ > differently than any other kind of argument. What does your dictionary say, Steve? Your opinion is very logical, but standard usage isn't always logical. I would prefer knowing what your dictionary's opinion is. 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 Sun Dec 17 22:18:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBHBGGJ25985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:16:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBHBG5t25977 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:16:06 +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 147bnI-000KRy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 11:16:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:45:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$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 >Steve Willner wrote: > > >> > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is >North >> > > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that >South's >> > > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he >made >> > > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? >> >> > From: "Marvin L. French" > >> > Neither. He should just let the auction stand and accept whatever >score >> > adjustment, if any, the TD decides to make. >> >> Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the >> TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the >> auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final >> call. This choice is binding, i.e. North will not get an adjustment >> if he chooses badly. (This is what David S. so forcefully pointed >> out in another thread.) > >This can't be right. North has to choose without knowing what South would >done absent the MI? And if he guesses wrong, no redress? There must be >some exceptions to David S's general rule, and this is surely one of them. Hang on. Someone gets the MI corrected, and now knows correctly what the bid means. If they then guess incorrectly what to change their call to why should they get redress for it? Of course, redress may be available because of any earlier call, but that is a different matter. Are you confusing what I have said? Let me restate it. If, during the auction period, a side finds they have been misinformed, the Director *must* be called, and he will allow the last call of the NOs to be changed if it is because of the MI. No adjustment will be later given because of that last call whether the Director is called or not. The NOs retain a full right to an adjustment because of MI based on an earlier call whether they the Director is called at that time or not, subject to L11A. -- 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 Sun Dec 17 23:37:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBHCaKg28252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:36:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBHCaCt28246 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:36:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA10272 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:36:04 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system 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: <200012151442.AA29497@gateway.tandem.com> Wally Farley wrote: > Then: > KQTx T98 QJT JTx 8.50/7.91 often chosen as a 'good' 9HCP > KT7 A98 9876 QT8 8.60/8.64 what mfr submitted to Gary Blaiss Just to put these in context I tried a couple of "standard" 10HCP hands QT2 K974 J83 A65 8.70/8.65 QT2 K974 J863 A5 8.90/9.15 Danny obviously has a bit of a downer on 4333. The latter would be my suggestion as a benchmark from which "king or more" would be measured. Tim West-Meads A handy link seems to be: http://www.gg.caltech.edu/~jeff/knr.cgi?hand=QT2+K974+J83+A65 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 18 03:43:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBHGd0o04983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:39:00 +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-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 eBHGcqt04977 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:38:53 +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 147gpf-000Mi6-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:38:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:01:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$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 David Stevenson writes > Of course, redress may be available because of any earlier call, but >that is a different matter. > > Are you confusing what I have said? Let me restate it. > > If, during the auction period, a side finds they have been >misinformed, the Director *must* be called, and he will allow the last >call of the NOs to be changed if it is because of the MI. No adjustment >will be later given because of that last call whether the Director is >called or not. > > The NOs retain a full right to an adjustment because of MI based on an >earlier call whether they the Director is called at that time or not, >subject to L11A. Let me clarify an additional point. The bidding goes 1C P 2H 3D P P P Now the TD winds it back: 1C P 2H 3D P 3N P P P However, there has been a mixup because the meaning of 3D is unclear because it was made when there was MI. This is adjustable, since it refers to damage from an earlier call. On the other hand, if 3NT is just a bad guess with full information, then there is no adjustment. -- 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 Dec 18 05:45:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBHIis408445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:44:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBHIikt08438 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 05:44:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhu6.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.198]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15160 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:44:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006801c06859$676abb80$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:44:35 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > > So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may not > open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree with > you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. > I've been glancing at the posts, but this one stood out. Let's take a look at 40D again, for reference: "D. Regulation of Conventions The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organizations may delegate this responsibility." The ACBL has imposed its limit on the 10-12 NT by using the first sentence of this law to forbid conventional responses if a pair opens it NT range lower than 10 HCP. This is IMO a backdoor approach toward forbidding a legal opening, and should not be allowed, but we can (and did) argue in circles for months about this. However, the EBU reg, if I'm reading it correctly, is explicitly forbidding agreements to open hands with 9 HCP or less. L40 allows the ZO's to regulate initial actions made with a king or more below average strength. Using HCP evaluation alone, a hand of a king below average strength is 7 HCP. It appears that the EBU is misusing its authority under 40D without even the pretence that the ACBL puts forth that it is regulating conventions, not the opener. If the EBU has the regulation that you may not open a 9-count by agreement, is that game still Duplicate Bridge, as defined by the Laws? 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 Mon Dec 18 10:47:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBHNk4316425 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:46:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBHNjst16416 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:45:55 +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 147nUw-000I7V-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:45:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:09:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> <006801c06859$676abb80$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <006801c06859$676abb80$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "David Stevenson" >To: >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:34 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > > >> >> So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may >not >> open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree >with >> you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. >> > >I've been glancing at the posts, but this one stood out. Let's take a >look at 40D again, for reference: > > >"D. Regulation of Conventions >The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play >conventions. Zonal organizations may, in addition, regulate >partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the >partnership's initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand >of a king or more below average strength. Zonal organizations may >delegate this responsibility." > >The ACBL has imposed its limit on the 10-12 NT by using the first >sentence of this law to forbid conventional responses if a pair opens >it NT range lower than 10 HCP. This is IMO a backdoor approach toward >forbidding a legal opening, and should not be allowed, but we can (and >did) argue in circles for months about this. > >However, the EBU reg, if I'm reading it correctly, is explicitly >forbidding agreements to open hands with 9 HCP or less. L40 allows >the ZO's to regulate initial actions made with a king or more below >average strength. Using HCP evaluation alone, a hand of a king below >average strength is 7 HCP. It appears that the EBU is misusing its >authority under 40D without even the pretence that the ACBL puts forth >that it is regulating conventions, not the opener. > >If the EBU has the regulation that you may not open a 9-count by >agreement, is that game still Duplicate Bridge, as defined by the >Laws? I do not quote all our regs in detail every time I post. Even so, I get a fair amount of stick for the length of my posts anyway. I am surprised that long term posters here, who have seen arguments ad nauseam on this subject, do not realise the basic regs by now. Still, since now I know they do not, I shall repeat them. In the ACBL it is illegal to have an agreement to open 1NT on fewer than 10 HCP by agreement unless you do not play any conventions thereafter, when it becomes legal to open one down to 8 HCP. In the ACBL it is illegal to open 1NT that shows a range of 10-12 on 9 HCP because that means you have an agreement even if you do not. In the EBU/WBU it is illegal to have an agreement to open 1NT on fewer than 10 HCP by agreement unless you do not play any conventions thereafter, when it becomes legal to open one down to 8 HCP. In the EBU/WBU it is perfectly legal to apply judgement to your agreements. -- 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 Dec 18 13:27:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBI2PEi20622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:25:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBI2P7t20618 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:25:07 +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 147pz4-000ODl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:25:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:12:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >Steve Willner wrote: > > >> A self-serving argument -- or any argument, for that matter -- is >> different. It's a matter of logic, law, and regulation and can be >> evaluated on its merits. Of course it won't surprise any of us to find >> that many self-serving arguments turn out to be invalid once they are >> examined, but there's no reason to treat self-serving _arguments_ >> differently than any other kind of argument. > >What does your dictionary say, Steve? Your opinion is very logical, but >standard usage isn't always logical. I would prefer knowing what your >dictionary's opinion is. > >Marv >San Diego, CA > > Concise Oxford: (the standard crossword Dictionary, about 1000 pages) placing one's own interest before other's > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou 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 Mon Dec 18 13:28:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBI2SP820711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:28:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from venus.racsa.co.cr (venus.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.24]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBI2SFt20703 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:28:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from john (sanpedro-a620.racsa.co.cr [196.40.42.115]) by venus.racsa.co.cr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id UAA12804; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:23:20 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002101c06891$e78d07e0$732a28c4@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: , "Michael S. Dennis" References: <3.0.1.32.20001215162433.017a31c0@pop.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 20:19:11 -0500 Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael S. Dennis" | At 02:50 PM 12/15/2000 +0100, Alain wrote: | >My question is : is this reasoning convincing enough to qualify North's | >pass as gambling ? If North had been able to determine the jump couldn't be | >strong, she could have passed, and have it both ways (either East reopens | >and is doubled, or she calls the TD) | | The theory offered by EW is interesting, and might even describe what | actually happened at the table. But it is only one among a number of | plausible explanations for North's pass. | | North is faced with a difficult problem in trying to sort out the truth of | the situation. For one thing, South's bid takes on a different meaning | after the strong jump shift (potentially much more distributional and fewer | HCP than over a WJR). And either or both of the opposing bids could be | based on highly distributional assets as well, including likely diamond | shortness. So North cannot necessarily be sure that anyone has lied. | | But even if the auction demonstrably suggests the presence of more high | cards than are in the standard deck, North cannot with any confidence know | how what would have caused this. Perhaps West is the culprit (he passed, | after all), and East really does hold the promised values for his jump | shift. Bidding 3nt in that case does not seem particularly prudent. Or | maybe partner is operating. | | The point is that this thorny problem is the direct consequence of the MI. | The only way I could be convinced to treat North as having played for the | double shot is if I know that North is well-acquainted with the methods of | this EW pair. | | Mike Dennis **** **** To say nothing of the idea that the one diamond opener could **** be suspect - ever heard of a psyche ? John -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 18 14:59:25 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBI3vJJ22948 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:57:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm8.texas.rr.com (sm8.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.220]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBI3vBt22942 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:57:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from satx.rr.com (cs160153-181.satx.rr.com [24.160.153.181]) by sm8.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBI3svs06703 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:54:57 -0600 Message-ID: <3A3D8B1A.6C3A2D68@satx.rr.com> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:57:14 -0600 From: Albert W Lochli Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com Organization: Internet Coordinator ACBL D-16 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en]C-CCK-MCD (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We had an incident tonight. Fourth round of nine. It started with a call for the director where the auction had gone: 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. (Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: Pass 3Diam - all pass 3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score of whatever 2H would make. (I was a playing director and would play that board - and hand - later.) Settled, right no problem. Well not really. The non-offending party continued to harangue his opponent that had bid the 3 Diamonds. I returned to calm and restore order. I advised the parties that that hand was over and that they should let it lie. No soap!! The man whom had just been awarded a next to top would not cease and insisted that he would continue baiting his opponent. "Stop! Desist. Let it lie." "You cannot tell me to stop" Okay - a quarter board PP. (zero-tolerance and the laws). Explosion -- cards slammed down and a rush to the exit. Then he returned and from the entry a loud shouting fit, cussing and terrorizing all the players present. Basically "You can't tell me to shut up" (Shut-up was a term NOT used by me). Personal threats toward the director (and one other player). Disqualification and ejection under Law 91a. Now he demands his entry fee back. Should he get it?? I denied it - the club owner overruled me and card fee was returned. [Later that evening I am told the club owner dispatched the formal letter barring that player from the club. It was a second or third like incident.] My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have been submitted to the local unit before with no action resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. How much must a director take before he can/should act?? And what can/should he do. I could not permit his continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr old female. I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? Al Lochli -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 18 19:20:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBI8J8L29534 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:19:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBI8J0t29530 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:19:01 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id IAA07343 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:18:52 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:18 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system 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: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. IMO this would depart heavily from custom and practice. CCs labelled 12-14, or 15-17 are completely the norm for players who occasionally open good 11/14 counts respectively. Only if we are willing to rule all such CCs incorrect (I doubt it) can we complain if a CC is labelled 10-12 and occasionally opened on a good 9. Under the ACBL interpretations it seems pointless to play a 10-12 NT since some suitable hands are (apparently) barred. In order to maintain a complete 3 point range one should play eg 10.5 to 12.5. As to the "no conventions if..." restrictions put in place by both the ACBL and EBU - they are verging on blasphemy. They should just define what they consider to be a hand "more than a king* below average" and ban opening it at the one level. Let the other bids take care of themselves (requiring alerts if they wish). Ideally I think they should do this using a reasonably sophisticated evaluation tool and some examples but if they just say 7HCP that would still be an improvement. Tim West-Meads * or is it a king or more? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 00:33:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDVAN00005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:31:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIDV3t29995 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:31:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-171.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.171]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11773 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:00:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3CA052.14340E44@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:15:30 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20001215105059.007b5dc0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A3B36CE.1C115E0@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 writes > > >But David, why should you make a rule that needs the TD's > >judgment ? > > Because we do not believe in trying to get robots to play bridge: we > want bridge players. Bridge players use judgement: when evaluating what > bridge players will do we want to allow them that judgement. > Sorry David, wrong argument. I do believe that it would be better in trying to get robots to direct in bridge. > [s] > > >TD's sometime do get it wrong. Why then give them more > >difficult rules when easier ones are just as effective ? > > Because the easier ones are unfair, demeaning and deleterious to the > game of bridge. > I happen to believe that the 10HCP rule is unfair, deleterious and demeaning as well. The 9.8HCP rule (or the 10HCP+S&J one) has the added disadvantage of being more difficult to apply as well. What it comes down to is which rule is the most unfair. A rule that says that a player cannot do what he wants ? Or a rule that says that a player can do slightly more, but does not tell him if a particular action will be allowed or not ? I agree that your rule comes closer to what would be acceptable for players, but at what price ? Compare it to the revoke rule. We've come ever closer to a "fair rule", but it has become gradually more complex. We might twitch the revoke Laws even further, but at a price. Even now, the Laws are not clear to all but a dedicated band of loyal followers. When you propose a rule such as the 10HCP+S&J, you will lose me as a "good" TD, since I won't be able to handle that law with as much confidence as you. I don't like a law that you can apply better than I can. I have to accept this in the cases of MI and UI, since those areas cannot really be handled by mechanical laws, but this area CAN be handled in such a way. With only a small loss in "fairness". Besides, I already believe that the "unfairness" of a simple rule was expressed in the number. I feel that the SO has already gone down from 11HCP to 10HCP, because the 10.5 hand is acceptable. They may already have accepted the 10HCP because it is fairer than 11HCP+S&J. Compare with the rule of 19. This was considered quite fair, until someone pointed out that AKxx Axx xxx xxx is a standard Culbertson opening but does not conform to 19. So the rule was changed into 18. If consecutive people continue in pushing the barrier downwards, there is no need for a barrier, is there ? Now don't get me wrong, I don't believe a player should be forbidden to open what he considers to be worth opening. But the SO does. So in that case, as TD, I ask them to define what they want forbidden, and I'll apply it. But I don't accept that they tell me, you decide whether it may be opened or not. I don't want that power, and I don't think the game is fairer if I have it. Quite the reverse. -- 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 Dec 19 00:33:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDV4r29996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:31:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIDUut29991 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:30:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-171.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.171]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11793 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:00:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3CA146.EE322BCF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:19:34 +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] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> <3A3B93EB.2C697C04@meteo.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > If you want to talk about quantification, i think it's a little more > intricated than you say. > When you give HCP ranges in the form of 10-12, 13-16 ... , you are using > a discrete ladder which is only a rough approximation of a sound > evaluation function which should use a continuous ladder, and might > allow you to quantify your judgement when it tells you some hand is > slightly stronger than another one. When you pretend to use the ranges > 7-9, 10-12 and 13-15, it is in fact an over-simplifaction to write down > the reality which is that the ranges (perforce touching intervals) are > 7.5-9.5, 9.5-12.5, 12.5-15.5. This is why a regulation founded upon an > imperfect discrete ladder, with "no man's lands" between integer > numbers, leads to the paradoxes you are struggling with. > No it doesn't. You are allowed (well, in this example from the ACBL) to play 15-17, 14-16, 11-13, and 10.5-12.5. You are also allowed to play 10.2-12.2, and even 10-12. You are not allowed to play 9.8-11.8. A limit was set, and that limit can be as draconian as the SO wants. -- 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 Dec 19 00:33:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDVG800009 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:31:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIDV8t00004 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:31:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-171.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.171]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11877 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:00:50 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3CA3E4.8FE598B6@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 12:30:44 +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] Permitted system References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20001216113803.007cea00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe Grant has indeed understood the points I've been trying to make. I'll skip to the important bits : Grant Sterling wrote: > > > Again, here perhaps we part company. The SO did not lay down a > clear and precise definition. They laid down a definition without making > any explicit specification regarding whether _any_ 9-pt 1NT opening on > any occasion by a 10-12 NT'er consitutes an illegal range. They didn't say. > Perhaps you want clear and precise regulations, but this isn't the regulation > you have been handed. > Indeed not, in any other part of the world than the ACBL and the EBU. Which is why we are having this argument. > > > >Which leaves one single question. What is the barrier ? > > This is the question you should have asked first. I agree that if > you have an agreement to open hands that fall below the barrier, that you > have an illegal agreement. > OK. > >Some of you seem to believe that the barrier (in the ACBL > >example) is 10HCPS&J. If that is the case, then you are > >correct in opening the cited hands. > >>From David's reply, I gather that the EBU has this sort of > >barrier. > >>From Michael's reply, the ACBL uses a true HCP barrier. > > So now I'm confused, Herman. Do you agree that the EBU has a > barrier of 10HCPS&J? I think that is what David has told us. Good on them. > If so, then you agree with me that it is ok to > open a 9HCP hand in the EBU, by agreement, if the hand contains sufficient > S&J value to upgrade it to 10. Probably yes. > We both agree that the ACBL, unless and until the Meckstroth > interpretation is repudiated, has a solid 9-pt barrier. > 10HCP, but yes we agree on that. > >However, I strongly suggest to SO's that they use a simple > >barrier. > > This is a different question. Although I do not agree with you, > I can see your reasons for holding this view, and I acknowledge that > they are good reasons. I think there are good reasons on the other side, > too. > But the important thing is that this is a different question. There > is no reason to assume that we should interpret actual regulations in light > of what regulations we think the SO should have made. > The problems that were raised in this thread were under ACBL regulations, including Meckstroth interpretation. In ACBL, any 9HCP opening (playing 10-12, and intending to count it as 10) must be illegal. In the EBU, it might be legal, if it passes some other test. > >10HCP it is. Everyone knows that, and it is clear. > >A barrier of 10HCPS&J only leads to more questions : what is > >enough, 2 tens? and so on. > > And I'm more than willing to live with that. > I am not, for reasons I have stated in other posts. > >Only by placing a barrier somewhere, and then applying that > >barrier strictly, can regulations of this nature be used. > > Why? Only if we do this can the regulations be applied without > question or judgment, I agree. I have nothing against judgment, and am > willing to live with questions. > > >Personally, I'd prefer it if barriers like this are not > >used. But the SO's seem to want them. > >Invariably, someone wishes to push against this barrier, and > >makes a lot of noise about it. > >Go complain to the SO that made the regulation, I say. Good > >luck, I say. You have my support, I say. But you have just > >scored AV- on this board, I say. > > I don't mind the regulation, really. But, then again, I interpret > it such that you might not have an A- on this board. :) > Under my interpretation, no player need ever have an A-. All he needs to do is check the HCP and he knows whether or not he can open. If he doesn't, he won't have A-, if he does, he will, and so he won't open. Under your interpretation, a player can decide his 9HCP hand is worth 10HCP+S&J, and open it. And then see a TD disagree with him, and still get A-. I don't think the players like that. I believe they are more happy when I tell them "that's the rule" than when they have to submit their bridge feeling to mine. -- 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 Dec 19 00:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDb0B00040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:37:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIDart00036 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:36:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-10-217.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.10.217]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA18559 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:05:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3DF482.1D2C6AEA@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 12:26:58 +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] Permitted system 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: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> > HdW wrote: > > > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. > > IMO this would depart heavily from custom and practice. CCs labelled > 12-14, or 15-17 are completely the norm for players who occasionally open > good 11/14 counts respectively. Only if we are willing to rule all such > CCs incorrect (I doubt it) can we complain if a CC is labelled 10-12 and > occasionally opened on a good 9. > Don't pretend you don't understand what I mean, Tim. I did not say that opening a 15-17 NT with 14, while showing that this means that you are actually playing 14.8-16.8, implies that you have mischeavously (sp?) mislabeled your CC. It is a (minor) mislabeling, yes, but not necessarily tantamount to MI, especially since it is an accepted practice. The same argument applies to a 9.8-11.8 NT, as far as the MI issues are concerned. I know all that. My point is that the 9.8-11.8 NT is illegal in the ACBL. So while it is not MI, it IS illegal system. -- 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 Dec 19 00:37:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDbS500052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:37:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f176.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIDbMt00048 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:37:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 03:13:46 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:13:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:13:46 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2000 11:13:46.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[972F53A0:01C068E3] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Albert W Lochli >Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com >To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" >Subject: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:57:14 -0600 > > >We had an incident tonight. > >Fourth round of nine. >It started with a call for the director where the auction had >gone: > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > Pass 3Diam - all pass >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 >Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be >rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score >of whatever 2H would make. (I was a playing director and would >play that board - and hand - later.) Settled, right no problem. > >Well not really. The non-offending party continued to harangue >his opponent that had bid the 3 Diamonds. I returned to calm and >restore order. I advised the parties that that hand was over and >that they should let it lie. No soap!! The man whom had just >been awarded a next to top would not cease and insisted that >he would continue baiting his opponent. > "Stop! Desist. Let it lie." > "You cannot tell me to stop" >Okay - a quarter board PP. (zero-tolerance and the laws). > >Explosion -- cards slammed down and a rush to the exit. >Then he returned and from the entry a loud shouting fit, >cussing and terrorizing all the players present. Basically >"You can't tell me to shut up" (Shut-up was a term NOT used by >me). >Personal threats toward the director (and one other player). >Disqualification and ejection under Law 91a. > >Now he demands his entry fee back. Should he get it?? >I denied it - the club owner overruled me and card fee was >returned. [Later that evening I am told the club owner >dispatched the formal letter barring that player from >the club. It was a second or third like incident.] > >My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel >and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local >Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have >been submitted to the local unit before with no action >resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. > >How much must a director take before he can/should act?? >And what can/should he do. I could not permit his >continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair >no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr >old female. > >I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside >I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal >capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training >on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? > >Al Lochli >-- The mere suggestion of physical violence is an abhorrence in a civilized society, and anathema to those who believe that what separates us from the monkeys is our ability to rationalize and compromise without recourse to brawling and savagery. Imagine the horror with which the members of your club would have reacted had you stooped to paste one on him. They would have petitioned the owner and shortly you would have found yourself the pariah. Once you take this into consideration your course of action becomes perfectly clear. Get him in the car park. What the eye doesn't see... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 19 00:43:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIDhHI00072 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:43:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIDhAt00068 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 00:43:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBIDh5u67762 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:43:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001218083149.00af73c0@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 08:43:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <3A3B344B.E23E6DB0@village.uunet.be> References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:22 AM 12/16/00, Herman wrote: >The same is true if I use the hand valuation method HCP+JS >(HCP+style and judgment). If I describe the 1NT opening in >my system 10-12 HCPS&J, and I open a 9HCP hand, and then say >that this hand is worth 10HCPS&J, then I have also proven >that my system is illegal. > >Whenever someone opens a hand, willingly, that falls below >the barrier by which an illegal system is described, he has >proven that he is playing an illegal system. > >Whenever someone opens a 9HCP hand with 1NT, he is foul of >the regulation. > >Which leaves one single question. What is the barrier ? > >Some of you seem to believe that the barrier (in the ACBL >example) is 10HCPS&J. If that is the case, then you are >correct in opening the cited hands. > >From David's reply, I gather that the EBU has this sort of >barrier. > >From Michael's reply, the ACBL uses a true HCP barrier. > >However, I strongly suggest to SO's that they use a simple >barrier. >10HCP it is. Everyone knows that, and it is clear. >A barrier of 10HCPS&J only leads to more questions : what is >enough, 2 tens? and so on. > >Only by placing a barrier somewhere, and then applying that >barrier strictly, can regulations of this nature be used. An SO may not make a regulation that is contrary to law merely because it is easier to enforce than some alternative regulation. The question we should be asking is whether L40 permits SOs to regulate matters of style and judgment. One could argue that it does, but I think it would be rather a hard sell. The ACBL, in articles which appear in their self-described official publication, acknowledges that SOs may not regulate the use of style and judgment. Their position, which I find ludicrous, is that, to use Herman's terminology, setting the minimum at 10 HCP rather than at 10 HCP S&J is not regulating the use of S&J, but rather regulating the use of "destructive methods" (as though it were not logically possible for a regulation to do both). I see no possible validity to that line of reasoning. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 01:00:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIE0YF00095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:00:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-2.cais.net (stmpy-2.cais.net [205.252.14.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIE0Rt00091 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:00:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBIE0Mp14144 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:00:22 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001218090017.00af7a70@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:01:13 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <001801c06799$3cf329c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20001214123353.007cd2a0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A375CD2.38D57372@village.uunet.be> <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A34A7CA.24C7703F@village.uunet.be> <01ba01c063c9$76f7c6e0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <005101c064d8$2642cf00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.1.32.20001215160710.017af954@pop.mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:49 PM 12/16/00, Hirsch wrote: >If I've got the quotes untangled correctly, I believe Eric plays at >WBL events. The DIC of the WBL unit game is an ACBL Tournament >Director. WBL tournaments are run by a National Tournament Director, >who is the Chief TD of the Mid-Atlantic Bridge Conference and >supervises all ACBL TDs in his region. > >Eric is not talking about poorly trained club directors. All of the above is correct. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 01:43:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIEfPe00148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:41:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIEfHt00144 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:41:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from p05s06a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.118.6] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1481QT-0002f4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:38:06 -0800 Message-ID: <000401c06900$6f1c0e40$067693c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:36:52 -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 5.00.2314.1300 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: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: 12 December 2000 04:50 Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular > In article <200012112137.QAA23945@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes > >> From: David J Grabiner > >> This is different; given the psychic, the player could have known that > >> his infraction would work to his advantage. I believe there is a > >> general consensus that a psychic with a barred partner is not allowed. > > --------- \x/ --------- > > TD ruled "down 1". AC overturned it; I posted the hand; the thread ran > to 200 emails and we most of us finally concluded that > *only because Richard knew the hand didn't belong to him*, > he " ... could have known ... likely to damage ...". Had he had a > decent 8 count we felt the result would have to stand. It's the 1-count > that did him. > > cheers john > +=+ I wonder what I contributed if anything to the earlier discussion. My present view is that I would look to assess how likely it is that offender (BOOT) would feel it probable the hand belonged to opponent. I would consider whether partner has already passed or what the quality of the weak two is - even if within the range. If I judged that offender could believe that the hand was probably not for his side, I would be turning to Law 23 if a bid out of turn was followed, with partner silenced, by a bid in the suit that the player could envisage as a denomination in which opponents might find their contract. The principle could extend to other variations on the theme of destructive actions with partner silenced by the player's violation of law. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 01:58:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIEvJc00170 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:57:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIEvCt00166 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:57:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id OAA19726 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:57:05 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:57 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system 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: > > In the ACBL it is illegal to open 1NT that shows a range of 10-12 on 9 > HCP because that means you have an agreement even if you do not. This regulation must surely be moot nowadays for citizens of the USA. Surely it should be presumed that they have miscounted on the first attempt and are forbidden by the supreme court from obtaining a more accurate recount thereafter. That's the law isn't it? Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 02:47:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIFi6J00234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:44:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIFi0t00230 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 02:44:01 +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 KAA10753 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:43:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA18435 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:43:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:43:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012181543.KAA18435@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > What does your dictionary say, Steve? It's not a matter for the dictionary. (Mine says the same thing yours does.) The point for BLML is that even if an _argument_ (as opposed to a _statement_) is self-serving in the most pejorative sense, it can and should still be given rational consideration. In the real world, most such arguments will probably turn out to be invalid -- often based on a misunderstanding of the Laws -- but that shouldn't prevent us from considering each one on its merits. > From: David Stevenson > The bidding goes > > 1C P 2H 3D > P P P [MI about 2H exposed and corrected] > > Now the TD winds it back: > > 1C P 2H 3D > P ? > However, there has been a mixup because the meaning of 3D is unclear > because it was made when there was MI. This is adjustable, since it > refers to damage from an earlier call. This answers the question I was trying to ask. Let me propose a different answer; tell me why it is wrong: North is told to choose his call on the basis that 3D is a normal bid _over the correct meaning (weak) of 2H_, even though South was misinformed when he bid 3D. All further bidding by both sides should be based on this assumption. Further, it is AI to North, but not EW, that South would _also_ have bid 3D over a strong 2H and that East will pass if North chooses to pass. If 3D was *not* a normal bid over a weak 2H, an adjustment is automatic. One other point: if we do adjust to 3NT for NS on the basis of TD error, shouldn't it be 3NTx? After all, West thought East's 2H was strong. (We know that because of the faulure to alert.) Does West have any AI the 2H was weak? If not, mustn't he double if the auction goes 1C P 2H 3D P 3N P P ? Actually, it isn't at all clear to me how to deal with West's UI if the TD rules correctly and allows the auction to continue. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 06:42:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIJeg700483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:40:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIJeWt00476 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:40:33 +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 148694-000Ilh-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:40:27 +0000 Message-ID: <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:05:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French > writes >>Steve Willner wrote: >> >>> A self-serving argument -- or any argument, for that matter -- is >>> different. It's a matter of logic, law, and regulation and can be >>> evaluated on its merits. Of course it won't surprise any of us to find >>> that many self-serving arguments turn out to be invalid once they are >>> examined, but there's no reason to treat self-serving _arguments_ >>> differently than any other kind of argument. >> >>What does your dictionary say, Steve? Your opinion is very logical, but >>standard usage isn't always logical. I would prefer knowing what your >>dictionary's opinion is. >Concise Oxford: (the standard crossword Dictionary, about 1000 pages) > >placing one's own interest before other's All right, I give up. A self-serving statement is not a statement that appears to serve oneself. In which case the use of the term self-serving in many cases that it is used is ill-informed, defamatory, unhelpful and rude, and it is time we found a new term to refer to a statement which *appears* to serve oneself. Discounting self-serving statements is acceptable, therefore, but many of the statements labelled self-serving are not. The unfortunate approach sometimes followed by officials of not taking any notice of statements that *might be* or that *appear* self-serving is not fair unless they are convinced that they are. So the mess has been exacerbated by faulty labelling. The logic as to why self-serving statements should have their weight of acceptability reduced, which was explained very perceptively by someone in the Bulletin [Ron Gerard?] should have referred to *apparent* self-serving statements. -- 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 Dec 19 06:42:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIJef900484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:40:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIJeVt00475 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:40:32 +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 148694-000Ilg-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:40:27 +0000 Message-ID: <$age3bAgGkP6Ewvc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:56:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> <3A3B93EB.2C697C04@meteo.fr> <3A3CA146.EE322BCF@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A3CA146.EE322BCF@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 >No it doesn't. > >You are allowed (well, in this example from the ACBL) to >play 15-17, 14-16, 11-13, and 10.5-12.5. You are also >allowed to play 10.2-12.2, and even 10-12. You are not >allowed to play 9.8-11.8. > >A limit was set, and that limit can be as draconian as the >SO wants. That's a change - previously you said that the limit *had* to be draconian - you gave the SO no right whatever to apply their judgement. You have said that the EBU view [slightly re-inforced by the Laws of bridge] is not acceptable because if it is not draconian life is too hard for Directors. I think it is time you adjusted your mindset. Do SOs have rights in this matter or do they have to do what HDW says? -- 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 Dec 19 06:53:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIJrQs00509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:53:26 +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 eBIJrKt00505 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:53:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:50:22 -0800 Message-ID: <003d01c0692c$1de50640$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:46:58 -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: > Marvin L. French writes > >Steve Willner wrote: > > > > > >> > > Actually, there's still an interesting problem. On what basis is > >North > >> > > supposed to decide what to do? Should he bid on the basis that > >South's > >> > > 3D overcall was over a *strong* 2H bid (as South thought when he > >made > >> > > the overcall) or a weak one (as is actually the case)? > >> > >> > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > >> > Neither. He should just let the auction stand and accept whatever > >score > >> > adjustment, if any, the TD decides to make. > >> > >> Perhaps I failed to put the question clearly. It was based on the > >> TD having been called at the correct time. If that is done, the > >> auction is reopened, and North (but not South) may change his final > >> call. This choice is binding, i.e. North will not get an adjustment > >> if he chooses badly. (This is what David S. so forcefully pointed > >> out in another thread.) > > > >This can't be right. North has to choose without knowing what South would > >done absent the MI? And if he guesses wrong, no redress? There must be > >some exceptions to David S's general rule, and this is surely one of them. > > Hang on. Someone gets the MI corrected, and now knows correctly what > the bid means. If they then guess incorrectly what to change their call > to why should they get redress for it? If the wrong guess is based on a call that partner would not have made absent the UI, it seems to me redress might be in order. Not a likely scenario. 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 Tue Dec 19 06:59:04 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIJwut00524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:58:56 +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 eBIJwpt00520 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 06:58:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:55:51 -0800 Message-ID: <004101c0692c$e25b84e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" References: <3A3D8B1A.6C3A2D68@satx.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:58:20 -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 From: "Albert W Lochli" > We had an incident tonight. > > My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel > and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local > Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have > been submitted to the local unit before with no action > resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. > > How much must a director take before he can/should act?? > And what can/should he do. I could not permit his > continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair > no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr > old female. > > I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside > I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal > capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training > on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? > Don't do it yourself. Tell me where he lives. Seriously, steps should be taken to get him barred from all ACBL games for while, perhaps permanently. Procedures exist for this. Check the ACBL's Code of Disciplinary Regulations: www.acbl.org/tournaments/Recorder/dispregs.htm 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 Tue Dec 19 07:02:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIK2NJ00541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:02:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIK2Ht00537 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 07:02:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug7q.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.250]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA17563 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:02:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006f01c0692d$62da6aa0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <0012111232350A.10190@psa836> <4.3.2.7.1.20001213074419.00aeccc0@127.0.0.1> <3A37B3DF.445E9016@village.uunet.be> <006801c06859$676abb80$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:02:00 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2000 6:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > Hirsch Davis writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "David Stevenson" > >To: > >Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 9:34 AM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system > > > > > >> > >> So how about we British, who have reg [at Level 3] that you may > >not > >> open a 9-count by agreement? We have the reg, and we do not agree > >with > >> you that that automatically bars all 9-counts. > >> > > I do not quote all our regs in detail every time I post. Even so, I > get a fair amount of stick for the length of my posts anyway. > > I am surprised that long term posters here, who have seen arguments ad > nauseam on this subject, do not realise the basic regs by now. > Thank you for the update. While I have some knowledge of ACBL regulations, I do not have knowledge of the regulations of other ZO's. Consequently, when a poster who would be in a position of knowledge cites such a regulation, I tend to take it literally. My reaction to your original statement was that we have finally found a ZO that feels less bound by the Laws than the ACBL. I am glad to hear that I was wrong. > Still, since now I know they do not, I shall repeat them. > > In the ACBL it is illegal to have an agreement to open 1NT on fewer > than 10 HCP by agreement unless you do not play any conventions > thereafter, when it becomes legal to open one down to 8 HCP. > > In the ACBL it is illegal to open 1NT that shows a range of 10-12 on 9 > HCP because that means you have an agreement even if you do not. > > In the EBU/WBU it is illegal to have an agreement to open 1NT on fewer > than 10 HCP by agreement unless you do not play any conventions > thereafter, when it becomes legal to open one down to 8 HCP. > > In the EBU/WBU it is perfectly legal to apply judgement to your > agreements. > Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 08:34:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBILXsd00638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:33:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBILXmt00634 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:33:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP103.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.63]) by falcon.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA25465 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 13:33:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200012181534590300.00D01443@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <3A3D8B1A.6C3A2D68@satx.rr.com> References: <3A3D8B1A.6C3A2D68@satx.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 15:34:59 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel >and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local >Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have >been submitted to the local unit before with no action >resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. > >How much must a director take before he can/should act?? >And what can/should he do. I could not permit his >continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair >no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr >old female. > >I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside >I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal >capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training >on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? I understand your feelings. It is unfortunate that we can't deal with these creeps the way we'd like. If we did, then several other club members may wonder just how likely they are to be next, and they'd stop coming. I think you did just fine -- and now that he's barred from the club, maybe the ACBL disciplinary procedure can (finally) get him barred from all games for a while. Good luck. 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 Tue Dec 19 08:38:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBILcid00667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBILcZt00663 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:38:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id eBILdJL19043 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:39:19 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200012182139.eBILdJL19043@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:39:19 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <004101c0692c$e25b84e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> from "Marvin L. French" at Dec 18, 2000 11:58:20 AM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes: > > > From: "Albert W Lochli" > We had an incident tonight. > > > > My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel > > and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local > > Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have > > been submitted to the local unit before with no action > > resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. I'd want to know why no action was taken. I have no idea what the process is, but there *should* be a formal response from the unit. This is a serious matter and deserves to be treated as such. > > How much must a director take before he can/should act?? I can't imagine any director feeling compelled to take anything. I mean that seriously. You can't permit players to ignore your instructions, never mind subject you to abuse. > > And what can/should he do. I may actually have had more experience than most here. I used to work as a touch football referee. Not a game went by when I didn't have to deal with something like this. We used to have to train new officials in how to deal with this. Far too many recreational level players feel they have a license to abuse officials. (One of the more interesting things -- at least in American football is that the amount of abuse an official will take is inversely proportional to the level of the game. The players are foul at the professional level and there you pretty much have to take it.) Try dealing with this away from the game. THe players are agitated enough. Most people can be calmed down simply by making it clear that you are listening to them. Give them a little time to say what they need to say. Then clearly state what the rules have to say on the subject. (By taking this little time you can also get your emotions under control. To be effective here you can't let your emotions control you.) Do not "negotiate" with them. Do not say anything that can be taken as threat (and remember, the person you're dealing with is very much over the edge.), unless you're prepared to back it up. (As an aside, I found that you could generally leave unspoken the specific consequences if you got the tone right. Nobody should be in any doubt that you take the matter very seriously.) > > I could not permit his > > continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair > > no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr > > old female. > > > > I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside > > I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal > > capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training > > on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? > > > Don't do it yourself. Tell me where he lives. I worked for two year with a guy who absolutely would have put this jerk in the hospital. Indeed he kept a baseball bat in his car for just these types of situations. Can't say as I'd suggest it -- as satisfying as this would feel. Even if they decide not to prosecute, it's a pain spending all that time dealing with the cops. Honestly, it feels to me like the part that really went wrong is the Unit not acting. Bullies like this guy can generally be stopped early if at all. > Seriously, steps should be taken to get him barred from all ACBL games for > while, perhaps permanently. Procedures exist for this. Check the ACBL's > Code of Disciplinary Regulations: > > www.acbl.org/tournaments/Recorder/dispregs.htm > Thanks for digging that up. I knew there was a procedure. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 09:37:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIMakb00788 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:36:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIMaat00783 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:36:37 +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 OAA23789; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:36:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200012182236.OAA23789@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:39:19 PST." <200012182139.eBILdJL19043@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:36:30 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > > > > > > From: "Albert W Lochli" > We had an incident tonight. > > > > > > My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel > > > and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local > > > Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have > > > been submitted to the local unit before with no action > > > resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. > > I'd want to know why no action was taken. I have no idea what the > process is, but there *should* be a formal response from the unit. > > This is a serious matter and deserves to be treated as such. I don't know what's going on in this unit, but in District 23 (Los Angeles) we had a problem with a player whose only goal in playing bridge seemed to be to make life intolerable for everyone around him. Practially everyone who played in tournaments regularly was familiar with this character and would like to have seen him gone. From what someone in the know told me, the D23 officials would have loved to ban him from their games, but they couldn't because of lack of written documentation. That is, too few recorder forms were being filed against him. I don't know why---perhaps this was because he had been around for so long that everyone figured there was nothing that could be done or else it would have been done already. Eventually, the ACBL did come up with enough evidence to ban him from all events. (He has since passed away.) But it could be that two formal complaints aren't enough for the unit to deal with a player; maybe (for legal reasons?) they feel they need more written documentation. -- 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 Dec 19 09:45:02 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIMiqF00812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:44:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBIMikt00808 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:44:47 +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 RAA02687 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18912 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:44:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012182244.RAA18912@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > But it could be that two formal complaints aren't enough for the unit > to deal with a player; maybe (for legal reasons?) they feel they need > more written documentation. I don't get that. One formal complaint should be enough to hold a hearing. Of course it would be necessary to have enough witnesses or other evidence to establish that the facts were as reported in the complaint before you could convict. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 09:56:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBIMu4T00829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:56:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBIMtwt00825 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:55:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA08350 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:55:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:55 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system 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: <3A3DF482.1D2C6AEA@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > > > > In-Reply-To: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> > > HdW wrote: > > > > > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > > > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > > > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > > > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. > > > > IMO this would depart heavily from custom and practice. CCs labelled > > 12-14, or 15-17 are completely the norm for players who occasionally > > open good 11/14 counts respectively. Only if we are willing to rule > > all such CCs incorrect (I doubt it) can we complain if a CC is > > labelled 10-12 and occasionally opened on a good 9. > > > > Don't pretend you don't understand what I mean, Tim. I wasn't pretending. I agree with you that all the examples you cite come under the ACBL regulation. I disagreed that the CC could be described as "misfilled" - I don't even consider it "minor mislabelling". I think the ACBL restriction is "wrong", and certainly a breach of the intent of the laws but I agree US TDs have no option but to follow it. FWIW if I find myself playing under their auspices I will adopt an 8-10S&J NT with 2C/2D non-forcing and 3C/D forcing all showing minimum of 3 card suits. No Blackwood and cue-bids for A/K only (not voids). Natural by their definitions and far more destructive than 10-12. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 10:22:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBINMW000873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBINMQt00869 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA16502 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:16:23 -0900 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:22:17 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club In-Reply-To: <200012182244.RAA18912@cfa183.harvard.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Steve Willner wrote: > > To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > But it could be that two formal complaints aren't enough for the unit > > to deal with a player; maybe (for legal reasons?) they feel they need > > more written documentation. > > I don't get that. One formal complaint should be enough to hold a > hearing. Of course it would be necessary to have enough witnesses or > other evidence to establish that the facts were as reported in the > complaint before you could convict. > -- I don't know if it works the same way throughout the ACBL or not... in my area, any one serious incident, widely witnessed or causing harm to many, will bring on a CD&E hearing at the level matching the event where it occured. However: There isn't much communication between various levels of the game here. Unless someone actually gets their membership yanked, the district will never hear about unit-level sanctions, and the player will still be allowed in regionals, and vice-versa. Also, it is much more difficult to deal with a pattern of repeated lesser boorishness than one big blowup. As the policy now stands, my district's CD&E committee isn't notified that it should open an investigation unless the recorder receives 3 memoes on the same player in less than a year. And even when a player comes to me and makes a verbal complaint and I hand them the form saying "please put that in writing for me" less than 10% of them will! In other words, I can attend every regional in my district and terribly offend one pair every session I play, and there is a good chance that it'll be several years before I am unlucky enough to be called on the carpet over it. Note again that a report given to the recorder at one level tends not to be passed on to other levels. No amount of urging gets people to file these written complaints, either -- it is like persuading people to call a director when they are annoyed with their opponents' attitude only ten times worse! GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 10:49:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBINn0u00902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:49:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBINmst00898 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:48:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA17887 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:42:53 -0900 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:48:48 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Tim West-meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> > HdW wrote: > > > Opening a 9HCP hand with 1NT, when your convention card > > shows 10-12 simply means that you have misfilled your CC, it > > should have said 9-12 or 9.8-12 or 10--12 (ten minus). All > > these methods fall under the ACBL regulation. > > IMO this would depart heavily from custom and practice. CCs labelled > 12-14, or 15-17 are completely the norm for players who occasionally open > good 11/14 counts respectively. Only if we are willing to rule all such > CCs incorrect (I doubt it) can we complain if a CC is labelled 10-12 and > occasionally opened on a good 9. I guess it depends on what you mean by "occasionally". If you open, say 10% of your balanced 14s 1NT, or if you frequently raise only to 2NT with ugly 10-counts, yes, your "15-17" CC is unquestionably incorrect. If I got two "but he only had 14!" comments about the same player in the same month, say, I would almost surely adjust if counting points made someone take a 2-way finesse the wrong way the second time. You are right that we do need to take almost as hard a line on the 15-17 people as the 10-12 people. In both cases it is awfully easy to widen the range by half a point both directions "because we like to open 1NT" without admitting it on the CC and we need to stop this. To my mind, "I open 14-counts that I think are really worth 15" is exactly what "14+ to 17" is for; if you say "15 to 17" it should be very rare indeed that you open 14s or 18s with 1NT. None of this is to say I like the current way weak notrumps are regulated or that I think HCPs are a perfect method of hand evaluation. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 14:27:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJ3PVe01195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:25:31 +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 eBJ3POt01191 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:25:24 +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 148DOv-000PCe-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:25:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:43:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012152020.PAA13949@cfa183.harvard.edu> <02c801c0678b$50c6e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <003d01c0692c$1de50640$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <003d01c0692c$1de50640$932fd2cc@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 >David Stevenson wrote: >> Hang on. Someone gets the MI corrected, and now knows correctly what >> the bid means. If they then guess incorrectly what to change their call >> to why should they get redress for it? >If the wrong guess is based on a call that partner would not have made >absent the UI, it seems to me redress might be in order. Not a likely >scenario. Are my posts not getting through here? Of course I agree with that, and have said so twice in this thread within the last week. That is why I said as one of my premises "now knows correctly ...". If they do not know because the earlier bid is because of MI then of course they get redress. -- 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 Dec 19 14:46:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJ3iOX01238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:44:24 +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-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 eBJ3iFt01230 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:44:16 +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 148Dh7-0003KT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: <6DxPhzBlZtP6Ewe2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:30:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club References: <200012182244.RAA18912@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 Gordon Bower writes >I don't know if it works the same way throughout the ACBL or not... in my >area, any one serious incident, widely witnessed or causing harm to many, >will bring on a CD&E hearing at the level matching the event where it >occured. However: > >There isn't much communication between various levels of the game here. >Unless someone actually gets their membership yanked, the district will >never hear about unit-level sanctions, and the player will still be >allowed in regionals, and vice-versa. > >Also, it is much more difficult to deal with a pattern of repeated lesser >boorishness than one big blowup. As the policy now stands, my district's >CD&E committee isn't notified that it should open an investigation unless >the recorder receives 3 memoes on the same player in less than a year. And >even when a player comes to me and makes a verbal complaint and I hand >them the form saying "please put that in writing for me" less than 10% of >them will! In other words, I can attend every regional in my district and >terribly offend one pair every session I play, and there is a good chance >that it'll be several years before I am unlucky enough to be called on the >carpet over it. > >Note again that a report given to the recorder at one level tends not to >be passed on to other levels. No amount of urging gets people to file >these written complaints, either -- it is like persuading people to call a >director when they are annoyed with their opponents' attitude only ten >times worse! At least you have a recorder system. In Wales, for example, we hear of a lot of small-ish complaints, but are only empowered to deal with very big complaints. We tried to introduce a recorder but the WBU Executive would not hear of it. I had dealing with the recorder when I was directing in Surfer's Paradise, in Queensland, Oz, and it seemed a very helpful adjunct. -- 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 Dec 19 14:46:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJ3iL001237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:44:22 +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-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 eBJ3iEt01229 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:44:15 +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 148Dh7-0003KU-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:44:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:38:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] IBLF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The International Bridge Laws Forum can be found at http://pub23.bravenet.com/forum/show.asp?usernum=1941011432 or perhaps it is easier to go to http://blakjak.com/rulings.htm and press the Forum button. You will find several queries from Jos Miguel Martinez and perhaps it would be nice if he got some non-argumentative answers. It is not a forum for arguing about the Laws - that is here! Thanks to Ed Reppert for providing some answers. Incidentally, if anyone here just wants answers to a problem rather than a discussion, please consider the Forum. -- 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 Dec 19 17:18:14 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJ6EfP01474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:14:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ppp-172.erielink.com (ppp-172.erielink.com [216.190.230.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJ6EWt01470 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:14:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (moorebj@localhost) by ppp-172.erielink.com (8.9.1/8.8.7) with ESMTP id BAA11630 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:12:55 -0500 Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 01:12:55 -0500 (EST) From: "Bruce J. Moore" Reply-To: Bruce Moore To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Greetings, For the current thread, I believe that declaring a 10-12 NT means that a 1NT opening will have the "strength" of a 10-12 HCP hand. This means that most hands within the range will qualify; some 10's will be too weak, some 12's will be too strong. Further, some 9's will be strong enough and some 13's will be weak enough. We should be suspicious of CPUs when responder starts passing random 15 counts. Wrt the search for Meckstroth's infamous article, I can narrow the search a bit farther :-}. Unfortunately, I have since purged the issue itself for reasons of space :-(. From my post to BLML on 5 Dec 1999: Hmm... "Damning". I couldn't remember the exact words Meckstroth used, so I looked them up. It's August 1995 issue of Bulletin, p.13 for anyone who wants to read the whole thing. It's in a column called "Ethics at the Bridge Table". Even the title suggests deviations are unethical! A few snips: "ACBL has a rule that a 1NT opening must contain at least 10 high-car(sic) points or the user may not play any conventions (Stayman, Gerber, etc.) in conjunction with it. A 1NT opening of fewer than 10 HCP is deemed to be destructive. (I {this is JM talking --bjm} must agree!) So is it okay to open 1NT with a great 9-point hand that is worth 10? No. It's certainly okay to open a 15-17 NT with 14; why not here? "Borrowing" a point to open a strong 1 NT is not destructive in any way, but the mini-notrump is a destructive device. Its best results occur when the opponents own the hand and miss their game or slam. That is the reason for the rigid line drawn at 10 HCP". Meckstroth continues by stating that a pair that uses judgement twice to open a 9 point hand 1NT will no longer be allowed to play conventions over their NT! He advises players that encounter 9 HCP 1NT openings to call the director and to file a recorder memo! In response to several letters he continues to say how different 9 HCP hands are from 10 HCP hands in the November issue. He opines that a 9 HCP 1NT opening is destructive, but a 10 HCP 1NT opening is not. All this sounds pretty "damning" to me, especially the recorder memos. It's a pretty clear implication that folks who open 9 point hands with a 10-12 1NT are cheating or are suspected of cheating. In reality, they may just be exercising bridge judgment to treat some good 9 point hands and some bad 13 point hands as worth 10-12. For the record, I believe the article to be utter hogwash. It smells of bad politics -- perhaps pressure was applied for Jeff to write it. It might be instructive to know when the ACBL prohibited conventional responses to 9-12 NT openings. I suspect this event occurred after Don Oakie's 1978 article. Marvin? I believe that regulations such as these should use terms similar to those used in the FLB (e.g., "a king or more below average strength"). That would allow the ACBL to regulate such things without prohibiting players from using a different hand evaluation method or their own judgement. Bruce Brian Meadows wrote: : On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 23:36:21 -0800, Marv French wrote: :> :>If a pair's range for a 1NT opening is shown on the CC as 10-12 HCP, :>and their 1NT openings are within that range nearly all the time, or :>frequently enough that a partner would not allow for a 1NT bid :>outside that range, then opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT can be :>considered a matter of judgment, not a matter of partnership :>agreement. I don't see that such a departure can legally be :>regulated, going by L40E. :> :>L40E: The SO may prescribe a convention card...and may establish :>regulations for its use,..(such a regulation must not restrict style :>and judgment, only method). :> :>People say this opinion has been contradicted somewhere, but I can't :>find anything official in print, and am still looking for it. Was it :>"Meckwell"? Rodwell is on the ACBL LC, Meckstroth sits in on C&C :>meetings but is not a member. Neither can speak for the Board of :>Directors, the sole authority for issuing ACBL regulations. :> : I can narrow the search a bit for you, Marv. Before I moved permanently to the : USA, my wife-to-be sent me a copy of Meckstroth's article in the ACBL Bulletin : (or whatever the house mag is called, she's no longer a member). The article was : solely under Meckstroth's name, no mention of Rodwell whatsoever. : In the article, Meckstroth basically put the view that, while it was perfectly : reasonable to open most bids on lighter hands than your advertised range if you : had compensating shape / fillers / whatever, a 10-12 1NT opener was in some way : excluded from this because it was especially devastating to opps for some : reason, and you were therefore not allowed to open a 1NT advertised as 10-12 HCP : with a 9 HCP hand, no matter how good the fillers were. : I was totally amazed by this, and asked Pat to scan the next few mags. for a : "clarification" by someone, but she told me it never appeared. : Yes, I know that an article in the ACBL mag doesn't have the effect of a : pronouncement from the relevant committee, but as I recall saying to Pat at the : time, when a player of Meckstroth's calibre writes an article like that in the : official magazine, and it isn't contradicted in the next issue or two, people : ARE going to start believing that it IS a correct account of the rules. : I clearly remember Pat sending me the article, and that I was living in the UK : at the time, so I can definitely tie it down to between August 1995 and April : 1997. My guess is that you should start your search in the middle of that : period, and work outwards. : Now, please note I'm not saying that this is the only source of this : information. It may well have been published elsewhere. All I know for sure is : that it WAS published in the ACBL house mag, and I'm confident that Pat is a : careful enough reader that when I explicitly asked her to look for a correction, : and she couldn't find one, that there wasn't one published, at least in the next : couple of issues. : Maybe it produced some comment on rec.games.bridge? You might save yourself some : work by going to www.deja.com, and looking up Meckstroth's name - wade through : the many requests for sources of their system notes, and you might find a more : accurate reference to the article. : 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/ Bruce Moore Mentor on the Lake, OH Bruce.Moore@NOSPAM.akamail.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 Dec 19 20:58:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJ9u4o01790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:56:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJ9tvt01786 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:55:57 +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 KAA27439; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:51:36 +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 KAA07279; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:55:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001219110726.00801320@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:07:26 +0100 To: biigal@satx.rr.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club In-Reply-To: <3A3D8B1A.6C3A2D68@satx.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:57 17/12/00 -0600, you wrote: > >We had an incident tonight. > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > Pass 3Diam - all pass >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 >Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be >rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score >of whatever 2H would make. There has been a long and interesting thread about this one, but we omitted an aspect of the case : the TD's decision was wrong. Unless the 1NTer is a notorious underbidder, I can't imagine him passing on the 2nd round, at matchpoints. I would, as an AC member, decide that Pass is not a LA with that hand ; 2S or a TOX (if such exists in the system) is about automatic. (I would not even dream of bidding 1NT with this hand ; doubling and than bidding diamonds over clubs seems obvious) (and when I don't bid 1NT, nobody should) Does anybody agree ? Of course, given the constraints (playing TD), the temporary decision was right. Well, may be ill-mannered man was merely stating that the decision was unduly favourable to his side. PBNFL. 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 Dec 19 21:04:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJA2wF01811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:02:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJA2pt01807 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:02:52 +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 KAA23209 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:02:38 GMT Message-ID: <3A3F328A.8916E535@meteo.fr> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:03:54 +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] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> <3A3B93EB.2C697C04@meteo.fr> <3A3CA146.EE322BCF@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael a écrit : > > Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > > > > > If you want to talk about quantification, i think it's a little more > > intricated than you say. > > When you give HCP ranges in the form of 10-12, 13-16 ... , you are using > > a discrete ladder which is only a rough approximation of a sound > > evaluation function which should use a continuous ladder, and might > > allow you to quantify your judgement when it tells you some hand is > > slightly stronger than another one. When you pretend to use the ranges > > 7-9, 10-12 and 13-15, it is in fact an over-simplifaction to write down > > the reality which is that the ranges (perforce touching intervals) are > > 7.5-9.5, 9.5-12.5, 12.5-15.5. This is why a regulation founded upon an > > imperfect discrete ladder, with "no man's lands" between integer > > numbers, leads to the paradoxes you are struggling with. > > > > No it doesn't. > > You are allowed (well, in this example from the ACBL) to > play 15-17, 14-16, 11-13, and 10.5-12.5. You are also > allowed to play 10.2-12.2, and even 10-12. You are not > allowed to play 9.8-11.8. The misunderstanding is about the mean to describe a range: when someone writes 9.8-11.8, everybody understands 9.8-11.8 (a hand you evaluate 11.7 is within the interval, a hand evaluated 11.9 is outside); when someone writes 10-12, everybody (nearly?) understands 9.5-12.5 (a hand evaluated to 11.9 is within the interval, but a 12.1 hand is also within the interval, and the bottom limit of next higher interval is "described" as 13 and not 12). Ask a panel for the strength of different hands and i think you will come to the conclusion that some hands belonging to the 10-12 range are too weak to belong to the 9.8-11.8 range. JP Rocafort > > A limit was set, and that limit can be as draconian as the > SO wants. > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE 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 Tue Dec 19 21:24:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJAN1R01844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:23:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJAMst01840 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:22:55 +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 eBJAMjs24408 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:46 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id eBJAMjq21387 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:45 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:44 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 KAA04978 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:43 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA08661 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:43 GMT Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 10:22:43 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200012191022.KAA08661@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > >No it doesn't. > > > >You are allowed (well, in this example from the ACBL) to > >play 15-17, 14-16, 11-13, and 10.5-12.5. You are also > >allowed to play 10.2-12.2, and even 10-12. You are not > >allowed to play 9.8-11.8. > > > >A limit was set, and that limit can be as draconian as the > >SO wants. > > That's a change - previously you said that the limit *had* to be > draconian - you gave the SO no right whatever to apply their judgement. > > You have said that the EBU view [slightly re-inforced by the Laws of > bridge] is not acceptable because if it is not draconian life is too > hard for Directors. > I'll rephrase a question from an earlier post: Is it permitted at EBU level 3 to agree to open 1NT on Q32 J32 Q32 J432 ? a 10HCP which is <10HCP-S&J. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 21:26:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJAP0901858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:25:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hera.frw.uva.nl (HERA.frw.uva.nl [145.18.122.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJAOrt01854 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:24:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-124.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.124]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id LAA24406 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:24:48 +0100 (MET) X-Organisation: Faculty of Environmental Sciences University of Amsterdam Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130 NL-1018 VZ Amsterdam X-Phone: +31 20 525 5820 X-Fax: +31 20 525 5822 From: "J.P.Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:23:59 +0100 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 V5.00.3018.1300 In-Reply-To: <6DxPhzBlZtP6Ewe2@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > At least you have a recorder system. In Wales, for example, we hear > of a lot of small-ish complaints, but are only empowered to deal with > very big complaints. We tried to introduce a recorder but the WBU > Executive would not hear of it. In the Dutch Bridge League there is a Straf- en Tucht Commissie (translated literally: Committee for Penalty and Discipline) which takes complaints from directors and individual players about bad behaviour very seriously. Strictly regulated of course, perpetrators will be heard and all that, but it works well. JP -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 22:16:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJBEtE01989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow028o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJBEmt01984 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([213.48.141.97]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:15:51 +0000 Message-ID: <011401c069ab$d88087c0$618d30d5@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Norman Scorbie" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:07:15 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club > > > > >From: Albert W Lochli > >Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com > >To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" > >Subject: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club > >Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 21:57:14 -0600 > > > > > >We had an incident tonight. > > > >Fourth round of nine. > >It started with a call for the director where the auction had > >gone: > > > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) > >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. > >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > > Pass 3Diam - all pass > >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > > > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) > >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 > >Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be > >rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score > >of whatever 2H would make. (I was a playing director and would > >play that board - and hand - later.) Settled, right no problem. > > > >Well not really. The non-offending party continued to harangue > >his opponent that had bid the 3 Diamonds. I returned to calm and > >restore order. I advised the parties that that hand was over and > >that they should let it lie. No soap!! The man whom had just > >been awarded a next to top would not cease and insisted that > >he would continue baiting his opponent. > > "Stop! Desist. Let it lie." > > "You cannot tell me to stop" > >Okay - a quarter board PP. (zero-tolerance and the laws). > > > >Explosion -- cards slammed down and a rush to the exit. > >Then he returned and from the entry a loud shouting fit, > >cussing and terrorizing all the players present. Basically > >"You can't tell me to shut up" (Shut-up was a term NOT used by > >me). > >Personal threats toward the director (and one other player). > >Disqualification and ejection under Law 91a. > > > >Now he demands his entry fee back. Should he get it?? > >I denied it - the club owner overruled me and card fee was > >returned. [Later that evening I am told the club owner > >dispatched the formal letter barring that player from > >the club. It was a second or third like incident.] > > > >My question: How far do you go to pacify and retain a cruel > >and notorious intimidator? He has been terrorizing the local > >Bridge community for some time. Twice formal complaints have > >been submitted to the local unit before with no action > >resulting. This time at least one club is barring him. > > > >How much must a director take before he can/should act?? > >And what can/should he do. I could not permit his > >continued harassment and intimidation of the other pair > >no matter how wrong they were. The hesitator was a 79yr > >old female. > > > >I maintained my cool, never raised my voice, but inside > >I wanted to clobber him good -- well within my personal > >capabilities. I have weight, reach, condition and training > >on him. Can't I sucker punch him just once? Break one arm? > > > >Al Lochli > >-- > The mere suggestion of physical violence is an abhorrence in a civilized > society, and anathema to those who believe that what separates us from the > monkeys is our ability to rationalize and compromise without recourse to > brawling and savagery. > > Imagine the horror with which the members of your club would have reacted > had you stooped to paste one on him. They would have petitioned the owner > and shortly you would have found yourself the pariah. > > Once you take this into consideration your course of action becomes > perfectly clear. > > Get him in the car park. What the eye doesn't see... > _ Yep I see now that all that time at Tournament Director training where we sit round discussing hands is a real waste of time - we should be out on the assault course (sic :)) toning our physical fitness and getting lessons in karate and kung fu ___ mike _____________________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 19 22:16:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJBExs01993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow028o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.124]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJBEmt01985 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([213.48.141.97]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:15:53 +0000 Message-ID: <011501c069ab$db7b7840$618d30d5@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: "Jesper Dybdal" Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:40:14 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesper Dybdal" To: "Bridge Laws List" megasnip > > Of course, the only sensible long-term solution is to change both > laws so that the revoke is established and not corrected. The > L64 penalty is designed for a revoke that has not been > established, and trying to use it for a corrected revoke only > leads to problems. > Come on Jesper get real since when is a "sensible long-term solution" going to be listened to by the law-makers (oops sorry Grattan and other law-makers) L63B and L43B2b and all this stuff is so patently absurd that even the hours you have spent trying to clarify the current situation still give me a headache - what on earth can the average player make of all this nonsense When a defender's partner draws attention to a revoke - the best plan is for that defender to immediately drop any offending cards onto the floor, deny vehemently that a revoke is occurred and subsequently "discover" his or her loss about three tricks later. This makes it easy for the TD. Perhaps the lawmakers can add a clause to this effect next time mike Ps I think the Hideous Hog in one story (on a cruise liner?) ordered a sandwich and ate a card he wanted to dispose of - probably even more efficient than dropping on the floor > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 00:02:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJD0tF02226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:56 +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 eBJD0pt02222 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot23.domain2.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id qa407124 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:56:48 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-001-p-211-104.tmns.net.au ([203.54.211.104]) by mail2.bigpond.com (Claudes-Cool-MailRouter V2.9c 3/4312473); 19 Dec 2000 22:56:47 Message-ID: <005e01c069ba$d9623760$68d336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:54:39 +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: >Big Al Lochli wrote: >> 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) >>Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. >>(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: >> Pass 3Diam - all pass >>3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. >> >>An objection was made and the offending hand (that called >>3Diam) inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 > >>Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be >>rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score >>of whatever 2H would make. > >There has been a long and interesting thread about this one, but >we omitted an aspect of the case : the TD's decision was wrong. No. It may have been wrong in your opinion, but I for one agree with the ruling. Peter Gill. Alain wrote: >Unless the 1NTer is a notorious underbidder, I can't imagine >him passing on the 2nd round, at matchpoints. I would, as an >AC member, decide that Pass is not a LA with that hand ; >2S or a TOX (if such exists in the system) is about automatic. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 00:02:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJD0O402219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:24 +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 eBJD0Gt02211 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:17 +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 148MNC-00032w-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:00:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:42:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club References: <6DxPhzBlZtP6Ewe2@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 J.P.Pals writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> At least you have a recorder system. In Wales, for >example, we hear >> of a lot of small-ish complaints, but are only empowered >to deal with >> very big complaints. We tried to introduce a recorder but >the WBU >> Executive would not hear of it. > >In the Dutch Bridge League there is a Straf- en Tucht >Commissie (translated literally: Committee for Penalty and >Discipline) which takes complaints from directors and >individual players about bad behaviour very seriously. >Strictly regulated of course, perpetrators will be heard and >all that, but it works well. But does it deal with minor complaints? Our Laws & Ethics Committees in England and Wales work well - on serious complaints. For example, if someone feels that player A is a little too rude when talking to his partner, is there a way of making a minor complaint, primarily only to be looked at if there are a few such complaints? That is where a recorder is good and our system is 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 Wed Dec 20 00:02:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJD0R202220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJD0Jt02213 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:00:20 +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 148MND-00032t-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:00:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:39:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <200012191022.KAA08661@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200012191022.KAA08661@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Robin Barker writes >> >No it doesn't. >> > >> >You are allowed (well, in this example from the ACBL) to >> >play 15-17, 14-16, 11-13, and 10.5-12.5. You are also >> >allowed to play 10.2-12.2, and even 10-12. You are not >> >allowed to play 9.8-11.8. >> > >> >A limit was set, and that limit can be as draconian as the >> >SO wants. >> That's a change - previously you said that the limit *had* to be >> draconian - you gave the SO no right whatever to apply their judgement. >> >> You have said that the EBU view [slightly re-inforced by the Laws of >> bridge] is not acceptable because if it is not draconian life is too >> hard for Directors. >I'll rephrase a question from an earlier post: > >Is it permitted at EBU level 3 to agree to open 1NT on Q32 J32 Q32 J432 ? >a 10HCP which is <10HCP-S&J. If you are asking me, and assuming you actually mean QJ2 QJ2 QJ2 J432, then it is permitted. Some players' judgement, generally the weaker ones, is to treat HCP as though the rules for counting points were on the tablets of stone that Moses brought down. The fact that I would not open it [not even at Level 4, where I play 9-12!] does not matter. If you are actually asking about Q32 J32 Q32 J432 then I shall bite: you may not open it by agreement. So? None of this alters the fact that the TD can ask a few sensible questions and rule based on the answers. If you ask someone why they open this hand, playing 10-12, and they look at you as though you are stupid, and say blankly "But it has ten points" then they are playing 10-12, and this hand is covered by their style & judgement. -- 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 Dec 20 00:24:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJDMsO02281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:22:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tbd.uunet.be (root@tbd.uunet.be [194.7.1.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJDMlt02277 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:22:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-31.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.31]) by tbd.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id OAA05479 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:22:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A3F4D47.9C6ECA0@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:57:59 +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] Permitted system References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3A3A2067.CC37F8A9@village.uunet.be> <3A3B93EB.2C697C04@meteo.fr> <3A3CA146.EE322BCF@village.uunet.be> <$age3bAgGkP6Ewvc@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: > > > You have said that the EBU view [slightly re-inforced by the Laws of > bridge] is not acceptable because if it is not draconian life is too > hard for Directors. > > I think it is time you adjusted your mindset. > > Do SOs have rights in this matter or do they have to do what HDW says? > SOs have rights, yes. If the EBU has decided that the limit is 10HCP+S&J, then that is the limit in England. The ACBL has decided (or seems to have) that the limit is 10HCP. That is the limit in America. As a personal opinion, and only as such, I prefer the American approach. Whenever a SO has not decided if the EBU or the ACBL approach is valid in their jurisdiction, I believe that the ACBL approach is the more literal one, so the default one. I am suggesting to SOs to decide which approach they want. As a TD, I tell them which I prefer. Does that explain my mindset ? If I was, at the start of this thread, saying that the ACBL approach is the only correct one, it was before I knew that at least one SO had decided that it used a different approach. How many other SOs have tackled this problem ? -- Best wishes for the New Millennium !! 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 Dec 20 01:10:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJE7j602338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:07:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJE7ct02334 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:07:39 +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 PAA13058; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:03:18 +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 PAA12283; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:07:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001219151909.00806e60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:19:09 +0100 To: "mike amos" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club In-Reply-To: <011401c069ab$d88087c0$618d30d5@mikeamos> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:07 19/12/00 -0000, you wrote: > >Yep I see now that all that time at Tournament Director training where we >sit round discussing hands is a real waste of time - we should be out on the >assault course (sic :)) toning our physical fitness and getting lessons in >karate and kung fu ___ >mike AG : I remember an old trick. Tread on his toes. It remains undetected by third parties, it goes a long way in convincing people to calm (and if they don't, well, it won't go any louder), and the accompanying look may carry more meaning. Ah, yes, I forgot to tell : I weigh about 16 stones. 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 Dec 20 03:32:05 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJGTnG02612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:29:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJGTht02608 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:29:44 +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 LAA00139 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA24726 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:29:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:29:38 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012191629.LAA24726@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) > >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. > >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > > Pass 3Diam - all pass > >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > > > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) > >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 > From: alain gottcheiner > Unless the 1NTer is a notorious underbidder, I can't imagine him passing on > the 2nd round, at matchpoints. Your bridge judgment certainly differs from mine. Remember, too, that this was in the ACBL, which has a very severe definition of LA. I don't think the ruling is close: pass is certainly a LA in the ACBL. I think it would be a close question in most of the world, where a "25-30% rule" prevails. The ACBL rule is closer to 5%, although it isn't stated in percentage terms. I think I'd vote that pass is a LA even under the "RoW" standard, but I'd want to hear from the players and discuss the matter with the rest of the AC. I don't see how a TD who ruled either way could be said to be wrong, and I'm sure we'd give back the deposit no matter which way the final ruling went. In the ACBL, the TD's ruling seems automatic, and I'd consider an appeal to be frivolous. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 03:47:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJGjm602651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:45:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f71.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.71]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJGjht02647 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:45:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:45:35 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:45:35 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 08:45:35 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Dec 2000 16:45:35.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[1BF836E0:01C069DB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > But does it deal with minor complaints? Our Laws & Ethics Committees >in England and Wales work well - on serious complaints. > > For example, if someone feels that player A is a little too rude when >talking to his partner, is there a way of making a minor complaint, >primarily only to be looked at if there are a few such complaints? That >is where a recorder is good and our system is not. Where do the following sit? New opponents playing duplicate for the first time in some years. There's some strange auction. Would-be dummy asks, before laying down his hand, what some call in the auction means. Would-be declarer says, "You can't ask that." Would-be dummy continues to question the opponents until the director is called? "You're the sort of player I wouldn't have played with a year ago." Player gets a pick-up partner for a game and criticizes her playing to the point that she breaks down and cries during a hand. This is all the same player and nothing has been done yet. Player often shows up drunk and believes quite incorrectly that he's the ladies' man. The unit is finally doing something, but the rumor mill hasn't said what yet. A player suffers from Tourette's. (I could care less about this one, but it noticeably disturbs others.) -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Wed Dec 20 04:29:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJHRuk02714 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:27:56 +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 eBJHRot02710 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:27:50 +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 JAA09661; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:27:42 -0800 Message-Id: <200012191727.JAA09661@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:07:26 PST." <3.0.6.32.20001219110726.00801320@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 09:27:42 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > >We had an incident tonight. > > > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) > >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. > >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > > Pass 3Diam - all pass > >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > > > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) > >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 > > >Although borderline I made the ruling that the bid would be > >rolled back and that the non-offending side be given the score > >of whatever 2H would make. > > There has been a long and interesting thread about this one, but we omitted > an aspect of the case : the TD's decision was wrong. > Unless the 1NTer is a notorious underbidder, I can't imagine him passing on > the 2nd round, at matchpoints. > > I would, as an AC member, decide that Pass is not a LA with that hand ; 2S > or a TOX (if such exists in the system) is about automatic. (I would not > even dream of bidding 1NT with this hand ; doubling and than bidding > diamonds over clubs seems obvious) (and when I don't bid 1NT, nobody should) > Does anybody agree ? I agree that this is not a good 1NT overcall. I'd double 1H. I do not agree that pass is not an LA. Once you've decided to bid 1NT, I'm not sure that you can take back your 1NT and say "I really had a takeout double". You've lost a level of bidding, and partner has already heard about your approximate strength and shape and hasn't done anything interesting. Pass is certainly an option, although not the only option. -- 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 Dec 20 04:32:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJHUlA02731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:30:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJHUet02727 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.5.35]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001219173033.THNT10171.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:30:33 +0000 Message-ID: <002101c069e1$9ac47be0$2305ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <200012191629.LAA24726@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:32:02 -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: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 4:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club > > > 1 H 1NT 2H Pass (after long hesitation) > > >Here the director was called; parties where told to continue. > > >(Both parties included sometimes club directors). It continued: > > > Pass 3Diam - all pass > > >3Diam made 4 plus 130 and the director was called back again. > > > > > >An objection was made and the offending hand (that called 3Diam) > > >inspected. It was: S:KQJ7 H:K7 D:AQ986 C:Q9 > > > From: alain gottcheiner > > Unless the 1NTer is a notorious underbidder, I can't imagine him passing on > > the 2nd round, at matchpoints. > > Your bridge judgment certainly differs from mine. Remember, too, that > this was in the ACBL, which has a very severe definition of LA. I > don't think the ruling is close: pass is certainly a LA in the ACBL. I > think it would be a close question in most of the world, where a > "25-30% rule" prevails. The ACBL rule is closer to 5%, although it > isn't stated in percentage terms. > > I think I'd vote that pass is a LA even under the "RoW" standard, but > I'd want to hear from the players and discuss the matter with the rest > of the AC. I don't see how a TD who ruled either way could be said to > be wrong, and I'm sure we'd give back the deposit no matter which way > the final ruling went. > > In the ACBL, the TD's ruling seems automatic, and I'd consider an > appeal to be frivolous. > errr! I thought that was one of the few good reasons for keeping the deposit :-) Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 04:33:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJHViq02737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:31:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJHVct02733 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:31:38 +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 MAA04735 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:31:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA24835 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:31:33 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:31:33 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012191731.MAA24835@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Todd Zimnoch" > A player suffers from Tourette's. (I could care less about this one, > but it noticeably disturbs others.) If you are in the US, and if your club can be considered a "public accommodation," the Americans with Disabilities Act may have something to say about this one. The law is still fairly new, and I doubt the exact requirements are settled, but you probably don't want to be the test case. My advice would be to try to work something out on a friendly basis. Tell the player that he isn't doing anything wrong, but bridge is a game of concentration, and his actions interrupt others' ability to concentrate (if that's the case). He has probably heard it before and may well have suggestions if approached the right way. You will no doubt also have to educate your other players about Tourette's. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 06:51:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJJnNO02950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:49:24 +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 eBJJnHt02946 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:49:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:46:18 -0800 Message-ID: <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 11:41:04 -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 David Stevenson wrote; > John (MadDog) Probst writes > >Marvin L. French writes > >>Steve Willner wrote: > >> > >>> A self-serving argument -- or any argument, for that matter -- is > >>> different. It's a matter of logic, law, and regulation and can be > >>> evaluated on its merits. Of course it won't surprise any of us to find > >>> that many self-serving arguments turn out to be invalid once they are > >>> examined, but there's no reason to treat self-serving _arguments_ > >>> differently than any other kind of argument. > >> > >>What does your dictionary say, Steve? Your opinion is very logical, but > >>standard usage isn't always logical. I would prefer knowing what your > >>dictionary's opinion is. > > >Concise Oxford: (the standard crossword Dictionary, about 1000 pages) > > > >placing one's own interest before other's > > All right, I give up. A self-serving statement is not a statement > that appears to serve oneself. > > In which case the use of the term self-serving in many cases that it > is used is ill-informed, defamatory, unhelpful and rude, and it is time > we found a new term to refer to a statement which *appears* to serve > oneself. > > Discounting self-serving statements is acceptable, therefore, but many > of the statements labelled self-serving are not. The unfortunate > approach sometimes followed by officials of not taking any notice of > statements that *might be* or that *appear* self-serving is not fair > unless they are convinced that they are. > > So the mess has been exacerbated by faulty labelling. The logic as to > why self-serving statements should have their weight of acceptability > reduced, which was explained very perceptively by someone in the > Bulletin [Ron Gerard?] should have referred to *apparent* self-serving > statements. > "Apparently self-serving" is also pejorative, I believe, but more polite than "self-serving" alone. A more neutral characterization of an argument is "possibly self-serving," which I have often seen in print. Since "self-serving" is not in the OED, it is probably an Americanism. 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 Wed Dec 20 08:18:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJLGEF03104 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:16:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBJLG8t03100 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.21.175] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 148U79-0004RN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:16:20 -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 Marvin wrote: > "Apparently self-serving" is also pejorative, I believe, but more polite > than "self-serving" alone. A more neutral characterization of an argument > is "possibly self-serving," which I have often seen in print. > > Since "self-serving" is not in the OED, it is probably an Americanism. What it is, when used in the context in which we see it on BLML and in appeals committee write-ups, is a catachresis (or, to those of you without access to the OED, an error). "self-serving" is not a phrase commonly used in English, but it means what it says - that is, putting the interests of oneself before the interests of others. It is shorthand for "behaving selfishly" and to that extent, it is indeed a pejorative term. It is used most frequently, I suppose, of politicians who, elected to serve the interests of the people, instead act in their own. It has got nothing to do with an argument of the kind that is here referred to as "self-serving" - that is, an argument put forward to justify an action taken in the presence of extraneous information by stating that the method or the style of the player mandated the action in any case. I can dimly see why this particular error has come about: an argument of the kind that is referred to as self-serving is an argument that has no referent other than the player himself. "Why did you do that?" "Because I, myself, would always do that - it's my system", or "... it's my style". Since there is no objective criterion by which this argument can be judged, it is to an extent self-contained, or self-justifying. What it is not, in any shape, manner or form, is self-serving. But I expect that, as is the way with these things, some eminent bridge jurist used the phrase once by mistake, and some other less eminent one liked the sound of it, so that... Well, the damage has been done now, and it is probably too late to stop the wretched phrase from being misused. But attempts to debate or to justify its use are mere futility. 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 Dec 20 09:33:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJMUuW03219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:30:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBJMUpt03215 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:30:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:27:52 -0800 Message-ID: <00cf01c06a0b$47b1e800$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:29:40 -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 Bruce Moore wrote: > > It might be instructive to know when the ACBL prohibited conventional > responses to 9-12 NT openings. I suspect this event occurred after > Don Oakie's 1978 article. Marvin? > I'm sure you're right, but my records regarding permissible conventions don't go back that far. The regulation (on the General Convention Chart) was modified by the BoD at San Francisco 1996, to cover not only 1NT openings but also 1NT overcalls; to prohibit not only conventional responses but also conventional rebids by opener; and to prohibit "a conventional defense to a conventional defense." That leads me to believe the basic regulation had not been in force very long. I was under the impression that it did not apply to balancing 1NT overcalls, but apparently it does. 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 Dec 20 10:55:24 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBJNr3j03345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:53:03 +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 eBJNqvt03341 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:52:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:49:57 -0800 Message-ID: <011801c06a16$beddb700$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:52:23 -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 From: "Jesper Dybdal" > I have been asked what the precise meaning of L63B is. > > I thought I knew. Then I sought out the approximately 80 > historical BLML messages on the subject, and now I no longer > know. > > In the following, I will quote the available official material > and try to summarize what it might mean. Jesper understandably omits some material issued by the ACBL LC, perhaps not considering it "official." >From the ACBL LC minutes, Orlando, 1998, which address the WBFLC interpretations coming from Lille: "In regard to Law 43B2b, the ACBL maintains that the number of tricks awarded shall be determined by what would have occurred had play proceeded normally." Sounds like an "equity" policy that Grattan would like, but I'm not sure just what it means. Does anyone know? 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 Dec 20 11:12:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK0ADv03380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:10:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f142.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.142]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK0A2t03376 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:09:51 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:09:50 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:09:50 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 00:09:51.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C1934F0:01C06A19] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Marvin wrote: > > "Apparently self-serving" is also pejorative, I believe, but more >polite > > than "self-serving" alone. A more neutral characterization of an >argument > > is "possibly self-serving," which I have often seen in print. > > > > Since "self-serving" is not in the OED, it is probably an Americanism. It is in Merriam-Webster, for what that's worth. >What it is, when used in the context in which we see it on BLML and in >appeals committee write-ups, is a catachresis (or, to those of you >without access to the OED, an error). A catachresis is an intentional misuse of a word for its connotation or imagery and not an error. I think "self-serving" is used correctly and its pejorative connotation is just unfortunate. Maybe a phrase with the effect of "not objectively confirmable" would do? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Wed Dec 20 12:19:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK1GPk03481 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK1GFt03477 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (d185fc9e7.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA06939 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:11:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:14:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Todd Zimnoch writes: >A catachresis is an intentional misuse of a word for its connotation >or imagery and not an error. I think "self-serving" is used >correctly and its pejorative connotation is just unfortunate. catachresis, n. misuse or strained use of words, as in a mixed metaphor, occurring either in error or for rhetorical effect. self-serving, adj. 1. preoccupied with one's own interests, often disregarding the truth, or the interests, well-being, etc., of others. 2. serving to further one's own selfish interests. -- _Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary_, Barnes and Noble, 1996. Whatever the actual meaning of "self-serving", its use in connection with bridge is to dismiss any such statement out of hand as not worthy of consideration. I don't think it's fair or legitimate to do that. If a "self-serving" statement (or any other statement, for that matter) is to be dismissed, that should be done only after due consideration of its validity and applicability to the case at hand. the term is thus pointless and should, IMNSHO, be avoided. 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/AwUBOkAIUL2UW3au93vOEQJHoACgjSLUluslv9E9xYsT10MlLfGIvW4An3Ph IzwAduHQIRl0h2hsAh71JuYr =14nE -----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 Dec 20 12:22:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK1KpG03497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:20:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBK1Kit03493 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:20:45 +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 148Xvl-000DkV-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:20:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 19:13:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club 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 writes >>From: David Stevenson >> But does it deal with minor complaints? Our Laws & Ethics Committees >>in England and Wales work well - on serious complaints. >> >> For example, if someone feels that player A is a little too rude when >>talking to his partner, is there a way of making a minor complaint, >>primarily only to be looked at if there are a few such complaints? That >>is where a recorder is good and our system is not. > > Where do the following sit? > > New opponents playing duplicate for the first time in some years. >There's some strange auction. Would-be dummy asks, before laying down his >hand, what some call in the auction means. Would-be declarer says, "You >can't ask that." Would-be dummy continues to question the opponents until >the director is called? > "You're the sort of player I wouldn't have played with a year ago." > Player gets a pick-up partner for a game and criticizes her playing to >the point that she breaks down and cries during a hand. > This is all the same player and nothing has been done yet. Our L&ECs would deal with this if they heard about it - but probably would not hear about it. Mind you, our Directors would deal with each case very firmly. My own view is that this sort of person needs a one-month ban. In many cases, that is all it would take. He probably does not realise that people think he is so annoying. > Player often shows up drunk and believes quite incorrectly that he's >the ladies' man. The unit is finally doing something, but the rumor mill >hasn't said what yet. Similar view: we might suffer from not hearing about it. Again, a one month ban might do wonders. > A player suffers from Tourette's. (I could care less about this one, >but it noticeably disturbs others.) What is Tourette's? -- 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 Dec 20 14:08:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK36dR14095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:06:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK36Gt13950 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:06:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.123] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 148ZZL-000Cf8-00; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:05:31 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c06a31$dc70dde0$7b5408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Paul Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Faulkner Lord" , , "Cathrina Endicott" , "cathie ritchie" , "Barrie Partridge" , "Krzysztof Martens" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Max Bavin" , "Richard Grenside" Cc: "William Schoder" , "Nick Justice" , "Nick Doe" , "Max Bavin" , "Grattan Endicott" , "David Martin" , "David Burn" , "David Stevenson (E-mail)" , "David Stevenson" , "Christine Francin" , "Christina MacEachen" , "Carol VON LINSTOW" , "bridge-laws" , "Anna Gudge" Subject: [BLML] General relief Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:03:57 -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 "That Power, which erring men call Chance." ~ John Milton <==> When I am able to send this dodona is up and running again. I am thinking of changing the service provider (and so the address) for dodona shortly. (Await more news). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 14:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3DCg16428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:13:12 +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-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 eBK3D1t16362 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:13:02 +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 148ZgX-000J7P-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:12:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:45:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? 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 writes > Maybe a phrase with the effect of "not objectively confirmable" would >do? I think we want more than this. After all, what are referred to as "self-serving statements" may turn out to be objectively confirmable: it is that they do not necessarily appear to be at the moment they are said, and they tend to be discounted *unless* supported. We want a term for a statement that is in the player's interest, but that carries no imputation as to whether it is true or verifiable. -- 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 Dec 20 14:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3DDZ16433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:13:13 +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 eBK3D1t16363 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:13:02 +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 148ZgX-000J7O-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:12:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:42:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> In-Reply-To: <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@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 >I can dimly see why this particular error has come about: an argument of >the kind that is referred to as self-serving is an argument that has no >referent other than the player himself. "Why did you do that?" "Because >I, myself, would always do that - it's my system", or "... it's my >style". Since there is no objective criterion by which this argument can >be judged, it is to an extent self-contained, or self-justifying. What >it is not, in any shape, manner or form, is self-serving. But I expect >that, as is the way with these things, some eminent bridge jurist used >the phrase once by mistake, and some other less eminent one liked the >sound of it, so that... Well, the damage has been done now, and it is >probably too late to stop the wretched phrase from being misused. But >attempts to debate or to justify its use are mere futility. The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name for, since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a name for this. -- 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 Dec 20 14:16:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3FBO17120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:15:11 +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 eBK3F6t17087 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:15:06 +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 OAA16433 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:08:28 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:09:29 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:12:05 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 20/12/2000 03:05:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a national championship a number of years ago, I partnered a player who was notorious for intimidating opponents by his frequent director calls. We therefore reached an agreement that I would be solely responsible for our partnership's decisions on whether summoning the TD was justified. Question One: Was our agreement legal? In the penultimate match, our team was performing so poorly that we were drawn to play against a bunny team. One hand an opponent hesitated and the other opponent then bid again. Pard advised the opponents, "You shouldn't do that, you know." I then called for the TD. Pard was momentarily gratified, until I revealed I was asking the TD to correct *partner*, for casting aspersions on the opponents' ethics. Question Two: Should I have left the calling of the TD to the damaged parties, our opponents? As it happened, both opponents expressed surprise at my action, claiming that they had not been insulted. 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 Dec 20 14:17:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3Fj317318 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:15:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r13.mail.aol.com (imo-r13.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.67]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK3Fct17279 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:15:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r13.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id b.8.ddd2520 (3924); Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:24 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <8.ddd2520.27717e10@aol.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:14:24 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8.ddd2520.27717e10_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 292 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_8.ddd2520.27717e10_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The ACBL regulation against sub 10 point NT's was in reaction to John Keiren's (spelling?) "Big Club, Little NT" (subtitled "You Ought to Open an Average Hand" but usually known as "The Kamikaze NT"). This system called for either (fuzzy now) an 8-10 or 8-12 opening NT, and third hand openings were mandatory with less than 8 hcp because the opponents would have a minimum of 25 hcp and the big hand was behind you. The ACBL also, at that time, passed a regulation against mandatory openings on weak hands. I believe this was in the late 80's but I don't have my reference books with me. Walt Flory --part1_8.ddd2520.27717e10_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The ACBL regulation against sub 10 point NT's was in reaction to John
Keiren's (spelling?) "Big Club, Little NT" (subtitled "You Ought to Open an
Average Hand" but usually known as "The Kamikaze NT"). This system called for
either (fuzzy now) an 8-10 or 8-12 opening NT, and third hand openings were
mandatory with less than 8 hcp because the opponents would have a minimum of
25 hcp and the big hand was behind you.

The ACBL also, at that time, passed a regulation against mandatory openings
on weak hands.

I believe this was in the late 80's but I don't have my reference books with
me.

Walt Flory --part1_8.ddd2520.27717e10_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 Dec 20 14:20:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3IvK17660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:18:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:root@nowhere.fragment.com [207.239.226.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK3Ipt17656 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:18:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from nowhere.fragment.com (IDENT:jl8e@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nowhere.fragment.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA27764 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:18:46 -0500 Message-Id: <200012200318.WAA27764@nowhere.fragment.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:29:40 PST." <00cf01c06a0b$47b1e800$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:18:45 -0500 From: Julian Lighton Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <00cf01c06a0b$47b1e800$932fd2cc@san.rr.com>, "Marvin L. French" writ es: >Bruce Moore wrote: >> >> It might be instructive to know when the ACBL prohibited conventional >> responses to 9-12 NT openings. I suspect this event occurred after >> Don Oakie's 1978 article. Marvin? >> >I'm sure you're right, but my records regarding permissible conventions >don't go back that far. I've got records dating back to the introduction of the convention charts. The ban was not in the first version (April 1987), but was in the version from September of that year. -- Julian Lighton jl8e@fragment.com "In the dark I have heard a calling / Broken wings that beg to fly Is there time or is it too late / Is the cut flower no longer alive" -- Savatage -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 14:46:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3iSU21153 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:44:28 +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-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 eBK3iHt21096 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:44:18 +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 148aAm-000OmD-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:43:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: [BLML] Meowmas greetings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk @ Best wishes for a *|* @\|/* MEOWY CHRISTMAS *\**|*@/* *\*@*\|/***/@ PURRY NEW YEAR **\**|**/** *\**@\|/**@/* GROWL NEW CENTURY @\***\**|**/***/* *\@**\|/***/* WONDEROWWWL NEW ***@*\**|**/*@*** MILLENNIUM @********\|/*@******@ _|_ from QUANGO and NANKI POO -- 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 Dec 20 14:46:07 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3iSD21151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:44:28 +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-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 eBK3iHt21095 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:44:18 +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 148aAm-000OmC-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:44:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:40:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Christmas greetings MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk @ Best wishes for a *|* @\|/* MERRY CHRISTMAS *\**|*@/* *\*@*\|/***/@ HAPPY NEW YEAR **\**|**/** *\**@\|/**@/* GREAT NEW CENTURY @\***\**|**/***/* *\@**\|/***/* WONDERFUL NEW ***@*\**|**/*@*** MILLENNIUM @********\|/*@******@ _|_ from DAVID -- 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 Dec 20 14:56:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK3tF724926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:55:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBK3t7t24887 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:55:08 +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 WAA20629 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:50:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:50:39 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I meant this to go to the list in the first place, but somehow it got sent to Jean-Pierre's address - where it bounced. :-( >The misunderstanding is about the mean to describe a range: when >someone writes 9.8-11.8, everybody understands 9.8-11.8 (a hand you >evaluate 11.7 is within the interval, a hand evaluated 11.9 is outside); >when someone writes 10-12, everybody (nearly?) understands 9.5-12.5 (a >hand evaluated to 11.9 is within the interval, but a 12.1 hand is also >within the interval, and the bottom limit of next higher interval is >"described" as 13 and not 12). Perhaps Truscott's notation would be useful here. ?10-12? would be "10-12, but might be 9 or 13." A Precision 1C might then be ?16+ "almost always 16 or more, but might be 15". Of course, if 14 is a possibility you'd probably have to say ??16+. 16+ would be "not less than 16". Cf. _The bidding Dictionary_, page viii. I've also seen (9)10-12 for "normally 10-12, but could occasionally be 9". Of course, if you put ?10-12? on your card in the ACBL, some TDs, at least, will rule you have an illegal agreement, regardless what the regulation says, or what the ACBL policy actually is. :-( Maybe we could avoid that if we make sure the notation is defined such that going in the ? range implies use of style and judgement. Or maybe not. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOkAtmL2UW3au93vOEQKzNQCg1dKuBAjBcN/JXLF4pkYpQfqmgvYAoKFm 4BamrwHON1f7x9qgMcAhWXUW =V4kk -----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 Dec 20 15:27:57 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK4Q3Z05744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:26:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBK4Ptt05712 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:25:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.95]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001220042544.ZAAW23225.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:25:44 +0000 Message-ID: <001701c06a3d$262ce680$5f04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:27:05 -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: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 2:42 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > David Burn writes > > >I can dimly see why this particular error has come about: an argument of > >the kind that is referred to as self-serving is an argument that has no > >referent other than the player himself. "Why did you do that?" "Because > >I, myself, would always do that - it's my system", or "... it's my > >style". Since there is no objective criterion by which this argument can > >be judged, it is to an extent self-contained, or self-justifying. What > >it is not, in any shape, manner or form, is self-serving. But I expect > >that, as is the way with these things, some eminent bridge jurist used > >the phrase once by mistake, and some other less eminent one liked the > >sound of it, so that... Well, the damage has been done now, and it is > >probably too late to stop the wretched phrase from being misused. But > >attempts to debate or to justify its use are mere futility. > > The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name for, > since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if > true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a name > for this. > I would suggest--self serving :-) Anne > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 16:34:21 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK5WAJ08674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:32:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK5W2t08670 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.84.40] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 148bqQ-000Djo-00; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:31:18 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c06a46$3a30b720$285408c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Paul Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Faulkner Lord" , , "cathie ritchie" Cc: "Panos Gerontopoulos" , "Nick Justice" , "Nick Doe" , "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" , "Bill Segraves" , "Barrie Partridge" , "Anna Gudge" Subject: [BLML] Warning : coming address change Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:31:37 -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 "That Power, which erring men call Chance." ~ John Milton <==> +=+ Please ensure all personal messages are sent or copied to the gester address. The Hermes address will shortly change. (blml messages will reach me.) +=+ gester@globalnet.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 Dec 20 16:37:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK5ZkW08945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:35:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBK5Zet08909 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 16:35:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:32:39 -0800 Message-ID: <015501c06a46$9d0b6ac0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:31:46 -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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: "David Burn" > >Marvin wrote: > > > "Apparently self-serving" is also pejorative, I believe, but more > > > polite than "self-serving" alone. A more neutral characterization > > > of an argument is "possibly self-serving," which I have often seen > > > in print. > > > > > > Since "self-serving" is not in the OED, it is probably an Americanism. > > It is in Merriam-Webster, for what that's worth. > > >What it is, when used in the context in which we see it on BLML and in > >appeals committee write-ups, is a catachresis (or, to those of you > >without access to the OED, an error). > > A catachresis is an intentional misuse of a word for its connotation or > imagery and not an error. I think "self-serving" is used correctly and its > pejorative connotation is just unfortunate. If your Merriam Webster gives that as one of the primary meanings, throw it out. H. W. Fowler says catachresis is: "Wrong application of a term, use of words in a sense that do not belong to them." He gives some examples: chronic for severe, alibi for excuse, mutual for common. My Webster's New Collegiate seems to have it right: Rhetoric: Use of one word for another that is the correct, or the preferable, word, as infer for imply. Philology: The use of a word in an improper form through mistake as to its origin. This second sense is typically a result of folk etymology. I don't believe those who misuse words in these ways do it intentionally, although there is a type of catachresis in which a paradoxical combination of words can be intentional (e.g., hungry eyes). That is way down on the list of meanings, not one of the primaries. There is nothing in all this that says "self-serving" is being used correctly by ACs. > > Maybe a phrase with the effect of "not objectively confirmable" would do? > I think "possibly" does the job: possibly biased, possibly self-serving. It conveys a slight amount of skepticism without saying someone's words are actually biased or self-serving. 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 Dec 20 17:45:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK6hex03372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:43:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from oracle.clara.net (oracle.clara.net [195.8.69.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK6hYt03337 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:43:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.8.86.31] (helo=dodona) by oracle.clara.net with smtp (Exim 3.11 #5) id 148cyI-000EEa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:43:30 +0000 Message-ID: <000c01c06a50$5058d1e0$1f5608c3@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "BLML" References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <001701c06a3d$262ce680$5f04ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:41:48 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Truth lies within a little and certain compass, but error is immense." - Bolingbroke. <===> > > > David Burn writes > > > > >I can dimly see why this particular error has come about: > +=+ 'self-serving' : (OED) 'serving one's own ends before those of others' (Collins thesaurus) 'opportunistic'.+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 20 18:14:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK7BqV13627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:11:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK7Bjt13587 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:11:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP160.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.96]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA05724 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:11:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:12:49 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name for, >since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if >true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a name >for this. Self-interested? Seems to have a much less strong suggestion than "self-serving" that the speaker may be dissembling. Maybe I'm alone in this, maybe it's just too late at night, but I see the distinction thus: "self-serving" is sort of "I was always bidding 6H no matter what pard did"; "self-interested" is sort of "I considered my options and didn't think leaving in the double was a logical alternative". Does that help? 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 Wed Dec 20 18:32:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK7UVK20231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:30:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK7UOt20197 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:30:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.248.21] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 148dhb-0004hf-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:30:20 +0000 Message-ID: <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:30:38 -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 writes: > The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name for, > since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if > true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a name > for this. I am not sure what this means. Suppose a player makes a double that he intends as penalty, but his partner explains it as takeout, and a ruling is sought. Now, if the player says: "this double is described on our convention card as takeout", that statement (if true) is obviously to the benefit of the person saying it, but it would not be described even by mistake as a "self-serving" statement. The great majority of statements made by players to ACs are of the kind that, if true, would benefit the player - people do not generally make statements that, if true, would not assist their case. I know of no single word that describes a statement that is to the benefit of its utterer, but I do not see the need for one in this context. As others have pointed out, statements of the kind usually described as "self-serving" are statements which, if they could be objectively confirmed, would assist the player's case - but they cannot be so confirmed, and are therefore discounted. I do not know of a term that is commonly used for a statement that cannot be objectively verified, but the word "unverifiable" exists and carries no pejorative connotations - an unverifiable statement may be true, but since it cannot be supported, less weight is given to it than to a statement which can be supported by external evidence. 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 Dec 20 18:38:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK7bBr22590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:37:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK7b4t22544 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:37:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.248.21] (helo=D457300) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 148do4-0003c9-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:37:00 +0000 Message-ID: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:37:19 -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: > I think we want more than this. After all, what are referred to as > "self-serving statements" may turn out to be objectively confirmable: it > is that they do not necessarily appear to be at the moment they are > said, and they tend to be discounted *unless* supported. > > We want a term for a statement that is in the player's interest, but > that carries no imputation as to whether it is true or verifiable. Why? Just about any statement a player makes will be in his own interest. If it can be (and subsequently is) verified, one might refer to it as "evidence". If it cannot be verified, one might describe it as "unverifiable" (which carries no implication that it is untrue). If it is untrue, one would refer to it as a "lie", but such references do not tend to occur on appeals forms. If the word "unverifiable" were substituted for the word "self-serving" in any given appeals report, would there be a loss of clarity, or a difference in implication? 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 Dec 20 18:46:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK7iPv24965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:44:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBK7iJt24961 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:44:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.248.21] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 148dv0-00053N-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:44:11 +0000 Message-ID: <003a01c06a58$b0907f60$15f87ad5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 07:44:29 -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 Todd wrote: > A catachresis is an intentional misuse of a word for its connotation or > imagery and not an error. I think "self-serving" is used correctly and its > pejorative connotation is just unfortunate. The word "catachresis" derives from the Greek words "kata" (down, against) and "chresis" (use). It is, therefore, something which is "against use" - that is, the misuse of a word. It may be deliberate, in order to achieve a rhetorical effect, but the term itself carries no implication as to the intent of the speaker or writer, and is generally used to refer simply to a linguistic mistake. This is just as well, otherwise grammarians as well as bridge lawyers would need to be able to read minds. 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 Dec 20 20:12:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBK9APP25102 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:10:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBK9AIt25098 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:10:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id JAA28497 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:10:06 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:10 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? 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: <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@D457300> DB wrote: > > As others have pointed out, statements of the kind usually described as > "self-serving" are statements which, if they could be objectively > confirmed, would assist the player's case - but they cannot be so > confirmed, and are therefore discounted. I do not know of a term that is > commonly used for a statement that cannot be objectively verified, but > the word "unverifiable" exists and carries no pejorative connotations - > an unverifiable statement may be true, but since it cannot be supported, > less weight is given to it than to a statement which can be supported by > external evidence. > Uncorroborated also exists as a word. I would prefer it. Take a statement like "That hand would bid differently in our system". Assume the CC is not sufficiently detailed to provide verification (indeed even if it says so on the CC that is not, IMO, verification). Suppose that a similar hand occurred earlier in the session and was bid differently. That would, again IMO, be corroborating evidence rather than verification. Alternatively a detailed and coherent verbal description of how the system handled this and related hands would also provide a degree of corroboration. Try: TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. 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 Dec 20 22:02:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKB0Sq25398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:00:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKB0Jt25355 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:00:20 +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 LAA05153; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:55:58 +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 MAA01574; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:00:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001220121150.00815a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:11:50 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:10 20/12/00 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >Try: >TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. PMFJI. The idea is that the burden of the proof of self-redeeming statements lies on the offending side. Why not state that without further commenting ? 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 Dec 20 22:51:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKBnLq07588 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:49:21 +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-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 eBKBnFt07584 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:49:16 +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 148hjz-000Fgl-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:49:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:48:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes > >In a national championship a number of years ago, >I partnered a player who was notorious for intimidating >opponents by his frequent director calls. We >therefore reached an agreement that I would be solely >responsible for our partnership's decisions on >whether summoning the TD was justified. >Question Two: Should I have left the calling of the >TD to the damaged parties, our opponents? No. I think it is a part of the problem that people believe that the TD should/can/must only be called by the non-offending side. I think many Director calls would be less fraught if the offending side calle dthe Director. -- 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 Dec 20 23:43:35 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKCfaX07680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:41:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKCfTt07676 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:41:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-66.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.66]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA01935 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:41:23 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A40A793.572BE873@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:35:31 +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] self-serving ? 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: > > > Try: > TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. > There is a subtle difference between the two. Uncorroborated means there is no "evidence". Unverifiable means there is no possible "evidence". I would attach more value to an uncorroborated statement than to an unverifiable one. When someone utters something for which he has, by sheer misfortune, no proof, I may well believe him. Especially if proof to the contrary might also exist, but does not, by equal misfortune. When someone utters something for which he damn well knows there can be no proof for or against, he can indeed say whatever he likes. So I do believe that the way "self-serving" has been used, in the meaning that no creadence ought to be given, I find "unverifiable" a better substitute. -- Best wishes for the New Millennium !! 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 Dec 20 23:46:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKCjRv07697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:45:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKCjLt07693 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:45:21 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA00737 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:45:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:45 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001220121150.00815a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> >From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 20 11:00:28 2000 > > At 09:10 20/12/00 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Try: > >TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated > statements. > > PMFJI. Help. Unknown acronym. > The idea is that the burden of the proof of self-redeeming > statements lies on the offending side. > Why not state that without further commenting ? We need to be careful. It is evidence that should be sought, rather than proof. IMO it should be the burden of the TD to seek such evidence, otherwise we risk disadvantaging less experienced players. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 00:02:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKD12E07733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:01:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKD0ut07729 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 00:00:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBKD0oH45446 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:00:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20001220075641.00aab8f0@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, 20 Dec 2000 08:01:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <8.ddd2520.27717e10@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_1276632==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_1276632==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed At 10:14 PM 12/19/00, WSFlory wrote: >The ACBL regulation against sub 10 point NT's was in reaction to John >Keiren's (spelling?) "Big Club, Little NT" (subtitled "You Ought to >Open an >Average Hand" but usually known as "The Kamikaze NT"). This system >called for >either (fuzzy now) an 8-10 or 8-12 opening NT, and third hand openings >were >mandatory with less than 8 hcp because the opponents would have a >minimum of >25 hcp and the big hand was behind you. > >The ACBL also, at that time, passed a regulation against mandatory >openings >on weak hands. > >I believe this was in the late 80's but I don't have my reference >books with >me. There is a reference to the banned 9-12 NT opening in the 3rd edition of the ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge", which was published in 1984. It's not clear, but it reads like it was written at the time when sub-10-HCP NT openings were flat banned, before the ACBL withdrew the outright ban (under pressure from their own LC) and substituted the current regulation. 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 --=====================_1276632==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" At 10:14 PM 12/19/00, WSFlory wrote:

The ACBL regulation against sub 10 point NT's was in reaction to John
Keiren's (spelling?) "Big Club, Little NT" (subtitled "You Ought to Open an
Average Hand" but usually known as "The Kamikaze NT"). This system called for
either (fuzzy now) an 8-10 or 8-12 opening NT, and third hand openings were
mandatory with less than 8 hcp because the opponents would have a minimum of
25 hcp and the big hand was behind you.

The ACBL also, at that time, passed a regulation against mandatory openings
on weak hands.

I believe this was in the late 80's but I don't have my reference books with
me.

There is a reference to the banned 9-12 NT opening in the 3rd edition of the ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge", which was published in 1984.  It's not clear, but it reads like it was written at the time when sub-10-HCP NT openings were flat banned, before the ACBL withdrew the outright ban (under pressure from their own LC) and substituted the current regulation.


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 --=====================_1276632==_.ALT-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 01:30:47 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKER1Z16629 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:27:01 +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 (f14.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.241.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKEQst16594 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 01:26:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 06:26:46 -0800 Received: from 63.27.142.127 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:26:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [63.27.142.127] From: "Roger Pewick" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 08:26:46 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 14:26:46.0943 (UTC) FILETIME=[E2367AF0:01C06A90] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >CC: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk >Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? >Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:11:50 +0100 > >At 09:10 20/12/00 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Try: > >TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. > >PMFJI. The idea is that the burden of the proof of self-redeeming >statements lies on the offending side. >Why not state that without further commenting ? > > A. pmfji too, but I would think that the speaker of the statement has the burden of demonstrating it is valid, if demonstrating is needed. But what do i know? roger pewick _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 21 02:05:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKF3MA26298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:03:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKF3Ft26258 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:03:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (user-2ivete7.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.117.199]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA05806 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:03:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.20001220100118.017bcf44@pop.mindspring.com> X-Sender: msd@pop.mindspring.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:01:18 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "Michael S. Dennis" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:45 PM 12/20/2000 +0000, Tim wrote: >> PMFJI. > >Help. Unknown acronym. This happens frequently enough that it is deserving of an original coinage. Can everyone go along with HUA? Happy holidays to all! 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 Dec 21 04:07:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKH51626646 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKH4lt26634 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:04:48 +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 148mfP-0005ml-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:04:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:52:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@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 >> The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name for, >>since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if >>true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a name >>for this. > >Self-interested? > >Seems to have a much less strong suggestion than "self-serving" that the >speaker may be dissembling. Interesting. Now, to me, self-interested carries the overtones that others see in self-serving. >Maybe I'm alone in this, maybe it's just too late at night, but I see the >distinction thus: "self-serving" is sort of "I was always bidding 6H no >matter what pard did"; "self-interested" is sort of "I considered my >options and didn't think leaving in the double was a logical alternative". No, I think you have missed the point. I want a label for both so that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more questions and looked at the CC". -- 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 Dec 21 04:07:38 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKH51v26647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKH4lt26635 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:04:48 +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 148mfP-0005mm-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:04:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:02:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@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 >DWS writes: > >> The term that I always assumed this meant, and that I want a name >for, >> since self-serving is apparently not the name, is a statement that [if >> true] is to the benefit of the person saying it. Please give me a >name >> for this. > >I am not sure what this means. Suppose a player makes a double that he >intends as penalty, but his partner explains it as takeout, and a ruling >is sought. Now, if the player says: "this double is described on our >convention card as takeout", that statement (if true) is obviously to >the benefit of the person saying it, but it would not be described even >by mistake as a "self-serving" statement. The great majority of >statements made by players to ACs are of the kind that, if true, would >benefit the player - people do not generally make statements that, if >true, would not assist their case. I know of no single word that >describes a statement that is to the benefit of its utterer, but I do >not see the need for one in this context. > >As others have pointed out, statements of the kind usually described as >"self-serving" are statements which, if they could be objectively >confirmed, would assist the player's case - but they cannot be so >confirmed, and are therefore discounted. I do not know of a term that is >commonly used for a statement that cannot be objectively verified, but >the word "unverifiable" exists and carries no pejorative connotations - >an unverifiable statement may be true, but since it cannot be supported, >less weight is given to it than to a statement which can be supported by >external evidence. People use the term "self-serving" for a type of statement whether it turns out to be verifiable or not. Actually, it might be fairer to say, where the weight of supporting evidence is unknown. When a player says to you "We always open 1S with this type of hand" you do not always think "Good, that is settled" but neither do you think "That comment benefits him so he must be lying". What you do is probe further - and perhaps you discover [to consider two extreme cases] that [1] it is written on his system card and system notes or [2] his partner denies it indignantly and the CC suggests otherwise. The independent verification is necessary because the original statement is of a type that is likely to be somewhat discounted otherwise, since even honest people delude themselves somewhat. Now I have always used the term "self-serving" to describe the statement, which may turn out to be true, may turn out to be verifiable, may turn out not to be, which has the characteristics [a] of benefitting the person who says it and [b] of requiring some additional evidence to be given full worth. I have been convinced that the term "self-serving" does not mean this according to the dictionary, so what is left? -- 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 Dec 21 04:07:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKH51j26648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKH4mt26636 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:04:48 +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 148mfP-0005mn-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 17:04:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:04:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> In-Reply-To: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@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 >DWS wrote: > >> I think we want more than this. After all, what are referred to as >> "self-serving statements" may turn out to be objectively confirmable: >it >> is that they do not necessarily appear to be at the moment they are >> said, and they tend to be discounted *unless* supported. >> >> We want a term for a statement that is in the player's interest, but >> that carries no imputation as to whether it is true or verifiable. > >Why? Just about any statement a player makes will be in his own >interest. If it can be (and subsequently is) verified, one might refer >to it as "evidence". If it cannot be verified, one might describe it as >"unverifiable" (which carries no implication that it is untrue). If it >is untrue, one would refer to it as a "lie", but such references do not >tend to occur on appeals forms. As to why we want it, because we refer and TDs refer and ACs refer to a type of statement, and the current term used, "self-serving", apparently carries imputations that might be unfair. >If the word "unverifiable" were substituted for the word "self-serving" >in any given appeals report, would there be a loss of clarity, or a >difference in implication? Loss of clarity, no, but the implication would be different, and, I think, 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 Thu Dec 21 04:57:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKHtaD26750 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKHtTt26746 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 04:55:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 212DDD7CEC for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:55:24 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 18:55:24 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <011801c06a16$beddb700$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <011801c06a16$beddb700$932fd2cc@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 eBKHtWt26747 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 15:52:23 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >From: "Jesper Dybdal" > >> I have been asked what the precise meaning of L63B is. >> >> I thought I knew. Then I sought out the approximately 80 >> historical BLML messages on the subject, and now I no longer >> know. >> >> In the following, I will quote the available official material >> and try to summarize what it might mean. > >Jesper understandably omits some material issued by the ACBL LC, perhaps >not considering it "official." I did not know it existed. It is definitely not official in Denmark. That does not mean that it is not interesting, of course. >>From the ACBL LC minutes, Orlando, 1998, which address the WBFLC >interpretations coming from Lille: > >"In regard to Law 43B2b, the ACBL maintains that the number of tricks >awarded shall be determined by what would have occurred had play proceeded >normally." I wonder what they mean by "normally". I would tend to interpret these words as if the TD is to assign the score that he would expect if the revoke had been established and not corrected. Or possibly if the revoke had not occurred at all, but that makes absolutely no sense. In both cases, it seems to say that the actual result of playing the board with the revoke corrected is to be completely ignored, in which case there does not seem much point in playing it that way at all. Or perhaps they mean the interpretation that I called (C): award the number of tricks expected with the revoke established or the number of tricks actually won, whichever is largest. It is obvious that the WBFLC has considered the question of at least L43, since they issued a statement in Bermuda about it. But it would be nice if we also understood what that statement actually means, and what relationship - if any - it has to the L63B "interim ruling" from Malta, which (according to the minutes of later meetings, unless I've overlooked something) seem never to have been reviewed by the full WBFLC and never to have been sent to the NCBOs. -- 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 Dec 21 05:03:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKI1ZI26770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:01:35 +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 eBKI1Tt26766 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:01:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 09:58:28 -0800 Message-ID: <028a01c06aae$c9c5a180$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:00:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > In-Reply-To: <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@D457300> > DB wrote: > > > > As others have pointed out, statements of the kind usually described as > > "self-serving" are statements which, if they could be objectively > > confirmed, would assist the player's case - but they cannot be so > > confirmed, and are therefore discounted. I do not know of a term that is > > commonly used for a statement that cannot be objectively verified, but > > the word "unverifiable" exists and carries no pejorative connotations - > > an unverifiable statement may be true, but since it cannot be supported, > > less weight is given to it than to a statement which can be supported by > > external evidence. > > > > Uncorroborated also exists as a word. I would prefer it. Take a > statement like "That hand would bid differently in our system". Assume > the CC is not sufficiently detailed to provide verification (indeed even > if it says so on the CC that is not, IMO, verification). Suppose that a > similar hand occurred earlier in the session and was bid differently. > That would, again IMO, be corroborating evidence rather than verification. > Alternatively a detailed and coherent verbal description of how the > system handled this and related hands would also provide a degree of > corroboration. > > Try: > TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. > Corollary: Pairs should document all partnership agreements that are the least bit uncommon, or might be considered so by an AC. My partnership agreement is that we pull a penalty double of an overcall with a void (always), singleton (usually), doubleton (sometimes), tripleton (hardly ever). The amount of defense is considered when not void. For instance, after 1C-3D-Dbl opener MUST pull the double with S-AQxx H-xx D-x C-KJ9xxx, there's nothing to think about. This policy (best described by S. J.Simon) allows us to double sucessfully on many more deals than we could if playing doubles as commands to pass. So I pulled with that hand after partner's long hesitation, because I had no logical alternative (in my system). At the AC meeting I cited Simon, but was told that you can find any policy that you want in books. These were negative doublers, who had no understanding of penalty doubles. Since my statement was "self-serving," they wouldn't believe it. I did have the agreement documented, but my notebook was in San Diego and this was in St. Louis (appeal No.2). Since then I take it to every NABC and regional. Doing a little research later, I could find no bridge authority writing after 1932 who played penalty doubles of suit-over-suit overcalls as absolute penalty. The 1932 writer was Culbertson, who changed his mind by 1935. Another way to counter AC skepticism is to bring in witnesses, which is allowed. I could have rounded up three or four of our local TDs who were working in St. Louis, who would have told the AC that I am not a liar. Wish I had thought of that. "Undue reliance"? They place *no* reliance on any statement that doesn't conform with their thinking. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 05:48:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKIk6m26839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 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 scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.49]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKIk0t26835 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 05:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP305.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.43]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03079 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:45:56 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200012201246570560.059F5119@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:46:57 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Interesting. Now, to me, self-interested carries the overtones that >others see in self-serving. OK, fair enough. I suspect that there isn't a single term that all, or even most, will understand similarly. > No, I think you have missed the point. I want a label for both so >that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we >discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more >questions and looked at the CC". I thought "self-interested" would do (it would include both, at least I thought so last night), but it looks as if it won't after all. Drat. Perhaps we should just avoid the label: "North said their partership always pulls such doubles with that sort of hand. We asked a few more questions and looked at the CC. ..." If a statement is discounted, specific reasons may be given: "The CC wasn't clear, and neither South nor North's other regular partner attended the hearing so no other evidence one way or the other was available." Is this workable? If ACs have this sort of guidance written down, also, they might make special efforts to document and explain their reasons for discounting one argument or another. (I've never been on or before an AC so this is highly theoretical for me.) 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 Dec 21 06:45:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKJhf926947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:43:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f175.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.175]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKJhZt26943 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 06:43:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:43:25 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 19:43:25 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 11:43:25 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 19:43:25.0519 (UTC) FILETIME=[1E3F1DF0:01C06ABD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Todd wrote: > > A catachresis is an intentional misuse of a word for its >connotation or > > imagery and not an error. I think "self-serving" is used correctly >and its > > pejorative connotation is just unfortunate. > >The word "catachresis" derives from the Greek words "kata" (down, >against) and "chresis" (use). It is, therefore, something which is >"against use" - that is, the misuse of a word. It may be deliberate, in >order to achieve a rhetorical effect, but the term itself carries no >implication as to the intent of the speaker or writer, and is generally >used to refer simply to a linguistic mistake. This is just as well, >otherwise grammarians as well as bridge lawyers would need to be able to >read minds. But you wouldn't confuse catachresis with malapropism or solecism. Having only encountered the word in relation to poetry, I didn't know it could be unintentional nor frowned upon -- my bad. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 21 07:09:10 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKK6kn26991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:06:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKK6dt26987 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:06:40 +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 PAA28423 for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:06:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA02735 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:06:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 15:06:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012202006.PAA02735@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > Try: > TDs/ACs should avoid placing undue reliance on uncorroborated statements. Another possibility, with a slightly different implication, is 'unsubstantiated'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 07:18:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKKH0727023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:17:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f127.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.127]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKKGtt27018 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:16:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:47 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:16:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:47 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 20:16:47.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[C779E220:01C06AC1] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) >In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20001220121150.00815a80@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >From agot@ulb.ac.be Wed Dec 20 11:00:28 2000 > > PMFJI. > >Help. Unknown acronym. A) Pardon Me For Jumping In B) Prime Minister Feels Jolly Idiotic C) Please Make Four Jello-mold Ingots D) Ponchielli Mussorgski Françaix Joplin Ives -Todd (There used to be a game on IRC where the bot running the game would spew random letters and you had to make up acronyms from it.) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 21 07:43:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKKfxu27069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:41:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f268.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.240.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKKfst27065 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:41:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:41:46 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:41:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:41:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 20:41:46.0576 (UTC) FILETIME=[450A0500:01C06AC5] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > > A player suffers from Tourette's. (I could care less about this >one, > >but it noticeably disturbs others.) > > What is Tourette's? Exactly what, I don't know (disorder, disease?). Symptoms vary from motor tics to profane outbreaks. www.tsa-usa.org looks like it would have more information. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 21 08:25:40 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKLNT629676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:23:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f147.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBKLNNt29648 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:23:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:23:15 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:23:14 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 13:23:14 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Dec 2000 21:23:15.0301 (UTC) FILETIME=[106F5150:01C06ACB] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >There is nothing in all this that says "self-serving" is being used >correctly by ACs. > > > > Maybe a phrase with the effect of "not objectively confirmable" would >do? > > >I think "possibly" does the job: possibly biased, possibly self-serving. >It conveys a slight amount of skepticism without saying someone's words >are actually biased or self-serving. A director is called: Case 1: Player confesses that he considered passing (making it an LA in the ACBL). Generally you'll accept anything the player says as true after that and make a ruling. Case 2: Player insists that there was no option to bidding 6S and makes the following statements: A: My hand was AKQJT9 AKQJT x x. B: My partner must hold at least one key card to bid blackwood, so I know 6S is cold and I couldn't imagine anyone passing. Case 3: Hesitation has not been established: C: The tempo of the entire auction was about 10 seconds per call. D: My partner made his call in about 10 seconds. opponents claim: E: There was a 30-second hesitation. Case 4: Hands are AKQx AKxx xxxx x opposite JT9x xxxx A xxxx. Bidding is 1S - P - really slow 2S - P - thumbs 4C, but bids 3S - P - 4S making. F: We haven't written it into our notes, but in our system 3S shows a singleton club. It seems that people are arguing one or more of the below: 1) self-serving is the correct word for C-F; I don't know how to make any further distinction. 2) I want a word for C-E that doesn't carry the connotation of the word I want to use for F. 3) I want a word for F that doesn't sound so insulting. 3) self-serving is not the correct term for any of the above. My suggestions: AB - "facts" (verifiable) CDE - "testimony" (unverifiable, but contestable by opponents) F - "self-serving statements" (unverifiable and uncontestable) This seems consistent with the way appeals books are written. I can't think at the root of it that any further distinctions are necessary. -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 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 Dec 21 09:02:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKM0Jw01957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:00:19 +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 eBKM0Dt01953 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 09:00:13 +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 OAA07907; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:00:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200012202200.OAA07907@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 20 Dec 2000 12:16:47 PST." Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 14:00:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > > PMFJI. > > > >Help. Unknown acronym. > > A) Pardon Me For Jumping In > B) Prime Minister Feels Jolly Idiotic > C) Please Make Four Jello-mold Ingots > D) Ponchielli Mussorgski Françaix Joplin Ives > > -Todd > (There used to be a game on IRC where the bot running the game would spew > random letters and you had to make up acronyms from it.) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com Another unknown acronym. OK, I'll try this one. A) Mom Says No B) Many Silly Nuts C) Mostaccioli Spaghetti Noodles D) Monopoly Subjugating the Nation -- 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 Dec 21 10:11:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKN9bu08903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:09:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBKN9Vt08899 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:09:32 +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 148sMN-000JEm-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:09:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:01:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club References: <011401c069ab$d88087c0$618d30d5@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <011401c069ab$d88087c0$618d30d5@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <011401c069ab$d88087c0$618d30d5@mikeamos>, mike amos writes snip > >Yep I see now that all that time at Tournament Director training where we >sit round discussing hands is a real waste of time - we should be out on the >assault course (sic :)) toning our physical fitness and getting lessons in >karate and kung fu ___ >mike that would give us both coronaries, mike. ... perhaps no bad thing the players might say. I've thrown 4 players out of games in the last 10 years. The adrenalin goes through the roof. cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou 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 Dec 21 11:00:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBKNxCP09002 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:59:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from falhost.fujitsu.com.au (falgate.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.211.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eBKNx6t08998 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:59:07 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA23603; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:59:00 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma023054; Thu, 21 Dec 00 10:58:17 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id eBKNwDC16758 Received: from doctech (doctech.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.72.22]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with SMTP id eBKNwCm16751 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:58:13 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA25686; Thu, 21 Dec 00 10:43:51 EST Message-Id: <006c01c06ae0$f110c300$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <200012202006.PAA02735@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:59:51 +1100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All, It seems like the concept is fairly straight forward: -Evidence given by a player about their own system which due to human nature can tend to have a bias towards what they believe will help their position (but not necessarily). [EG: "We always re-open with shortage over the opponents pre-empts" - which is most likely an overstatement of "We generally re-open with shortage unless XXXX" where XXXX maybe something like "we have less than 5 HCP" or "I have a 6 card major" etc.] There may be evidence to corroborate this (eg. system notes) or not... It sounds to me like all the normal English language words used so far contain connotations that aren't appropriate. What about a new word like: "Self-Evidence" It suggests that the source of the evidence was the player rather than some (perhaps more objective?) other source. Cheers, Peter Newman http://www.nswba.com.au -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 18:05:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBL74FK12460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:04:15 +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 eBL749t12456 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:04:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:01:08 -0800 Message-ID: <003401c06b1c$28615e60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:03:30 -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: "Tim West-meads > As to the "no conventions if..." restrictions put in place by both the > ACBL and EBU - they are verging on blasphemy. They should just define > what they consider to be a hand "more than a king* below average" and ban > opening it at the one level. Let the other bids take care of themselves > (requiring alerts if they wish). Ideally I think they should do this > using a reasonably sophisticated evaluation tool and some examples but if > they just say 7HCP that would still be an improvement. > The GCC disallows "opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)" Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional 12/26 to 1/1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 18:25:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBL7OLZ12499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:24:21 +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 eBL7OFt12495 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 18:24:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:21:16 -0800 Message-ID: <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 23:17:47 -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 want a label for both so > that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we > discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more > questions and looked at the CC". > Questionable? Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional 12/26 to 1/1 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 19:23:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBL8N6a17381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:23:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBL8Mwt17350 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 19:22:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-91-178.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.91.178] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA21733 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:22:37 GMT Message-ID: <003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 08:23:02 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Was it David Burn who wrote: > > As to why we want it, because we refer and TDs > refer and ACs refer to a type of statement, and > the current term used, "self-serving", apparently > carries imputations that might be unfair. > +=+ I cannot recall having once written 'self-serving' in the comments of an AC I have chaired. Perhaps unfairly, I have regarded it as an Americanism that does not serve my purpose greatly. Without it the language I use is robust enough to say, to the extent the committee wishes, what view the committee takes of the evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 21 21:15:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLAF2P28085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:15:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBLAEut28050 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.50.235] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 1492kM-0004dQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: <005101c06b36$e401c0a0$eb32073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:15:04 -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 Todd wrote: > But you wouldn't confuse catachresis with malapropism or solecism. > Having only encountered the word in relation to poetry, I didn't know it > could be unintentional nor frowned upon -- my bad. A malapropism is a kind of catachresis - indeed, the terms are almost synonymous. A solecism may well be catachrestic, but not always - catachresis is the misuse of a word, while a solecism may involve a phrase or an entire sentence. Fruitful though this discussion may be, I suggest that henceforward it be continued by interested parties in private, or perhaps in alt.usage.english 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 Dec 21 21:37:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLAb6p05810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBLAaxt05776 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:37:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.50.235] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14935i-0002eN-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:36:55 +0000 Message-ID: <007101c06b39$f9630d20$eb32073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <002401c06a56$c119d040$15f87ad5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:37:08 -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 independent verification is necessary because the original > statement is of a type that is likely to be somewhat discounted > otherwise, since even honest people delude themselves somewhat. Now I > have always used the term "self-serving" to describe the statement, > which may turn out to be true, may turn out to be verifiable, may turn > out not to be, which has the characteristics [a] of benefitting the > person who says it and [b] of requiring some additional evidence to be > given full worth. I have been convinced that the term "self-serving" > does not mean this according to the dictionary, so what is left? I am not sure to what use this term, whatever it may be, can be put. During an appeal, a player may make a number of statements that have the characteristics described above. But by the time the committee is in a position to produce a report, those statements ought to have been categorised as: "true" (because supporting evidence has been found); "false" (because contrary evidence has been found); or "unverifiable" (because no evidence can be found one way or the other). The terms "uncorroborated" and "unsubstantiated" have been suggested, but these are not synonyms for "unverifiable" - however, they may prove useful as euphemisms for "false". Todd Zimnoch has set out a number of cases, which it may be helpful to examine: Case 1: Player confesses that he considered passing (making it an LA in the ACBL). Generally you'll accept anything the player says as true after that and make a ruling. This statement is obviously "true". Case 2: Player insists that there was no option to bidding 6S and makes the following statements: A: My hand was AKQJT9 AKQJT x x. This is also obviously "true". B: My partner must hold at least one key card to bid Blackwood, so I know 6S is cold and I couldn't imagine anyone passing. This, as it stands, is "unverifiable" - the player may be able to show why his partner "must" have at least one key card to bid Blackwood, or he may not. The AC should question the player further, as a result of which the statement will be classed as "true" or "false". Case 3: Hesitation has not been established: C: The tempo of the entire auction was about 10 seconds per call. Further questioning of the players may establish whether this is "true" or "false". Experience suggests, however, that it is likely to remain "unverifiable". D: My partner made his call in about 10 seconds. As for C above. opponents claim: E: There was a 30-second hesitation. As for C above. Case 4: Hands are AKQx AKxx xxxx x opposite JT9x xxxx A xxxx. Bidding is 1S - P - really slow 2S - P - thumbs 4C, but bids 3S - P - 4S making. F: We haven't written it into our notes, but in our system 3S shows a singleton club. This is likely to remain "unverifiable". Obviously, one gives full weight to "true" statements, and no weight to "false" statements. The weight one gives to "unverifiable" statements is determined simply by whether one believes them or not - it is a question of faith, rather than a question of fact. If an acronym is required, I suggest "MR-D". I leave this as a puzzle for the ingenious subscribers to BLML. 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 Dec 21 23:38:29 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLCbSf20304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:37:28 +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 eBLCbKt20300 for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 23:37:22 +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 1494yA-000DvW-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:37:16 +0000 Message-ID: <8l6lrLDq0WQ6Ew0W@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 02:38:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <200012201246570560.059F5119@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200012201246570560.059F5119@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 >> Interesting. Now, to me, self-interested carries the overtones that >>others see in self-serving. > >OK, fair enough. I suspect that there isn't a single term that all, or even >most, will understand similarly. > >> No, I think you have missed the point. I want a label for both so >>that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we >>discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more >>questions and looked at the CC". > >I thought "self-interested" would do (it would include both, at least I >thought so last night), but it looks as if it won't after all. Drat. > >Perhaps we should just avoid the label: "North said their partership always >pulls such doubles with that sort of hand. We asked a few more questions >and looked at the CC. ..." > >If a statement is discounted, specific reasons may be given: "The CC wasn't >clear, and neither South nor North's other regular partner attended the >hearing so no other evidence one way or the other was available." > >Is this workable? If ACs have this sort of guidance written down, also, >they might make special efforts to document and explain their reasons for >discounting one argument or another. (I've never been on or before an AC so >this is highly theoretical for me.) I do not think so. Every so often someone uses the term "self-serving statements" here or in RGB or in an NABC case-book. Unfortunately there is an impression given which is often unfair, and I want a new term to try to promulgate so that I can get a fairer approach. Not using a term at all will not answer. -- 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 Fri Dec 22 03:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLGhaa07167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:43:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBLGhTt07162 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:43:30 +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 1498oO-000Jmb-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:23:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >> I want a label for both so >> that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we >> discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more >> questions and looked at the CC". >> >Questionable? Isn't it difficult to come up with le mot juste? The trouble is that so many words have acquired impressions. "His statement was questionable." "Oh? What was wrong with it?" Part of the problem with using self-serving is that it is circular: people assume self-serving statements are doubtful [fine: I now accept the dictionary definition says that] so once someone says something, then it only needs to be labelled self-serving and people assume it is a lie. I think questionable has the same connotations. The only suggestions I have seen so far that do not seem to have the connotations are "self-evidence" [whatever that means!] and "possibly self-serving" [which allows for it not being a lie!]. -- 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 Fri Dec 22 03:45:09 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLGheG07171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:43:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBLGhXt07166 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:43:34 +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 1498oO-000BfC-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 16:43:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:26:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> <003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@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 writes >Grattan Endicott <=> >"Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" > <===> >----- Original Message ----- >From: David Stevenson >To: >Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 1:04 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > >Was it David Burn who >wrote: >> >> As to why we want it, because we refer and TDs >> refer and ACs refer to a type of statement, and >> the current term used, "self-serving", apparently >> carries imputations that might be unfair. >> >+=+ I cannot recall having once written 'self-serving' >in the comments of an AC I have chaired. Perhaps >unfairly, I have regarded it as an Americanism that >does not serve my purpose greatly. Without it the >language I use is robust enough to say, to the extent >the committee wishes, what view the committee >takes of the evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ There is a principle at stake, which many people have taken particular positions on regarding the admissibility of a type of evidence. I do not think that we should ignore this principle as not worth considering. -- 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 Fri Dec 22 06:13:01 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLJBxH07514 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:11:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBLJBrt07510 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 06:11:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4qd.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.77]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA10537; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:11:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007e01c06b82$4f50f4c0$4d13f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> <003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:14:52 -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 Would that everyone were so well grounded in the language, and so capable of using what is clearly a fine command of it. Yet it still behooves us to find a method of describing briefly and in a non-pejorative manner those comments which a player offers to explain his actions. Because human nature may lead him to cast the situation in a light that favours him, we must take such comments with a grain of salt, but we should neither disregard them entirely nor give them less weight than they deserve, even though their probative value may be somewhat diminished by the individual's natural tendency to see himself as in the right. Craig Senior > +=+ I cannot recall having once written 'self-serving' > in the comments of an AC I have chaired. Perhaps > unfairly, I have regarded it as an Americanism that > does not serve my purpose greatly. Without it the > language I use is robust enough to say, to the extent > the committee wishes, what view the committee > takes of the evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Now if we could only rid you of the belief that all Americanisms are somehow impure, inferior, and otherwise an attack on the purity of the language. :-)) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 22 07:48:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLKllM07706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 07:47:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBLKlft07702 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 07:47:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:46:53 -0800 Message-ID: <001a01c06b8f$355a9c80$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:47:08 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I want a label for both so > >> that when I use it people do not say "Oh, it is ********** so we > >> discounted it" but say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more > >> questions and looked at the CC". > >> > >Questionable? > > Isn't it difficult to come up with le mot juste? The trouble is that > so many words have acquired impressions. > > "His statement was questionable." > > "Oh? What was wrong with it?" > > Part of the problem with using self-serving is that it is circular: > people assume self-serving statements are doubtful [fine: I now accept > the dictionary definition says that] so once someone says something, > then it only needs to be labelled self-serving and people assume it is a > lie. I think questionable has the same connotations. > > The only suggestions I have seen so far that do not seem to have the > connotations are "self-evidence" [whatever that means!] and "possibly > self-serving" [which allows for it not being a lie!]. > But allows for it being a lie, unfortunately. I have come to prefer "possibly biased" if one term is wanted. One can be biased without being mendacious. Rich Colker in the Cincinnati casebook (pg 22-23) sees it as a dichotomy of "SI" (self-interest) and "SS" (self-serving), roughly dividing what is verifiable from what is not, although he admits the dividing line can be fuzzy. Actually the degree of weight to be given a player's statement should be treated as a point on a continuous scale that goes from indisputable to unbelievable, and an AC can use descriptions of it ([un]questionable, possibly biased, [un]likely, dubious, [il]logical, [un]reasonable, etc) that it considers appropriate. Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional from 12/26 until the end of the millennium. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 22 09:57:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBLMtL307996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:55:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBLMtFt07992 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:55:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:54:27 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c06ba1$062b94c0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <38OpWUBxXQM6EwVO@probst.demon.co.uk> <3A334E49.F9FDF417@village.uunet.be> <3A34A668.6598A061@village.uunet.be> <3A3612CD.197226D1@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20001216113803.007cea00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3A3CA3E4.8FE598B6@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 14:54:47 -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: > I believe Grant has indeed understood the points I've been > trying to make. I'll skip to the important bits : > > Grant Sterling wrote: > > > > > > Again, here perhaps we part company. The SO did not lay down a > > clear and precise definition. They laid down a definition without making > > any explicit specification regarding whether _any_ 9-pt 1NT opening on > > any occasion by a 10-12 NT'er consitutes an illegal range. They didn't say. > > Perhaps you want clear and precise regulations, but this isn't the regulation > > you have been handed. > > > > Indeed not, in any other part of the world than the ACBL and > the EBU. Which is why we are having this argument. > I must continue to insist that what Grant Sterling writes is true in ACBL-land. While ACBL TDs treat an occasional 9 HCP opening when playing 10-12 range (with conventions) as an infraction (but inconsistently do not treat stronger notrump ranges or weak two bids in the same way), there is no official justification for this policy, only the unofficial opinion of Meckstroth. While it is likely that the BoD would agree with Meckstroth, to my knowledge they have not put that in writing. Mike Flader, who answers "ruling" questions sent to acbl.org, and who writes a "Ruling the Game" column in *The Bridge Bulletin*, tells me that even a rare 9 HCP 1NT opening is illegal when playing 10-12 with conventions. Another ACBL TD said he had been instructed not to penalize for a first offense, but to issue a warning that it should not be repeated. I guess that puts it in the category of an impropriety rather than an irregularity. Further investigation is ongoing, beginning with a question to Mike as to the source of his "regulation." Also a Cc of this e-mail to Jim Kirkham, (my) District 21 Director and President of the ACBL for 2001. Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional 12/26 until the end of the millennium. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 22 14:57:22 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBM3uQ108602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:56:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBM3uJt08598 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:56:20 +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 149JJU-000BLR-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 03:44:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300> <003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@dodona> <007e01c06b82$4f50f4c0$4d13f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <007e01c06b82$4f50f4c0$4d13f7a5@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 >Would that everyone were so well grounded in the language, and so capable of >using what is clearly a fine command of it. Yet it still behooves us to find >a method of describing briefly and in a non-pejorative manner those comments >which a player offers to explain his actions. Because human nature may lead >him to cast the situation in a light that favours him, we must take such >comments with a grain of salt, but we should neither disregard them entirely >nor give them less weight than they deserve, even though their probative >value may be somewhat diminished by the individual's natural tendency to see >himself as in the right. > >Craig Senior > >> +=+ I cannot recall having once written 'self-serving' >> in the comments of an AC I have chaired. Perhaps >> unfairly, I have regarded it as an Americanism that >> does not serve my purpose greatly. Without it the >> language I use is robust enough to say, to the extent >> the committee wishes, what view the committee >> takes of the evidence. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >Now if we could only rid you of the belief that all Americanisms are somehow >impure, inferior, and otherwise an attack on the purity of the language. >:-)) While there are Americanisms which the British find unnecessary because they have their own words, to write it off as "an American not serving your purpose" seems unfortunate when there is no British equivalent. There are useful Americanisms, like "through" in one through seven: the British equivalent is a joke. I thought "self-serving" was another, though I have discovered it does not mean what I thought it did. -- 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 Fri Dec 22 20:13:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBM9CQT15454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:12:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBM9CHt15450 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:12:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-66-181.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.66.181] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA07231 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:11:55 GMT Message-ID: <002d01c06bf7$6a3dc0e0$b542063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <002a01c06a57$b0177440$15f87ad5@D457300><003001c06b27$5bc35b40$b25b063e@dodona><007e01c06b82$4f50f4c0$4d13f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:12:11 -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 "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Friday, December 22, 2000 3:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > ----------------------- \x/ ---------------------- > While there are Americanisms which the British find unnecessary > because they have their own words, to write it off as "an American not > serving your purpose" seems unfortunate when there is no British > equivalent. > > There are useful Americanisms, like "through" in one through seven: > the British equivalent is a joke. I thought "self-serving" was another, > though I have discovered it does not mean what I thought it did. > > -- > David > +=+ Am I being attacked for what you heard rather than what I said? I expressed no reluctance to use an Americanism because it is an Americanism. I try to avoid using words which do not serve my purpose (in this case, because the word seems to have developed a stretched or corrupted meaning). I think there is a case for allowing the latter-day connotations as the product of linguistic dynamism. There are few insertions in the dictionary that take up as many columns as those beginning 'self-'. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 22 20:31:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBM9UwJ15488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:30:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBM9Uqt15484 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 20:30:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.183.170] (helo=D457300) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 149OXG-0002pz-00; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:30:47 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c06bf9$e29331e0$aab701d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <200012201246570560.059F5119@mail.earthlink.net> <8l6lrLDq0WQ6Ew0W@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 09:30:53 -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: > I do not think so. Every so often someone uses the term "self-serving > statements" here or in RGB or in an NABC case-book. Unfortunately there > is an impression given which is often unfair, and I want a new term to > try to promulgate so that I can get a fairer approach. Not using a term > at all will not answer. Yes, it will. As so often, incorrect English is the product of muddled thinking. When a statement is described anywhere as "self-serving", this usually means: "we could not ascertain whether or not it was true, we didn't want to believe it, but we didn't want to call the chap a liar". Now, there is no single term in the English language that describes statements categorised according to this woolly thinking, nor should anyone want to use such a term in appeals reports (or anywhere else). As I have said, all statements made to an AC are "true" or "false" or "unverifiable". Note to Herman: this refers only to a temporary limitation on the part of the AC; it does not mean that the statement could in no circumstances be verified. Whether or not the statements benefit the person making them is not relevant - most statements do; those that do not are likely to be "true" (but lead to an adverse ruling). David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 22 23:52:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBMCm4f11663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:48:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt9-he.global.net.uk (cobalt9-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.169]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBMClot11658 for ; Fri, 22 Dec 2000 23:47:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9cs09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.157] helo=pacific) by cobalt9-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 1492od-0008Hm-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:19:15 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu><038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk><00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com><000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300><200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net><006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 12:45:43 -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: David Stevenson To: Sent: 21 December 2000 13:23 Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > Marvin L. French writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> I want a label for both so > >> that when I use it people do not say > >> "Oh, it is ********** so we discounted it" but > >> say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more > >> questions and looked at the CC". > +=+ A Term of the Art could be devised. 'Stevensonian' perhaps? ~ 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 Dec 23 14:06:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBN31jT13971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:01:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from home.pacprod.com (home.pacprod.com [209.78.120.199]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBN31ct13934 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:01:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from roadrunner.pacprod.com ([209.78.120.197]) by home.pacprod.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.977.9); Fri, 22 Dec 2000 19:06:57 -0800 Subject: [BLML] Winter Greetings from Nancy From: Nancy To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <0f6da57060317c0HOME@home.pacprod.com> Date: 22 Dec 2000 19:06:57 -0800 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi! You have a Personalized Electronic Greeting Card from Nancy waiting for you at Pacific Products Gallery! To view your card, simply click on this address: http://roadrunner.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/GRCard.exe?cm=b1601c221832531n Just connect to the above web site and then click on the "View My Card" button. The "View My Card" button is located on the left hand side of your screen. We'll keep your greeting card in our system for 90 days. Enjoy! *********Check These Out!********* Joke Of The Day - http://www.pacprod.com/jokes.pl Random Quotes - http://www.pacprod.com/quotes/quotes.htm Today In History - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/today.pl Pacific Products Gallery Auction - http://www.pacprod.com/cgi-bin/pacauction.pl 1000's Of Gifts And Collectibles - http://www.pacprod.com GET A NEXTCARD VISA in 30 seconds! Get APR as low as 2.99 percent Intro or 9.99 percent Ongoing and No Annual Fee! Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to apply for a NextCard now! http://www.nextcard.com/index6.html?ref=aff0032530 HEAR WHO'S CALLING YOU WHILE YOUR ONLINE!!! Get the FREE the Internet Answering Machine... Click here or cut and paste this URL into your browser window to download the free software! http://www.pacprod.com/callwave ************************************** -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 24 01:03:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBNDxf822742 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:59:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBNDxVt22697 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:59:33 +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 149pCk-000MR7-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 13:59:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 03:56:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@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 writes >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> I want a label for both so >> >> that when I use it people do not say >> >> "Oh, it is ********** so we discounted it" but >> >> say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more >> >> questions and looked at the CC". >+=+ A Term of the Art could be devised. > 'Stevensonian' perhaps? ~ G ~ +=+ I am actually quite surprised when Grattan starts treating these matters as a joke. One of the problems that we need to attack is the American idea that "self-serving" statements should be ignored. There are many ways of attacking this, but silly ways, such as suggesting Americans do not know their spades from their diamonds, are no help whatever. What might work is fair and reasoned argument. To do this we have to put a case. Now that case is complicated by the fact that if we do not use a label for this type of evidence it will not be understood, as has shown by some *incredibly* complicated posts saying you do not need a label and then explaining why. However, if you use the label that every one does, namely "self-serving", then you get connotations that defeat the argument before it gets going. So, to try and get this back on the rails, I have asked for a sensible label. There have been arguments that we do not need one: while they are reasoned I believe they are wrong. And there have been one or two suggestions. But the posts that belittle the search for le mot juste are very worrying. You may not care about jurisprudence in the ACBL, Grattan, but I do. So far, the suggestions for a term that refers to evidence which taken at face-value supports the person saying it, and therefore may or may not need further corroboration, apart from the idea that we do not need such a term, are as follows: Possibly self-serving Assertive Self-interested Questionable Self-evidence -- 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 Sun Dec 24 01:51:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBNEpLj10873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:51:21 +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 eBNEpDt10838 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:51:14 +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 149q0p-0009ar-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:51:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 14:48:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> 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 >Grattan Endicott writes >>> >David Stevenson wrote: > >>> >> I want a label for both so >>> >> that when I use it people do not say >>> >> "Oh, it is ********** so we discounted it" but >>> >> say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more >>> >> questions and looked at the CC". > >>+=+ A Term of the Art could be devised. >> 'Stevensonian' perhaps? ~ G ~ +=+ > > I am actually quite surprised when Grattan starts treating these >matters as a joke. I've used the phrase "potentially self-serving" when instructing an AC. It seems about right. Mise en scene: 1N P 2C P 2H P 2N P 3N End "Does 2N deny spades?" "Yes" spade lead, 4 spades in dummy. "Director" "Let's see the cc" "Stayman does not promise a 4 card-major" Player's comment "It's all written out in the system notes, which I don't have here". This is absolutely standard in London, and the players will be playing these methods. Don't waste our time arguing this point. As it happened I ruled "Correct explanation, and mis-bid, no adjustment" but if I'd ruled the other way (as I might out of London) I would have briefed the AC on the basis that the player's explanation was "potentially self-serving". This gives about the right level of doubt as to the validity of the statement. > > One of the problems that we need to attack is the American idea that >"self-serving" statements should be ignored. Quite. just another ACBL stupidity. > There are many ways of >attacking this, but silly ways, such as suggesting Americans do not know >their spades from their diamonds, are no help whatever. What might work >is fair and reasoned argument. > snip > > But the posts that belittle the search for le mot juste are very >worrying. You may not care about jurisprudence in the ACBL, Grattan, >but I do. > Me also -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou 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 Dec 24 04:32:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBNHVKh17626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:31:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBNHVDt17622 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:31:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-46-43.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.46.43] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA01892 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:30:51 GMT Message-ID: <000d01c06d06$490883a0$2b2e7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu><038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk><00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com><000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300><200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net><006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com><001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 17:30:47 -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 "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > In article , David Stevenson > writes > >Grattan Endicott writes > >>> >David Stevenson wrote: > > I am actually quite surprised when Grattan starts treating these > >matters as a joke. > and John Probst: . > > > Me also > -- +=+ You misunderstand me. I do not regard the subject as a joke, but people who get their knickers in a twist about it, yes. In a previous post I indicated my view that, without devising new, there is language enough to deal with any situation an AC encounters. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 24 10:19:49 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBNNIpb24970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:18:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBNNIht24931 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:18:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.60.104] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 149xvn-0004aT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:18:28 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 23:17:23 -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: > Grattan Endicott writes > >> >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >> I want a label for both so > >> >> that when I use it people do not say > >> >> "Oh, it is ********** so we discounted it" but > >> >> say "Oh, it is ********* so we asked a few more > >> >> questions and looked at the CC". > > >+=+ A Term of the Art could be devised. > > 'Stevensonian' perhaps? ~ G ~ +=+ > > I am actually quite surprised when Grattan starts treating these > matters as a joke. > > One of the problems that we need to attack is the American idea that > "self-serving" statements should be ignored. There are many ways of > attacking this, but silly ways, such as suggesting Americans do not know > their spades from their diamonds, are no help whatever. What might work > is fair and reasoned argument. Who are "we"? Why do "we" need to "attack" anything of the kind? I confess myself totally baffled by the direction this thread has taken. It started with a debate as to the meaning of the word "self-serving". The meaning of this having been explained, that ought to have been an end of the matter. Instead of which: > To do this we have to put a case. Why? Against what? It is perfectly clear that because people do not actually know what "self-serving" means, they have been using it as shorthand for "a statement that the player made in his own defence, but because it cannot be independently verified, it has been ignored". Now, a statement that the player was bound to make, but which cannot be verified, can safely be ignored in any case (assuming that sufficient attempts have been made to verify it, and that those attempts have failed). The only glimmer of sense I can see in any of this is that ACs should expend some effort in trying to verify a statement to the effect that "we always do X when our hand is Y" - as, for example, when Marvin says that his side always pulls a penalty double of an overcall with a void in trumps. Well, of course ACs should do this. But whether or not the statement has an appropriate label is wholly irrelevant in terms of the duties of the AC. If what you are trying to say is that Americans should not label a statement "self-serving" and then ignore it, than of course you are right. No one should ignore any statement, without trying to verify it. But if it cannot be verified, then it should be ignored - it should not be labelled at all, let alone labelled wrongly, but that is of secondary (or no) importance. > Now that case is complicated by the > fact that if we do not use a label for this type of evidence it will not > be understood, as has shown by some *incredibly* complicated posts > saying you do not need a label and then explaining why. They are not "incredibly complicated". They are not complicated at all. You do not need a label for any statement that any player makes in front of a TD or an AC, for (as I have said ad nauseam), the function of a TD or an AC is ultimately to hear all such statements and decide what weight (or "truth value") to place upon them in the context of the Laws. > However, if you > use the label that every one does, namely "self-serving", then you get > connotations that defeat the argument before it gets going. Everyone? About four people in the whole world have ever used the word "self-serving" in the context under discussion. Nobody knows what it means; nobody cares what connotations it has; nobody has ever seen it used to mean anything other than "the player said this, but we didn't believe it". > So, to try and get this back on the rails, I have asked for a sensible > label. If you want a "label", then you are further off the rails than Virgin Trains. > There have been arguments that we do not need one: while they > are reasoned I believe they are wrong. And there have been one or two > suggestions. > > But the posts that belittle the search for le mot juste are very > worrying. No, they are not. The posts that do not think it worth attempting to categorise statements except as "true" or "false" are very much on the right lines. A statement should be judged according to its content. If you attempt to categorise it, then you fall into the very error you are trying to avoid - that of saying: "This statement is X, and statements of type X should be ignored". You (presumably) don't want them to be ignored - you (correctly) want them to be investigated, as any statement made to a TD or an AC should be. If, as I suppose, you are attempting to attack the way of thinking that treats a statement according to its label, then you should not do this by attacking the label itself, but by attacking the process of labelling. > You may not care about jurisprudence in the ACBL, Grattan, > but I do. Grattan, and you, and I, care about "jurisprudence" everywhere. To suggest that he does not is ridiculous. Grattan has said, correctly, that he and others are quite capable of describing the weight given to evidence without misusing the language. That really ought to be enough. > So far, the suggestions for a term that refers to evidence which taken > at face-value supports the person saying it, and therefore may or may > not need further corroboration, apart from the idea that we do not need > such a term, are as follows: > Possibly self-serving > Assertive > Self-interested > Questionable > Self-evidence And the winner is...? For pity's sake - the efforts to come up with a label for something that does not need a label, and that could not acquire one even if it did, ought to convince you that (a) no label is appropriate; (b) the reason for this is that it is very stupid to label statements anyway. If evidence needs further corroboration, then this should be sought. If it cannot be found, then the evidence should have little or no weight placed upon it. But the evidence does not need a label attached to it before this can happen. 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 Dec 24 12:02:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBO11uR12362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:01:56 +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 eBO11ot12358 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:01:51 +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 UAA25793 for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:01:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id UAA29326 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:01:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:01:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012240101.UAA29326@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > So far, the suggestions for a term that refers to evidence which taken > at face-value supports the person saying it, and therefore may or may > not need further corroboration, While it isn't a single word, "testimony favorable to one's own case" seems accurate. Given the reality that almost all testimony by an interested party will be favorable to that party's case, "testimony from an interested party" or simply "testimony" might do. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 24 12:32:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBO1W8V12436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:32:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBO1W2t12431 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.35.) id 3.9a.de45765 (3705); Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:31:51 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.com> Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:31:50 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? To: dburn@btinternet.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9a.de45765.2776ac06_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_9a.de45765.2776ac06_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Coming back to BLML after a hiatus, it is refreshing to find someone (David Burn) who uses common sense against a bunch of esoteric fol-de-rol. The crux of the matter seems to me is that everyone understands what is meant by the use of the words "self-serving." The English equivalent of the Academie Francais notwithstanding, (hope it's properly cold in their ivory towers) there has been communication, - projection and reception. This is one of those arguments that make increasingly little sense the longer they go on. And, I might add for those who are the savants of perfect English -- it is a living changing dynamic language whose universal acceptance is because there are so many different ways of expressing a thought. What the ACBL uses, when you understand their desired meaning though not in your argot of English doesn't make it wrong or right; it just makes it different. Unfortunately, it seems that the name of the language - English - makes some think it is their personal property, to be stultified, regulated, and frowned upon when it doesn't meet their standards. Sounds a lot like the French in sheep clothing to me. Is there anyone out there who would misunderstand me when I say, Me ain't got no money? Try that in any other language. As far as so called Americanisms are concerned, I'm typing this while my wife is watching "Are you being Served" which I can't understand at any volume in the, to me, atrocious accent being used by the actors. Thank God that the milions of English speakers throughout the world communicate so well without the OED. I've erased over 200 messages on this thread, and I somehow don't feel that I've missed anything important. Haven't we anything better to discuss? But then, I'm one of those self-serving Americans in expressing myself. $$$$Kojak$$$$ --part1_9a.de45765.2776ac06_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Coming back to BLML after a hiatus, it is refreshing to find someone (David
Burn) who uses common sense against a bunch of esoteric fol-de-rol. The crux
of the matter seems to me is that everyone understands what is meant by the
use of the words "self-serving."  The English equivalent of the Academie
Francais notwithstanding, (hope it's properly cold in their ivory towers)
there has been communication,  - projection and reception. This is one of
those arguments that make increasingly little sense the longer they go on.
And,  I might add for those who are the savants of perfect English -- it is a
living changing dynamic language whose universal acceptance is because there
are so many different ways of expressing a thought.  What the ACBL uses, when
you understand their desired meaning though not in your argot of English
doesn't make it wrong or right; it just makes! it different.  Unfortunately,
it seems that the name of the language - English - makes some think it is
their personal property, to be stultified, regulated, and frowned upon when
it doesn't meet their standards.  Sounds a lot like the French in sheep
clothing to me. Is there anyone out there who would misunderstand me when I
say, Me ain't got no money?  Try that in any other language. As far as so
called Americanisms are concerned, I'm typing this while my wife is watching
"Are you being Served" which I can't understand at any volume  in the, to me,
atrocious accent being used by the actors.
Thank God that the milions of English speakers throughout the world
communicate so well without the OED. I've erased over 200 messages on this
thread, and I somehow don't feel that I've missed anything important.
Haven't we anything better to discuss? But then, I'm one of those
self-serving Americans in expressing myself.
$$$$Kojak$$$$ --part1_9a.de45765.2776ac06_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 Sun Dec 24 15:54:37 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBO4r2w21147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:53:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBO4qst21105 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:52:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:52:06 -0800 Message-ID: <003101c06d65$5072d000$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:52:22 -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 David Burn wrote: > > For pity's sake - the efforts to come up with a > label for something that does not need a label, and that could not > acquire one even if it did, ought to convince you that (a) no label is > appropriate; (b) the reason for this is that it is very stupid to label > statements anyway. If evidence needs further corroboration, then this > should be sought. If it cannot be found, then the evidence should have > little or no weight placed upon it. But the evidence does not need a > label attached to it before this can happen. > I agree with this. It should suffice for an AC to say things like, "We could not give sufficient weight to the appellants' justification of their actions to allow the table result." No need to put a label on it. Which reminds me: In a land where people are assumed innocent until proven guilty, not true everywhere (n'est ce pas?), it seems inappropriate to dismiss out of hand an uncorroborated defense that does not accord with the beliefs of the AC. I say if it's reasonable, accept it, unless there is evidence to the contrary. If you're not going to do that, make clear to all contestants that they should document uncommon partnership agreements and take their system notebook to tournaments. Failure to do so could be considered a relinquishment of judicial rights. Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional 12/26 to the end of the millennium -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 24 17:56:39 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBO6r3t23436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:53:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBO6qvt23432 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 17:52:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from BRIAN ([24.180.160.52]) by mail.rdc1.md.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20001224065252.XQDG10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Sat, 23 Dec 2000 22:52:52 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:52:50 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.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 Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:31:50 EST, Kojak wrote : > As far as so >called Americanisms are concerned, I'm typing this while my wife is watching >"Are you being Served" which I can't understand at any volume in the, to me, >atrocious accent being used by the actors. As an Englishman living permanently in the USA, and therefore as well acquainted as most with the differences between "American English" and "English English", I have to say that there seems an enormous difference to me between criticizing the actual words being used, and criticizing the accent in which they are being spoken. In four years, I have grown used to the differences in terminology. I just wince once in a while - such as when an academic consultant to the software house for which I work remarked that we needed to "disambiguate" a user manual. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 24 22:10:33 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOB9cN23930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBOB9Rt23917 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-32.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.32] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10046 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:09:07 GMT Message-ID: <003201c06d9a$202a2d00$20427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 10:41:20 -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 "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Meadows To: Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 6:52 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? ====== \x/ ------------ > In four years, I have grown used to the differences > in terminology. I just wince once in a while - such as > when an academic consultant to the software house > for which I work remarked that we needed to > "disambiguate" a user manual. > +=+ I have noted the word 'disambiguate' for the General Review of the laws. I may need equivalents in certain other languages, principally - given the make-up of the WBF Laws Drafting Sub-Committee - these would be Dutch, Italian, and Kiwi. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 24 22:10:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOB9c023929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBOB9Rt23916 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-32.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.32] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10016 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:09:05 GMT Message-ID: <003101c06d9a$1ee3a340$20427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:13:39 -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 "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > Who are "we"? Why do "we" need to "attack" anything of the kind? I > confess myself totally baffled by the direction this thread has taken. > It started with a debate as to the meaning of the word "self-serving". > The meaning of this having been explained, that ought to have been an > end of the matter. Instead of which: > > > To do this we have to put a case. > > Why? Against what? It is perfectly clear that because people do not > actually know what "self-serving" means, they have been using it as > shorthand for "a statement that the player made in his own defence, but > because it cannot be independently verified, it has been ignored". Now, > a statement that the player was bound to make, but which cannot be > verified, can safely be ignored in any case (assuming that sufficient > attempts have been made to verify it, and that those attempts have > failed). > +=+ I agree with the broad statement, but where 'self-serving' is commonly understood in the way it is intended I find no objection to its use as a valid communication to those who use it in that way.+=+ ~ Grattan ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 24 22:10:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOB9fm23931 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBOB9Vt23923 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 22:09:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-66-32.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.66.32] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA10069 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:09:09 GMT Message-ID: <003301c06d9a$21f6fdc0$20427bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:05:16 -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 "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2000 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > > The only glimmer of sense I can see in any of this is that ACs should > expend some effort in trying to verify a statement to the effect that > "we always do X when our hand is Y" > +=+ Any AC has the duty to examine the evidence put to it, assess its credibility and evaluate it for the purposes of decision making. It is for the AC to determine the extent to which it will, or needs to, go in seeking to verify. It is usually the case that an AC's desire for corroboration of a statement will be in proportion to the degree to which the method stated is viewed as idiosyncratic. +=+ > -------------- \x/ ------------- > > If you want a "label", then you are further off the rails > than Virgin Trains. > +=+ We should be hesitant to commit ourselves to statements that are misleading. In the matter of leaving the rails Virgin Trains is more innocent than certain other British railway operating companies; Virgin largely stays on the rails but does so too enduringly. +=+ > ------------ \x/ ------------ > > > You may not care about jurisprudence in the ACBL, Grattan, > > but I do. > > Grattan, and you, and I, care about "jurisprudence" everywhere. To > suggest that he does not is ridiculous. Grattan has said, correctly, > that he and others are quite capable of describing the weight given to > evidence without misusing the language. That really ought to be enough. > +=+ Perhaps not 'without misusing' but rather by using language that will be generally read as intended. If this interchange of correspondence were not so esoteric I might now even think of taking up the term 'self-serving'. :-)) +=+ > ----------- \x/ ------------- > +=+ I scrolled back through deleted messages to the beginning of this. No-one was in doubt as to what Alain Gottscheiner intended when he used the term; David Grabiner passed a comment based upon the North American usage of the word, David Stevenson made an observation as to how it might be clarified for the wider world. Some seventy-plus messages later we are all no doubt much wiser. But can anyone tell me why this correspondence did not commence, say, in September when Alain used the same term in a different connection? [N.B. The Oxford English Dictionary ('OED'), Kojak, is a Great American (-owned) Institution which "includes within its scope the English of America, Australia, Britain, Canada, the Caribbean, New Zealand, South Africa, and the many other areas where English is spoken" (sic). Just as the Western Hemisphere gave us potatoes and nuclear bombs, so we have given our language to the world, if little else of value; our motherly concern for its well-being on its travels should not be deprecated. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 25 00:37:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBODaAO24231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:36:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp2.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.8]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBODa5t24227 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 00:36:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from bruces (p58-max1.oam.ihug.co.nz [203.173.238.250]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id CAA25552 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:36:04 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p58-max1.oam.ihug.co.nz [203.173.238.250] claimed to be bruces Message-ID: <000d01c06e45$46dc10c0$0300a8c0@bruces> From: "B.Kelly" To: References: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.com> <003201c06d9a$202a2d00$20427bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 02:35:37 -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 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 5:41 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee" > <===> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brian Meadows > To: > Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 6:52 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > ====== \x/ ------------ > > > In four years, I have grown used to the differences > > in terminology. I just wince once in a while - such as > > when an academic consultant to the software house > > for which I work remarked that we needed to > > "disambiguate" a user manual. > > > +=+ I have noted the word 'disambiguate' for > the General Review of the laws. I may need > equivalents in certain other languages, > principally - given the make-up of the WBF > Laws Drafting Sub-Committee - these would > be Dutch, Italian, and Kiwi. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > for kiwis ,try clarify? > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 25 04:19:17 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOHIFO03782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 04:18:15 +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 eBOHI9t03778 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 04:18:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.47.147]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:15:08 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01c06dcd$6e571d20$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200012170122.UAA28469@cfa183.harvard.edu> <038701c067d6$fa6725a0$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <3akc3eAwPkP6EwO8@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00a501c069f4$b74eb7e0$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <000701c06a00$f19cc020$af15073e@D457300> <200012200112490980.0323BAAA@mail.earthlink.net> <006401c06b1e$f842eb60$932fd2cc@san.rr.com> <001b01c06c15$3fd1c900$9d5993c3@pacific> <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> <003101c06d9a$1ee3a340$20427bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 09:17:44 -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 Grattan Endicott wrote: > +=+ ...where 'self-serving' > is commonly understood in the way it is intended I find no > objection to its use as a valid communication to those who > use it in that way.+=+ ~ Grattan ~ > But those who are the subject of the communication may *not* use it in that way, and may be unfamiliar with AC jargon. ACs should be very careful not to offend with their writeups. Players who have lost a case are understandably touchy about the language used to justify the decision. Marv San Diego, CA, USA At Reno Regional 12/26 to the end of the millennium -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 25 07:25:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOKOdu16655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 07:24:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBOKOWt16614 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 07:24:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp060.pullman.com [204.227.174.60]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA14428 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:32:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001224122624.00720d94@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 12:26:31 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:30 AM 12/22/00 -0000, you wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> I do not think so. Every so often someone uses the term >"self-serving >> statements" here or in RGB or in an NABC case-book. Unfortunately >there >> is an impression given which is often unfair, and I want a new term to >> try to promulgate so that I can get a fairer approach. Not using a >term >> at all will not answer. > >Yes, it will. As so often, incorrect English is the product of muddled >thinking. When a statement is described anywhere as "self-serving", this >usually means: "we could not ascertain whether or not it was true, we >didn't want to believe it, but we didn't want to call the chap a liar". >Now, there is no single term in the English language that describes >statements categorised according to this woolly thinking, nor should >anyone want to use such a term in appeals reports (or anywhere else). I suggest "aligned with interest". >As I have said, all statements made to an AC are "true" or "false" or >"unverifiable". Note to Herman: this refers only to a temporary >limitation on the part of the AC; it does not mean that the statement >could in no circumstances be verified. Whether or not the statements >benefit the person making them is not relevant - most statements do; >those that do not are likely to be "true" (but lead to an adverse >ruling). I think that most of the BLMLists have agreed that all statements should be assessed given an appropriate weight by the AC. If the statement is aligned with the interest of the party giving it then that goes to weight. At 08:01 PM 12/23/00 -0500, you wrote: >> From: David Stevenson >> So far, the suggestions for a term that refers to evidence which taken >> at face-value supports the person saying it, and therefore may or may >> not need further corroboration, > >While it isn't a single word, "testimony favorable to one's own case" >seems accurate. Given the reality that almost all testimony by an >interested party will be favorable to that party's case, "testimony >from an interested party" or simply "testimony" might do. I strongly disagree. In fact one reason that this topic leads to so much heated discussion is the common experience in ACBL land that forthright bridge players who in the interest of fairness try to give a complete and accurate description of their thinking, etc. find that the part of their statement that is against interest is accepted while other parts that are aligned with their interest are completely discounted. This often leads to three results: 1) An unreasonable application of the laws, when the against interest portions of statements without the aligned with interest portions lead to the AC assuming irrational behavior on the part of the speaker. 2) A wide spread feeling by players that in order to have a fair outcome they must say as little as possible and volunteer nothing. Knowing that any complete statement will be cut to pieces and the portions that are against interest taking out of context. 3) Because players know that any complete statement will be cut to pieces and the portions that are against interest taking out of context. Bridge begins to begins to become a place where "almost all testimony by an interested party will be favorable to that party's case[,]." This is bad for bridge and runs counter to the many efforts to get back to playing the game of bridge in the spirit of pleasant friendly competition. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 25 08:58:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBOLvuh19030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBOLvnt18990 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:57:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldlgj.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.214.19]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22017 for ; Sun, 24 Dec 2000 16:57:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A467272.24D38C9E@mindspring.com> Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:02:26 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <9a.de45765.2776ac06@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com wrote: > > Coming back to BLML after a hiatus, it is refreshing to find someone > (David > Burn) who uses common sense against a bunch of esoteric fol-de-rol. > The crux > of the matter seems to me is that everyone understands what is meant > by the > use of the words "self-serving." The English equivalent of the > Academie > Francais notwithstanding, (hope it's properly cold in their ivory > towers) > there has been communication, - projection and reception. This is one > of > those arguments that make increasingly little sense the longer they go > on. > And, I might add for those who are the savants of perfect English -- > it is a > living changing dynamic language whose universal acceptance is because > there > are so many different ways of expressing a thought. What the ACBL > uses, when > you understand their desired meaning though not in your argot of > English > doesn't make it wrong or right; it just mak! es! it different. > Unfortunately, > it seems that the name of the language - English - makes some think it > is > their personal property, to be stultified, regulated, and frowned upon > when > it doesn't meet their standards. Sounds a lot like the French in > sheep > clothing to me. Is there anyone out there who would misunderstand me > when I > say, Me ain't got no money? [snip] This began under the discussion of the use of the terminology "self-serving." To quote that great literary character, Butthead, "Words mean stuff." The use of proper language is a benefit to all concerned; even in those cases where the meaning is clear, credibility is added through the use of proper language. In this case, the meaning is not so clear. Pedantry has its purpose. The use of proper words, rather than lazily relying on improper words, is useful to everyone. I have seen a misuse of the word "self-serving" in a particularly acrimonious appeal in which our opponent spent much of the time with a raised voice stating that my entire statement was "self-serving," and should therefore be discounted. There are people who interpret the word differently than intended. In this thread also: "Marvin L. French" wrote: > [snip] > > Which reminds me: In a land where people are assumed innocent until proven > guilty, not true everywhere (n'est ce pas?), it seems inappropriate to > dismiss out of hand an uncorroborated defense that does not accord with > the beliefs of the AC. I say if it's reasonable, accept it, unless there > is evidence to the contrary. I say, ask the relevant questions and assess credibility. A good appeals committee can frequently make determinations based on manner and testimony, like a good U.S. small claims court judge. No fixed rule is useful; if I say the pass is absolutely forcing, interrogate me about the rules in my partnership. If I am unable to articulate them, or I seem disingenuous, rule for the other side. Appeals committees should not dismiss testimony which benefits the one testifying, but they should examine it. > > If you're not going to do that, make clear to all contestants that they > should document uncommon partnership agreements and take their system > notebook to tournaments. Failure to do so could be considered a > relinquishment of judicial rights. A system notebook is evidence. Testimony is evidence. Dismissing evidence because it lacks written corroboration is wrong, but evaluating it as less credible than written evidence is reasonable. --JRM -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Dec 25 19:28:31 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBP8QTl20627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:26:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBP8QMt20623 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 19:26:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-58-22.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.22] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA20387; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:25:58 GMT Message-ID: <002301c06e4c$8204dae0$163a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Greetings at Christmas Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 08:23:55 -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 'This is the month, and this the happy Morn'. <===> May you share companionship, warmth, joy and all the pleasures of life. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 03:54:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBPGqj908510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:52:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBPGqXt08456 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 03:52:34 +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 LAA27951 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:52:24 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id LAA23622; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:52:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 11:52:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012251652.LAA23622@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Greetings at Christmas Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Best o' the holidays, eh? Tony (aka ac342 the Canuck) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 04:01:51 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBPH1dJ11569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 04:01:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBPH1Wt11531 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 04:01:33 +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 MAA28563 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:01:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA24739; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:01:24 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 12:01:24 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200012251701.MAA24739@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: Tr: Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I received this email. I don't know if it was really meant for me personally or not (it is possible--the wife of the Morrocan (ps?) ambassador is an ardent bridge player here in Ottawa). I am afraid I can't help; I am not sure how Imps are calculated on the Zone. Anyone here have any idea? Thanks, Tony (aka ac342) >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > >----- Original Message -----=20 >From: Benslimane Skander=20 >To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca=20 >Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:22 AM > > >Bonjour > >Je suis membre de la federation tunisienne de bridge. > >Ce jeu commence a se developper chez nous, timidement mais c est un = >d=E9but. > >J essaye donc d'aider dans la mesure du possible. > >Auriez vous le logiciel qui calcule les resultatas des tournois en IMP = >stats, comme le fait le site www.zone.com de msn > >En fait, c'est du par quatre mais contre toute la salle. > >Si oui et si c'est possible, me l'envoyer par email. > >Nous pourrions faire des echanges entre nos clubs respectifs. La Tunisie = >est un tres beau pays. > >Benslimane Skander=20 >57 RUE OUM KALTHOUM >1001 TUNIS TUNISIE >TEL 216 1 259344- FAX 216 1 353896 >EMAIL: SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN > > >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > >http-equiv=3DContent-Type> > > > > >
 
>
----- Original Message -----=20 >
From: href=3D"mailto:securitas.tun@planet.tn" = >title=3Dsecuritas.tun@planet.tn>Benslimane=20 >Skander
> >
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:22 AM
>

>
>
Bonjour
>
 
>
Je suis membre de la federation = >tunisienne de=20 >bridge.
>
 
>
Ce jeu commence a se developper chez = >nous,=20 >timidement mais c est un d=E9but.
>
 
>
J essaye donc d'aider dans la mesure du = > >possible.
>
 
>
Auriez vous le logiciel qui calcule les = >resultatas=20 >des tournois en IMP stats, comme le fait le site href=3D"http://www.zone.com">www.zone.com de msn
>
 
>
En fait, c'est du par quatre mais = >contre toute=20 >la salle.
>
 
>
Si oui et si c'est possible, me = >l'envoyer par=20 >email.
>
 
>
Nous pourrions faire des echanges entre = >nos clubs=20 >respectifs. La Tunisie est un tres beau pays.
>
 
>
Benslimane Skander
57 RUE OUM = >KALTHOUM
1001=20 >TUNIS TUNISIE
TEL 216 1 259344- FAX 216 1 353896
EMAIL: href=3D"mailto:SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN">SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN
FONT>
> >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60-- > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 05:52:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBPIq9F04043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 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 mail1.blab.com (mail1.blab.com [216.94.197.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBPIq0t04039 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 05:52:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from rd34 (rd34.blab.com [216.94.197.34]) by mail1.blab.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with ESMTP id NAA19471 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:55:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <212712082.977770494484.JavaMail.SYSTEM@mail1.blab.com> Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 13:54:54 -0500 (EST) From: Dany To: all my friends Subject: [BLML] AN ECARD IS WAITING FOR YOU Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk
     
  Blab.com Click to learn more...  
Hi all my friends it's Dany
You've Recieved A Blab Ecard!
Click Here To See Your Ecard
Or enter the following number:
97777049296830408-0
at http://www.blab.com/refresh_check.htm 		Alternatively you can
use the Pick Up Card
on our homepage

 
Dear all my friends,

We sincerely hope you enjoyed your personalized e-card. Sending one back is a snap! Just click the Reply Button and we'll fill in all the email information for you. All you have to do is add your special, personal touch in the message. With over 4,000 to choose from, we know you'll find that perfect e-card.

It's quick, easy and....... FREE!
Click Here To Return To The Homepage

Thank you .... and enjoy our e-cards!
Your friends at blab.com.
If you require assistance, please feel free to contact us at comments@blab.com.
 
  Legal Notice Privacy Policy Terms and Conditions  
-- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 12:34:36 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQ1XMv13591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ1XDt13586 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigfoot (156.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.156]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBQ1WkM50984 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a *huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven Dwarfs enter... ----VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="sexy virgin.scr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sexy virgin.scr" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABNUEJFSU5FTwANB0hZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/FQBwQACjCiNAAIPEhIvMUOh8AAAAXqE1Cifa HPo3yJDnSLXJ7t3FOxTtOKRv+GfTc+pR9O6i/AuJNOIiPrxC4Cq53H5sNXfMXjVguFwJrFAYrHHj SiXLG3Lv+wdKT1hwcrOTfD7rduGAY5LvseJ7FEQYpBTblO28PiFdANOtfu+nOGbHGCUuPV1gfpLV ICaXTlFqH+jWCAAAagPHRCR8IIO47V0xLSsXQAAxLVEXQACLLQIQQABqQGgAMAAAVWoA/1QkSIXA D4TKBAAAUFVQ/1QkSAEsJF+FwI21ABBAAA+FsQQAAGhMTAAAaDMyLkRoV1MyX1T/VCQwhcBYWFgP hJIEAABQ/1QkKP2H6fOkxgfrgcc4AQAA/+f86L8HAADGhZwFAADrxoX0AQAAPImNmAUAAIHsBAEA AIv0gcTA/v//aAQBAABW/5QkkAIAAIXAD4QiBAAAjTwGuFxXU0+rNR8cYH2rNW0Pf36rK8CrVFb/ lCSMAgAAi9hDD4T4AwAAK+1Q/5QknAIAADlsJBwPheQDAABqEotEJCQr0ln38YP6EA+ExQMAAGiA AAAAVv+UJHwCAACFwHQcVWiAAAAAagNVVWgAAADAVv+UJHgCAACL2EB1butnaAQBAABqQP+UJLQC AACFwHRV6PAGAADGhfQBAADriYWYBQAAxoWcBQAAPDP/l+iUCAAAV1bzpIPvC411BqWlq19eagFW V/+UJMACAACFwA+FQv///8eEJLwCAAAAAAAAxoWcBQAA6+kWAwAAU4t0JCSBxgAAAQBVVlVqBFVT /5QkdAIAAIXAD4TWAgAAUFZVVWoCUP+UJHACAACFwA+EnAIAAFD/dCQsUP+UJJQCAACFwIsEJA+F fQIAAGAPtxgDQDxQaPgAAABQ/5QkuAIAAIXAWA+FXgIAADMY6CcGAACB8x0fAACLTQIPhUgCAABm 90AWACExQAgPt1gGD4Q1AgAAa9sojZQY+AAAAIt67Itq5Ita6AFK6AFK4MdC/EAAAMCLcDhOAXLg 99YhcuCLcug5cuBzBYly4OvnUYtK4ANK5IlIUFkD+41UHQCNqtASAAADfCQcUlXoqgUAAIv1UfOk XSv9iZf3EgAAK/Vdh2goib7hAwAAia/jEgAAlYtEJFBqEgNNPEkDwffRVeh1BQAAA0UCI8Er0l1Z 9/GZQED34UhIiUQkUP90JCSNtQQBAAAPt00Gi314i9+tUCvYrSvYcgZYg+7g4u+tUOguBAAAMX8E i38c6CMEAABeXofN6CIFAABbXlNqA7sgg7jtXY2GbgsAAIvQhwSvg+30K8KD6F2Jg8cLAACNhjYe AACL0IcEr0Urwi3eAAAAiYMQHwAAjYbvEQAARYvQRYcEryvCLYEAAACJg2wSAACNhucSAACLk+MS AAApg+MSAACF0nUGiZPjEgAAaAABAADocwcAAP7Egetw7P//iYN0////llKJk2////9fhf91Covy ibN0////6x0DuQwBAAAruQQBAAADPCSLB4lDzGr/6DMHAACJA4fx4wgAB67ByAji+IfxW4lxWIm0 JOgCAACLbCRMh/NVh83R6WatZgPQZoPSAOL1WAPCiUVY6CkEAACAvfQBAAA8dFCNtCRsAQAAagRW /7WYBQAA/5Qk2AIAAIXAdS5obWUAAGhSZW5hi8xoSU5JAGhOSVQuaFdJTklU/7WYBQAAVlH/lCTs AgAAg8QUxoWcBQAA62H/lCS8AgAA/5QkaAIAACvtVVX/dCQs/3QkDP+UJIQCAAD/NCT/lCSUAgAA jUQkGFCD6AhQg+gIUP90JAz/lCSMAgAA/5QkZAIAAI2cJEABAAD/NCRT/5QkfAIAAOsLx4QkvAIA AAAAAABo6ABRADwK/zQk/5QkwAIAAP+UJHACAACBxEQCAAC/BAEAACvni9wr54vsV1VqAP+UJHgC AABXU/+UJFQCAACLyIvRi/uL9aw6B3QGNCA4B3UDR+LyjTwTsFyquEVHR0eruEFFSUKruNG6p7r3 0KsrwKuDvCSAAgAAAA+EaAEAAIXJD4S5AAAAagNoAAAAgFXoqAEAAIvwQA+EkAEAAGgAAAIAakD/ lCR4AgAAi/hqAOixAgAAge16+f//VWgAAAIAV1b/lCRoAgAAVv+UJCgCAABqAmgAAABAU+heAQAA i+hAdFWNtCQAAQAAagBWaCCDuO1XVf+UJGwCAABQUGr/av/oLQUAAA+30OglBQAAD7fAgOQPgMQe VFJQ/5QkfAIAAIvEUFBQVf+UJFQCAABYWFX/lCQoAgAAV/+UJDQCAABqAGhQSTMyaEFEVkFU/5Qk OAIAAFlZWWhRPE7OaF7Stp5o2bCuwovMg+wMi9RQUVJqA+h/AgAAXltfg8QMVFRoBgACAGoA6NoB AACB7f73//9VaAIAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAQAAgP/WhcBa dWlSjbQkCAEAAFboUwMAAIcMJFFqAWoAagBS/9P/14HxIIO47YXJdUKL7GoEagBV/5QkcAIAAIXA dTBoTlVMAIvMaG1lAABoUmVuYYvUaElOSQBoTklULmhXSU5JVFVRUv+UJIgCAACDxBiBxAgCAAD/ NCT/NCTCdAArwFBogAAAAP90JBRQagP/dCQc/3QkHP+UJEwCAADCDAADfCQEK3wkCAN8JAzDc+ze mVfiyoh8ztGOUuzLgkb35LpJ7dyCV/DkrlXxyohO9+6IUvDRgk7f6phOzNaORYO47Qjgkc125tuD QYO47WCH/ovui10Ai3UEM8mLxsHgBIvWweoFM8KL1jPRA8KL0YPiAwMElwPYgcG5eTeei9PB4gSL w8HoBTPQi8MzwQPQi8HB6AuD4AMDFIcD8oH5IDfvxnW3iV0AiXUEYcNgh/6L7otdAIt1BLkgN+/G i9PB4gSLw8HoBTPQi8MzwQPQi8HB6AuD4AMDFIcr8oHBR4bIYYvGweAEi9bB6gUzwovWM9EDwovR g+IDAwSXK9iFyXW7iV0AiXUEYcPoAAAAAF2Bxf72///DQetW89CFLt9rmvNIEg6q973wG3KAvaix UJTSRed0Rce/4CEZ5ZsiSo/xDNA2CYvMLHIzMkfPsppRi4ToHGuYCPg9hG/7sX0zDw56vkBpng2X JvfX7qX5do2hPCAR+S1lusPlQWOkYLA4bev3UoepJgqI5W08F0qVd3tDEzOPh2wAAAAAi1QkEIty PI10MniLNo10FhitUK1QrZNdWa2Wh/P32ivyK+or2iv/R61gK8KWagBZrITAdBQyyLAI0elzBoHx IIO47f7IdfLr54t0JCyLVCQkh9GtK8J0CeL5YUl1ycIQAE8PtwR7i0SFAANEJDCLdCQoSYkEjuvi TThakDgDZgIECXH/gbjCkQFAwhXGgAkOtEzNIRUB6xhQRQhMAVMCFM7gAw8BC5VsKRCmBKWeKAzI bwTvFCziApwH3FPpCMpHWz4DCOfSKAoB9UAudGV456sOkck8B+AgkgsHLnJkYXQqJFFaSkzSTg7A FQH/qu/gzP8l4BBwQXQ4VAEPMNUQG8pMDDUgLzdWMDsRgEdldE1vZHV3bB1IYW72DJbgSxxFUk7D TDMyLnEemwd3UwAAVlAryayEwHQDQev4WF7DYIt0JCSLfCQo/LKApOhoAAAAc/gzyehfAAAAcxoz wOhWAAAAcyBBsBDoTAAAABLAc/d1PKrr1uhKAAAASeIQ6EAAAADrKKzR6HRLE8nrHJFIweAIrOgq AAAAPQB9AABzCoD8BXMGg/h/dwJBQZWLxVaL9yvw86Re65MC0nUFihZGEtLDM8lB6O7///8Tyejn ////cvLDK3wkKIl8JBxhwggAYOgjAAAAi2QkCGRnjwYAAMcEJEwnAADoc/3///+VzBIAAGH5G8DC DAAr22T/M2SJI4tEJDBmi1gCU4tABFBqAuh0EAAAWFtyB6kIAAAAdbpkZ48GAABYYemXaP//VVFS uKedFAO5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////B+gU/f//iYXPCwAAi0wkECvS9/GSWlldwgQAyAgBAGD8i30Q i9czwLkgAAAA86v/Aot1FI29+P7//7kgAAAA86WLRQzorAIAAIld/MdF+AAAAACH24tFDItV+A+j EHMIi1UQ6BkAAACNlfj+///oDgAAAP9F+P9N/HnaYcnCEACQjb14////M8CJB4lHBIlHCIlHDIlH EIlHFIlHGIlHHIlHIIlHJIlHKIlHLIlHMIlHNIlHOIlHPIlHQIlHRIlHSIlHTIlHUIlHVIlHWIlH XIlHYIlHZIlHaIlHbIlHcIlHdIlHeIlHfI2F+P7//+gCAgAAh9vRJ9FXBNFXCNFXDNFXENFXFNFX GNFXHNFXINFXJNFXKNFXLNFXMNFXNNFXONFXPNFXQNFXRNFXSNFXTNFXUNFXVNFXWNFXXNFXYNFX ZNFXaNFXbNFXcNFXdNFXeNFXfOisAQAAjYX4/v//D6MYD4PFAAAAiwKLSgQBBxFPBItCCItKDBFH CBFPDItCEItKFBFHEBFPFItCGItKHBFHGBFPHItCIItKJBFHIBFPJItCKItKLBFHKBFPLItCMItK NBFHMBFPNItCOItKPBFHOBFPPItCQItKRBFHQBFPRItCSItKTBFHSBFPTItCUItKVBFHUBFPVItC WItKXBFHWBFPXItCYItKZBFHYBFPZItCaItKbBFHaBFPbItCcItKdBFHcBFPdItCeItKfBFHeBFP fOjaAAAAh9tLD4nB/v//iweLXwSLTwiLdwyJAolaBIlKCIlyDItHEItfFItPGIt3HIlCEIlaFIlK GIlyHItHIItfJItPKIt3LIlCIIlaJIlKKIlyLItHMItfNItPOIt3PIlCMIlaNIlKOIlyPItHQItf RItPSIt3TIlCQIlaRIlKSIlyTItHUItfVItPWIt3XIlCUIlaVIlKWIlyXItHYItfZItPaIt3bIlC YIlaZIlKaIlybItHcItfdItPeIt3fIlCcIladIlKeIlyfMOH27v/AwAAD6MYcgNLdfjDh9uLdQiL R3yLTnw7wXLwD4c1AgAAi0d4i054O8Fy4A+HJQIAAItHdItOdDvBctAPhxUCAACLR3CLTnA7wXLA D4cFAgAAi0dsi05sO8FysA+H9QEAAItHaItOaDvBcqAPh+UBAACLR2SLTmQ7wXKQD4fVAQAAi0dg i05gO8EPgnz///8Ph8EBAACLR1yLTlw7wQ+CaP///w+HrQEAAItHWItOWDvBD4JU////D4eZAQAA i0dUi05UO8EPgkD///8Ph4UBAACLR1CLTlA7wQ+CLP///w+HcQEAAItHTItOTDvBD4IY////D4dd AQAAi0dIi05IO8EPggT///8Ph0kBAACLR0SLTkQ7wQ+C8P7//w+HNQEAAItHQItOQDvBD4Lc/v// D4chAQAAi0c8i048O8EPgsj+//8Phw0BAACLRziLTjg7wQ+CtP7//w+H+QAAAItHNItONDvBD4Kg /v//D4flAAAAi0cwi04wO8EPgoz+//8Ph9EAAACLRyyLTiw7wQ+CeP7//w+HvQAAAItHKItOKDvB D4Jk/v//D4epAAAAi0cki04kO8EPglD+//8Ph5UAAACLRyCLTiA7wQ+CPP7//w+HgQAAAItHHItO HDvBD4Io/v//d3GLRxiLThg7wQ+CGP7//3dhi0cUi04UO8EPggj+//93UYtHEItOEDvBD4L4/f// d0GLRwyLTgw7wQ+C6P3//3cxi0cIi04IO8EPgtj9//93IYtHBItOBDvBD4LI/f//dxGLB4sOO8EP grr9//93A4fbkIsGi04EKQcZTwSLRgiLTgwZRwgZTwyLRhCLThQZRxAZTxSLRhiLThwZRxgZTxyL RiCLTiQZRyAZTySLRiiLTiwZRygZTyyLRjCLTjQZRzAZTzSLRjiLTjwZRzgZTzyLRkCLTkQZR0AZ T0SLRkiLTkwZR0gZT0yLRlCLTlQZR1AZT1SLRliLTlwZR1gZT1yLRmCLTmQZR2AZT2SLRmiLTmwZ R2gZT2yLRnCLTnQZR3AZT3SLRniLTnwZR3gZT3zD6AcAAAC8IIO47etoZGf/NgAAZGeJJgAAYOjw 9v//iaX1EQAAahBfK+eLxFdUUP90JEj/lcQSAABYD7dEJAID54DsGXUvi3QkMIvui0QkNCvHdiGt Jd/f3981UkNQVK11EyX/39//NSBUTzp1B6xW6AoWAABhZGePBgAAWOnIZP//G2vHiJi92YfYoPwy IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkgAdq+JAHZpcwB2S4wAdtKfAHa0 oQB2oJIAdqCWAHaERwB284wAdiNnAHYpZwB2g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAua4BAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4T47RBIfOKAfB yAiu4vj/1V3oV/X//2gAAQAAakD/lbciAACJhYgfAAD/lZciAACJhc8LAAAryWog6P33//+R043H GAAAuIABAADooQ0AAImNRhgAAFCJhUgcAAAFgAEAAOjZDgAAi10CA92D6wyL04t6CCvfRw+EsQAA AGogT1mLtUgcAACLAjlGBHUpi0IEOUYIc9ZggcQc////VIiNxRgAAOhxBAAAVP+VvyIAAIHsHP// /2GDxgziy2ogWYHsOQEAAFToTwQAAFT/lWsiAABAdAr+hcUYAADi6OtEYFCLxGoAUFcr/1ONdCQ0 V2iAAAAAagJXV2gAAADAVv+VqyIAAIvYU/+VfyIAAFP/laciAACLhUgcAACHBCToHg4AAGGB7Mf+ ///pPv///411Biv/VldqAv+VgyIAAIXAdRKLzrgQAAAA6GsMAACH+YkI6xaXahBQUGoCV/+VjyIA AIXAD4QLAwAAib0nGAAAiYUsGAAAjUUKK/9QV2oC/5WDIgAAhcAPhYgCAAD/dQKNTQq4BAABAOgc DAAAiY0YGAAABASJhSYfAABQUI2FBgoAAFDohfX//4v1X1bogRMAAA+CEQEAAItFAgPwi0b8QHQH g8AK99Dr8YvGKwQkiUUCaADAAABqQP+VtyIAAIXAD4TiAAAAVw+67R+Xi/eHdCQEi40CAACA86Rq IGj/AAAAWg+2hRAAAIDR4CvQi7VIHACAWYvZOH4ED4SWAAAAav/oBvb//zrCD4OHAAAAYCvZi8uB 7AQBAABU6LQOAACL1CvbU2iAAAAAagNTagFoAAAAgFL/lasiAICL2EB0TGoAU/+VbyIAgIvI4ziL lCQoAQAAA0ICPQCAAAB3J4PADIlCAomFAgAAgFCLxGoAUFFXA/lT/5WjIgCAi0YEq4tGCKtYq1P/ laciAICBxAQBAACJPCRhg+70SQ+FV////1+LhQIAAIC5IItFAovIXovfgccAAgAAV/Okx4PLCQAA /zQk/8eDzwkAADQkwnQPuvUfYHMJK/BW/5WzIgAAYYHH/wEAAIHnAP7//4sUJI2yAPwAAIPHBFcr +ofXiZOcAAAAiYOIAQAAgcIAAgAAiZO0AQAAjYIAAgAAiUP8iYXyHAAAgcL/DQAAgeIA8P//jYII EAAAiYMAAQAAiZOAAQAAgcIAEAAAiZOsAQAAgcIAEAAAiZPQAAAAgcIA4P7/ARYBVggBVhQBVhgB VjBo/wEAAFlf86ReBUQAQACJRhqDwLSJRiCB7g36///+hhz6///oOQAAAIPu+ugxAAAAgcYN+v// 6CYAAACt6CAAAABq/+hX9P//iYa9GAAAj0UC/7UmHwAAagHonQQAAFjrP2r/6Df0//8BBoEmDw8P D4EGQUFBQcOJhRgYAABoAAABAFdXagJQ/5WPIgAAhcB0RovwrYm1Jh8AAImF8hwAAOgAEQAAcgyN hcQhAABQ6HAJAACNhWcfAABQ6GQJAACNhesYAABQ6FgJAACB7ezg//9V6EwJAABh6dn6//9g6O7w //+H9YHGJh8AAGjUAAAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGjQAAAAaACgVILomwkAAOjD8P//aAAAAHb/lXciAABo sAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC6wB/yANPKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/C5hwgQAYGgAAAEA akDoBfD///+VtyIAAIXAD4THAgAAUCvJiYgAeAAAi1UIiZAA+AAAi1UGiZAE+AAAx4AI+AAALkVY RYmIDPgAAFBqCOjuAgAAWBvJUYt8JASBxwD8AABqHuh98v//uS0tVkWRq2aDwQVqJOhr8v//PBpy BAQWZj0EQari7IvBq4t0JASBxgB4AACLBCSFwHUGrITAdftOi/7oPQAAAE1JTUUtVmVyc2lvbjog MS4wDQpDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IG11bHRpcGFydC9taXhlZDsgYm91bmRhcnk9IgBe6NMBAADo3QEA AE9PuCINCgCrT+jJAQAAiwQkhcB1UOgxAAAAQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFy c2V0PSJ1cy1hc2NpaSINCg0KAF7ofQEAAIt0JATodAEAAGa4DQpmq+hyAQAA6C8AAABDb250ZW50 LVR5cGU6IGFwcGxpY2F0aW9uL29jdGV0LXN0cmVhbTsgbmFtZT0iAF7oLwEAAIt0JASBxgD4AADo IAEAAOhSAAAAIg0KQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNvZGluZzogYmFzZTY0DQpDb250ZW50LURp c3Bvc2l0aW9uOiBhdHRhY2htZW50OyBmaWxlbmFtZT0iAF7owwAAAIt0JASBxgD4AADotAAAALAi qrgNCg0Kq+j/7f//i4XyHAAAi7UmHwAA6JYIAAAD+eiXAAAAx0f+LS0NCsdHAgAAAABYgSwkAIj/ /2Doy+3//2gBAQAAK8Be6KsLAAByVSvmVFb/lbASAACFwHVBVOh8AAAAgDwkAHQvi/ToW+///2oA UVbozQMAAGoAUOgxDAAAchVqAVDoJwwAAP+0JCEBAABW6BkJAAD/lbQSAACBxAEBAABoIL8CAP+V uyIAAGHriKyEwHQDquv4w7gNCi0tq1ZRi3QkEIHuAAT//+jg////ZrgNCmarWV7DYcIEAGDoJu3/ /4uNbygAAOP4/41vKAAAi3wkJIu1LBgAAIsGhcB0J1BQ/5VfIgAAhcBYdRqLAIcGi/CtUK2HBCRQ 6Knu///zpJHotAUAAKr/hW8oAABhwgQAYOjQ7P//K8nGhXkcAAD5xoVuHAAA68eFdBwAABAAAAC+ AJBUgoHsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///rCMdEJCggg7jtYfnCBAAtUlFW iI3FGAAAUlLoG/z//+jgAgAAXllacsbGhXkcAAD4i4QkNwEAAGDoCwAAALwgg7jtgwwkAutlZGf/ NgAAZGeJJgAAg8TsiaWtHAAAiQQkqSAAAAB1DqlAAAAAdQepAgAAAHQNi4QkewEAAIlEJAjrCbgg g7jtiUQkCIuEJHcBAACJRCQEi4WfIgAAiUQkDIuFmyIAAIlEJBBU/9fo3Ov//4sEJKgEdQaoAnQC DECogHVOqAF0NYO9dBwAAAh0CseFdBwAAAEAAADGhW4cAAA890QkOAEAAAB0EYtMJAiJjfIcAACL fCQEiU/8qAh0EcaFbhwAADzHhXQcAAAIAAAAqEB0Cv90JDD/lb8iAACDxBRkZ48GAABY/zQk/5Wz IgAAYem3/v//YIPsKIt0JFSNfhClpaWli2wkVItMJFCLVCRMwekDjXUQrYkEJPfQiUQkGK2JRCQE 99CJRCQcrYlEJBCJRCQgrYlEJBSJRCQkiwKJRCQIi0IEiUQkDIPCCI10JAiNfCQY6Dbq//+LBzFF EItHBDFFFIv0jXwkIOgg6v//iwcxRRiLRwQxRRziloPEKGHCDADoGQAAAItkJAjHRCQg/////2Fk Z48GAACDxATCEABkZ/82AABkZ4kmAAD/dCQY/3QkGP90JBj/dCQY6JoAAABgkePOQXTLg+kgdsaD wRCLdCQwrDxAdATi+eu2i/4r7U9F6EYAAAByB4P9DHbyK+2D/QRy4yvti9eL/kdFg/0Uc9aAPy51 9IB/BC507oB/Ay506IPHBegSAAAAcghP6AoAAABzs1LojQkAAOuruz06LCDBywg4X/90HoB//wB0 GIB//350EoB//zx0DIB//z50BoD7PXXbqPnD6X5X//9gaOCTBADo3un///+VuyIAAGgEEKGCagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAueABRACNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA i/H/lbciAACFwA+EkwEAAJeRV/OkX4k8JOkIAQAAK8BQaIAAAABqA1BqAWgAAACAUv+VqyIAAIvw QA+EYwEAAL8AAAEAV2pA/5W3IgAAl4X/D4RMAQAAU4vcagBTUFdW/5WjIgAAhzQk/5WnIgAAg/5/ D4IrAQAA98YPAAAAD4UfAQAAiTwkV41UNxCDxoCNHDdWgcR4////i/xXahFqIFlYqyvA86tfU1JX jYUKCQAAUOio6///gcSIAAAAiwwkwekDi3wkBIvyg+qA6DDo//+DxwiDxhA78nIGge6AAAAA4ulZ iwQkgeqAAAAAUlFQi0IQi1oUi0oYi3oc6Af9//8zehxfD4WYAAAAM0IQD4WPAAAAM1oUD4WGAAAA M0oYD4V9AAAAge0h3///VWT/MWSJIVRFj0UAahBU/9dd6we8nYxZAOsM6BLo///GhUIhAAD4ZGeP BgAAXYdEJByJXCQQiUwkGIl0JASLCOMC6zOLNCRQgewAAgAAVOiG9///jUwkAbgAAAEA6BoAAACB xAACAACL+FiJOIlIBLkAAAEA86T5YcIEAFFQ6DsAAADDYFQr7VRqBFX/dCQ0VVXom+f///+VryIA AJHjEFFq8VH/lcMiAAD/lcciAABYYcIEAGoAUOgBAAAAw2Dobuf//yv//3QkKP90JChXagRXav// lYsiAACFwHQTiUQkGP90JCRXV2oCUP+VjyIAAIlEJBxhwggAYGog6Kz2//9hwgQAYOgn5////3Qk KIHtbd3///90JCj/VQD/VRRhwggAaBnraRnWeKdDCf5IlCfaHPq1GtAI3cU7FOt24YDfwL/rlO28 PhikFNu53H5sJS49XThmxxiX35cgSLXJ7q1+76chXQDTNWC4XNhJ4jG8QuAq4nsURGOS77Gzk3w+ ifB8zFHTe1dmQlbdRk+jsS3TEzoYzve/AKD6dQ4P+r8we/e/sW/3vztx97/N4Pi/0Hb3v9Fv97/h Evq/Qnn3v5p297+pIPi/ST34vzhq97+obfe/Fnf3vzlw979t4Pe/23r3v2Zv9789bve/tEj3vwgt +b/1Gfq//PT4v68P+b9HY/m/YIHsEwEAAIu8JDcBAAArwFdqYFnzq1/oEub//4hFEIHtO+f//4hF AIvUV1JS6Kj1///obfz//3MeX4PHDFT/lfoJAAD+RQCAfQAgctuB7O3+//9hwgQA/oVL5///hzwk lquTq5Gr/5XuCQAA69Zg6Lrl//9Vge1Y7f//6A0AAABddUroGgAAAHTqdT/oagD/dCQ4/3QkOP90 JDj/VQCL2EPD/5XIEgAABc3Y///DuWDoeeX//1WBxaQSAADozP///111CejZ////dOr5sPiJRCQc YcIMAPxXagPoRAAAAEFCQ0RFRkdISUpLTE1OT1BRUlNUVVZXWFlaYWJjZGVmZ2hpamtsbW5vcHFy c3R1dnd4eXowMTIzNDU2Nzg5Ky8AAAAAW1mZiVQLPffxi8hSrU6L0Og9AAAA6FYAAADoXgAAAOLr WeMhrUl0Dw+30OgiAAAA6DsAAADrCg+20OgTAAAAQUGwPfOquA0KAABmq1kr+YfPw+gGAAAA6AgA AADDi8LB6ALrHovCwOAEwOwECsTr8ovCwegIwOACwOwG6++LwsHoECQ/16qLQ0BAiUNAYGpMWZn3 8YXSYXUGZrgNCmarw2DoZeT//4iNxRgAAOkH9P//YGoAagFqAuhO5P///5W4EgAAi9hAD4QoAgAA U4HsAAEAAIv8i7QkKAEAAKwsQHX7uHNtdHCrNF2q6Nzl///jIvOkkapU/5XAEgAAkYXJdRJUgcEe DB0cMUwkBP+VwBIAAJGB7AD///+FyQ+EqAEAAItBDPj1lq1y+1Ir21NTUGgCAAAZi9xqEFP/dCQc /5WsEgAAg+zwhcBaD4WZAQAAgeynAQAAi+xopwEAAFX/tCSvAQAA6OH9//8PgnMBAABVuAEHDQlo AAEAAIv9NUlCQUarLSg4Qk+qi/dW6Hrj////laASAACFwHUH6Cvl//8D+Wa4DQpmq10r/ejZAAAA agbHRQBSU0VUx0UEDQoAAF/owwAAALgE/wcGi/0FSUJBRqs1bQcbA2oPqzVtfHJzqzVzNyo8q1/o nAAAALibhZGai/0tSUJBRqs1chcfbquA9Ghmq4u0JM8BAADouuT//+MC86Q1HjFFOqtPK/3oZgAA AGoGgXUAdnRkYWbHRQQNCl/oSgAAAFWLtCTXAQAA6Ibk///jFFFW/7QkswEAAOg3/f//D4KHAAAA XWoFx0UADQouDWbHRQQKAF/oGAAAAGoGgXUAY2B5dGbHRQQNCl9VuDM1NCDrBbgyNTAgVeh34v// iYW0JgAAXVdV/7QkswEAAOjj/P//cjdopwEAAFX/tCSzAQAA6I78//9yI4F9ACCDuO11GsNqAFRq /2oC6GD1//9YWFnjD3INkelI/v//XYHEpwEAAOgd4v///5W8EgAAYcIIAGDoDeL//2oJ6CQAAABy wuuscMqL3w7H9KEgg7jtcuLLqE721a5P7daIQ/fRgk7w+e3obgAAAP80JP80JP+VeyIAAF6FwJZ0 OYPAEFBW/5WbIgAAhcB0KoHsmAEAAGicAQAAi+xonAEAAIvMVFRRVf/QXYHEoAEAAIXAdQUrxXQB qPnoHQAAAFhYnFbog+H///+VdyIAAGjA1AEA/5W7IgAAnWHDnGCLdCQoi0wkLIE2IIO47a3i92Gd w2CBxPz+//+L/GgEAQAAV+hF4f//xoVlKAAAPP+VhyIAAFcD+I11BmpcWKrB6Ailpapfi/BQagJq BFBQaAAAAMBX/5WrIgAAi9iBxAQBAABAdHI5dCQodCFqAlZWU/+VcyIAAFCLxFZQagSNRCQ0UFP/ lX8iAABY60FqAFP/lW8iAACR4zVQi8RWUFFRakD/lbciAACL+FBT/5WjIgAAWcHpAleLRCQo8q90 AuMHxoVlKAAA6/+VsyIAAFP/laciAADrAaj5YcIIAGC5AQAAAOP56IPg//+B7ZHX////TQCLdCQk K8msPCJ0EzwNdA88CnQLPD50B4TAdANB6+jjJ1GD6fCLwejS+P//hcBadBeLtb3v//+L+IcGq4fK kquLdCQk86SRqv9FAGHCBABgg+wQVOgi4P///5VnIgAAWltYWMHrEA+322aB6tAHcncPt8rB6hAP t8L2wQN1AUPjCIHDbQEAAOLwi9FIdD+Dwx9IdDmDwxxIdDODwx9IdC2Dwx5IdCeDwx9IdCGDwx5I dBuDwx9IdBWDwx9IdA+Dwx5IdAmDwx9IdAODwx6D6xXR47g7AAAAk/fzhdJ0CEp0BYD6OXUBqPlh w/////+xnB/x7FBeWZecADqOHa4/Kiv0sexuvMmQ64grzV54Cr+H/HywCSEdkIm40pvY6Nq3vguc fuCtLIXAFsfKrNx9cg9qEWxL990BZsKwe4lsF/3sOH6JTOc2XDFjnPuRqkcXRU5HlezW+q+zeSXa lTQWveC9Yf7xmwv0O8iA4RilwPGLtL1FE4QlDU+zGGEE6WeZUyBrgyOX9Nbf1bMQ3pA9UUbIZyrC rBBpIPoEeiZ+BI27Za7mQ/LvldJ/3KJfcHCc7x4oSGCHQGWGpm07h6gb6fJVq+px5ILc2k26oB+x 3X19ZTAAmZ5Oo6jQIGwfMr6JkzYQdBfWf6PR33dcSqPsB4bcSfGge9948ihlNt175tXwzIzO1DD5 kM6OiRr20ryeIxVe5j/wsFY3+ilJtTquyKyNmo/Yh/Dv8sZLl24Uz9/THu0qrodasG9/PXB2OVEy MSswKLlzyAKAJ513m0vB+/YE91TmNaySVwviGtGWH1Q2sIShvh45X94ISzcMALZak9ws6U+o/9PQ vaMQtyjHx/FvfopyS8DlSEV4t2CUFn2pXRGuaHOumJnHq7l3JnzR3NXbgZ2hZMelopPIYXPZoffB kVaTitcokrIc2ofMd2Wvn7TyJbL+pnWfED9J+EA8PMryZrkhIi4FBOtojxxo6Rqcx44+F7m01hQg EWE3+/RVRfICgWLDezP0Wa268cjUae/TmE8d6qLASaSQTfZFidn/a25uKtalUsGLmIz0pkV68Hla sw2yeZ88dsFXFlBjo12Hr6sXphJFUduoFlMrUcZIGVgln+Au6nIwrLEclBQvXyx2EVeUr3jH3xpQ rUihEObcsT2CP/i7CzPz9q4XH64YUlmsNasRKcYMOm0tWn4o4PJ+01XroNuU35jZfG2Q+nwnznOo TcsbC2C5TdKVfqSEspnCKi7qOUNmdoY3YAihm32TRu4290bK/vcf4yo1XnQLfkHBEZhgjyX8fY+Y CbuRdflvsJZql5cjW/coBQC9AZlRUPxc/DSXvJhpe6lNcjnKKlT7wqxINfehnYqDvbJ5O29T0mxy XF6H1gmbs1LmrTLZmLcF96nMDf47NUZzZXJ2AgAAADADAADGNNGjEyg1mrZvZ2ZVkYh95GVTepQb 9oL6+n6yEO+l5t7U1gzLQZZN5ja+FR4KcwFAF59y+3G3pmNkoQOgJ1w9ivRlnpVgUxWux9yF04HJ mQhtk8mmZQIWg+Tv84UA3J9CLASaDZCayYxdA5A9aeB7acw4rHY+9gyFAEE0fQ0fQ5FNMrOTq9Lv niQL1Kdn9vUwCKu8YxJ9Auk9jA5Kn2NT6HawUDq06k5On9LD/KdiFd9vipiG6+9rEHcML+Wgb7gI laSTLU/sBMwZrvTmEWVOqsxbX4fL7KYiMvBAxMcz7dW9A1Q3ixwGfkYnZDrhSR3EkWh9/zeTh0aH PsU3fHZcGuGAJE0ivd+I299Q3ol7MiaNNmwabhLWgWt7HS8+DcTVG7WR8MfANO2WZA9oL4k1MzRW EahSMmtX7j7sY9htGlwMa4PnniTzImimP/82b2SmOEsJZdXKi+vh5IHFaafIlkBsgvpOJ+pE2Pe+ D4LrfRGBZa6UKqrsqSNQII9TebUsO4V7q/uqIcF85Q9HCjL2h6qHVpmk6ZmW+aDhiy4A7xHUJPal xbTpaOlSE/CUyXmpSPeH3thaAPLN7K7SMJKrWj0G0RobVBgGOn9lMTXfsm2a1jJzV7WQUCa+NqNB 6FvKUe9HEZMf2Iil3AHnf/ElG9xivmO9ZnFl5QHcQufClLPOyO8bP5S8brtr7+WJrw7AIyH/YpNM Gyoi/K7r9J6qMNn4DrVRX7yCCWmljzt64mfWpCBO6NLrZG8M1UDFXVHXxZVVZVkP7RTkNegwXu7e SgzU4lgMYNhDa/B1XqmgewbPEujflxMur+OxamaHsd6no9xCu7AN/8gJTVpiEDedNeH7uP6ynA1v Pv8qs2ImO6IPU++GPHdkpKX2Rl09jqvpAkMtUGxzvumNh2DF34Y+WGwjkPBB0ZrUujgJ0ASgpN/5 67XQMPbBp+k2LcHtg7riYWLvs1SOxAKjXxvI2hmrQ3ugz/r9RfboBqb+udMl4KBUjhm77y9QGAfR U7IWQZsdga8UAVGcopzfw9GtUP5JoUSZ+qaouSQgKbHHQm+00xAV6KHB6TYcKfkpoMf5kduAzWub WbSVM3FB3sQMxA1YPyzePn4bucVdsqBZhaxyTYIw8puBnTHTjb9jtV9YyGBS3JoBLx1jXAm1MBek yjd/JuzL9hTwopCegCJNs/bsAXoL4OVM5vq16TK9SXv7Xh9Jx6Cha4OyVdiTP1AM91XWoPrhkuUQ LbUb17LcVve4JlTxT7PMV1Qto4UtlpsWUVL3Rswin56oqtNIZhOx3iGgbkYl2VRrUWo4McSwfER9 YyH0kq4DIsSJ03s83Pp9MkdsVQSGodnNedw5TcRn4pRv1QkkXQI/hyHJRKlrn0RfZ83KJappO0x3 cTPe5w0KFRGX6uEMglTw8kXBuZwdvBeprmYYKZ0Y/DiHcabPMcxfge1JekwgLNJymun0RQ/ZzzLt 92NMYcEfUT7phc8z11VveZPHcLbfq8Csfkpv1tDwgLxSs/SZOEGghKcaupUDvDAIa6HvmmzzcqQQ dcj5PGESY3uSMYw36kVGVBVPAbgb07E/vUpRoCtm8qIxekfI8+XcNJjOuUZ6B4iSqKljFxKHgGJj 08xNEX9L5yf3RR+abS5bkPtsNpnEZNc54oFGMiuAjWPARJUirl5vApkqx+oPbvhqX/n+8M09RE0/ Ye79/IC6U4TBfBOZGdva28TA2XVc+95bcA522xDxjwbMtsHh1Xp51YsQXNtVJwY0AuUsGyNbfSyD WOMjVZ6xriBEqwiNnpSq0qRumFAcr3CSfwwqbHtUb04GU67+qgHeDCglG7+Py/gArl+NLdRjaLF0 i58foJxsB0AskViPXQRJexmT1wvDqrx/Ql0coZ4egUt66hbntuUsypupQomV6xvsHPsA+mHvPFYR Mk4zYXcsWWgOSNWIVFnopxeXwli8GChriYpR31cDNehCyvsWdRL5fjwRkExRrmilIEhn44a1kVng wYCTCfvLmOnVIb4QwZRUaCYY4YNiDOfLE7nNJeBiMKQopkVXECGnnoEKB2/ez6sf7yvBNP8y16qD DxaztFUwd224wNdM+B8/ttrygO1shkjeorsxupJzFDBN7CX18qF15Hysldnh2UrGNMxOdr3MuxA/ g2QBt6elRk3+creBu59LSAjdfMMOs2xpkdiPo86OzN4jmJgo7F6znZKHQ3WVbiI+wM9Kso8HI3oS vweAVsW1i9EfNuUv+PRpSXttO6cqVkLKwx5qc4Xli/iiQTAPHxBwZt3bOE9yJNbGSbEX8WP1ffts jKSm4OudCOXuyWbnFf/1k66mbva0AAzsZe/Yrvl4mhh71ZOq9RF9cC5P0pBTPBvzgUaz/O8wzc24 AFN5HbE5FrHATNaLqBj4V6MmJv4C0wxfkFkkQkjdC2FBx0OICDtpT0TKHzRvH/MaOJpUZ12O44EA OaRmBHZx3eba1HlY86r2z0qNIbPo+qnjzoq+pXQk1ozO9qm+CXqDJrPt6BJMYBFelh4uNkQg4RBY An9AX4dtdCBZ/BslS5RWS+ybbBUfmr4IAUOsxeFxbd5kk8KZe+BvFpIygeusZppbiDD1bg7y+e4T U5YMPb/5E/H2dmuJnbsaxqToQFZC4StpIGTLnl0pFVZVwQvkywnNFs/5Of5pGGpX04oyFbEKfPgT /sxMxEIhQ3Twpw55d0UZURrBqKCWC+PqSt4aOMzNP0ZSAhcK95TcO0VJY4axgxzTnUE7+lAeip1S /ITae8UzxXtXO8c09yrY2nElSEtoqxD77j1PJvMV8PBZXCejw0mdc6/ot/zdCR7dss9K8e23f60Y zd9DyDjltDNzSn3q83ItCMBRkr/Av33NtmkhxvElI4aov3WN53HjSC2kXrAzCc5G07VB6VLfgXC7 +2tkEv4C0wxfkFkkgg8Fr4ae9jpaja/XyZML4+7PlryQ3Gt671Yp3y55x2PziChkbNNsdLBjaLkg iQm1rUykfo/kOWIzI6xA5okFeAYAWR82gilDm4vfyG/c07LGeMHEJlPy8M2RTFpe7R1eEJU6dJ/k 5nsEFJqoj0d6llU95gTzH+JRd8gsp62uTC88DtT0Y7Hds+P1hQB9ZQ3xWZ6fYOuAySSgPGr55Zg+ wMp2jXM2jdZOis+Bre6QaJ//x0QuYjxhZfWbmv2t7G5wZRH06OJoNiU8e5cQ/HP2CMJiIJBXC+yM GLDT7uNPOIekqJGkLAz7XjKU54yGXZh4Rf40N2C9ZYXvmhl0EZpDF2FmADwrOc2J/1E/NasMrjKZ oLlxlxr9Z5tt5pn51qCVGXLkyZRi+NuNV62cbvT05Ld/8rRs0JbeexdAsmSqwY7Dw2IzZjVyeK6+ DKEABXDkePW/8ZZZrekVYJEHGfO/ZZ5SIGWYdM/uCRVSUPmcV8pTpeETW7LAQCJuviQg8STfMoeU YK47yaR88XPw53oh8NxMHwMXqiv/cWgYMMRJrz9FTAKHUxJarSIMr2IpWSS3ruVrqduIunvM2xgb y/upiRfu6OCdctXV4RHzuojOOmOB2IIuTqUK5ThDQvejCNupDsHiyyzwqzPioaBWSP4pofavxzTP W3iFVPrUwE+bUQfblBpP6Nb+OmlfcnoBAQAAoAoAADnQVSmTyKTeTu8+mp03C636d4vNRdxPiVfq k7h4rEreo7uCoqJCQVYVdsGqs+d+ObiNkmcOAixnbQd2TcHB/KGhMG1JNNF2EjEeyxN9jiOKyrD1 7vzvqG2ANaMQfXu9qEjMXiU+TtVmILwy6CpSYYSNlhf/rhl9g/A9SMXfqvaONlQMeUsbDHgjNUER pJYk+kIR0YEUYk/261IzyPdJmaZsUqu3ZBG0uyKYoH79HTMfFCmXZunABK7m/9RXRlk3Tls5KBrL R+ITNPwtJNc6lxwphKdpP+22foFHHKWDeofJKziXhTMdo/EPrGMkKLayCNqJjCr4pzUPkNuZGz9k dWzHgjkCGbsMEgzlAUCyMDwT8rPfCg0CyWe+TfPg2DJUWj/9X7mzNqdLZbn2xAlYQW9lJA8FMyuo d1l4DhXcbTCmw+4Y/mtvqxY86EPqWzCwPzCs5C9ymkiDTR1vyKP6+UfVcsey2ChtbXjSuXuLS2qM Er5f2VL9TviVWN6nlvvLH7/Ahlfm0KM/z42m7rqcoIjmsqAgU6DLAENreysOJ4g8tsHeWT1YIk8W 0OZSSnNJDle6CO7/MPv0yzk6dZR6SrWmC+6yw4oyxVdOR4P0PTwdMfd8QEqkS7ZrEdjExE1P8njI GsGM8JvYIcXwFxKztKVbx6cB7W/u1qoU9uzJ3j6Vr4SDzsHUMeJuyRkN65QyKOGs9m5NLdQMo9za ZjXkive+OgYbPKmlgdgXnAGnQy8cTYrAZ020JEI6/F0bI0e8EhrPAH2FY6Xq63R/VpVAqKt9l0JB 9R11h6/IbnDbUEU9dV90y6w1pagUvHTLgbVh0kS4j+dd2v8UCM+f7S6e6rqDzVs0kGOxiIvEpA27 OaVF89LY6PbDqQEKDt/lgLLs3EfRU+T6HgfddDHysRihKv3oQy3l6C+z/B1I+IKX38K9rRPqaVvo 54Lg5Y5oMGK9dZ4as5T2WmVpj4DzTA8DZoGeL/3AYcDIeDqtwTrQ4t5wQMb4wY2fvAuXwhX3fkDM 6RZVXVnZUN4cSq9ctuRGcnoIP0pDYxyBjTDX0R2BkCPSLuovKG5P6fprhpOfnEGzTfOdeuropgXV qo9mGeklsCxd7BobPYBb0Dp1r2DZrtdWt51LK0UZkb9nRjPP37wRilJuUqhU+IvELrozr95xE5Go d7rauIJ2zfTILFEH/hEObweEI9VsMR5ovlKTZx6TcS69HYBGm9k13YC/S/xcrTPUr0huIGBgsGzO 7Ic2QoaFCfftXqe3jo0ICSq2GMbCAePvajQpMRLfg3XHBeRmQRSY+bGkEYbM6zCgV45WRrVdN8vb q7vKiyG3keQ3RdOC37reCIXr1EF6AAZFcVpWtzlaUdkgjLRhgmivPCup1JXIsb9lGdXtOIWEiuaz MXeZ3UPnkI449pAg4D1kJ6R17Q/ZDA7QjKgg41WUxuE+UcfV4lR0ywrDwcsl7GOKI4wPrEnxxyoo FHqf+6v6e341ADn+lVzC7AKaYQeSRIr9J4yzK7vWdybWjiIh3p7Vb9cIg3PB8aaCsqQDIZbC13C/ qz6JDzA2qtvmBtNxteLTikRN4UtaX8n4tG2tyFfKUx2btH8X77BvHaa1o/SiGeG4WgCjelBe/a8/ sA5WZoY1f27AJYAS0eMUxCLYfMKkh/8kSCnAjHfKV/2hZIrURtEks4EM9Qmk9mbfX6WqIbeillo2 sJS7Po0euW5gkN88avhy1xdwBXU3k7QGBXi/6JVSuYJkn3NFipMNNRaCG1VbkB3w71IhoPKcX1XV 7z5xs0G7mNLWTXG0M9ud9ch1TxhqVDV5oZVzzIxF6dQTHoA/+CkYgFWx6r2xVb7u6ouMu2+qqoCi zoMYag9nbx5MvkdFH9B9oBMLHgcDCtvquXvlU9Jo9i64OVAeXCCKz+qr6wWtKaAloMMWHTamhDsk hnLONlzTkSKWB8veVRNV2Ls1HBGkO6HO88LNAb7bM4UcQ+pun3iblqJhuDyAUCmQceM068fecNfB Ue2rMNXCVlqBWUzqLOU0E8UyDr4MN94a+OfHBBCfCB9QxH83snaERR6XCEzmRtaXVeg7XkvnM1G9 xA8lfERT2rA2pxyvO6t6aAyhrjx+Om8W1ZZO63B2P+GfOG3SxXelFHUPc8v4OJFaUW/oDKQTZ2ap li8LGbUHMPWbKiXwt/Ot9uxsjkuexI+WlYKdolvzjkW03WODIFJPkluY/J/Fkm205baWwtZ8q+98 Jbndba8MSfjGlWaVXIs75f5XKuMjItcLc+tv2Caxo+Jp7I7wKv54lTHhp0YXEK2D/4VxfndC5/wG cOJ71cxHDnJkRZZpUwT32ykucbjjWcqa3v8Hk1sSX7tHasgxQJpDJbMClvXItmIBRnsKroKkIFAq 5LTSdln+7rUpRNq488uQ1x6s0IQAtU5EzUOcHr9oMAXv/meh40J69F//Z9aC5nIDnRDDawH2MbOG JNcNsbLeZNjJjY+jv0j+gMUvFqo5fSkmodO99NSWQ4FbOs8GjbzMdEJ5/q5u2PSljaDxJt4S59EK Ei6W5ZaVzIJ6eEn18zjL+Ysq1liGVmmtpMLs5u7GBZROR6yoG6I7zRfLRko8OlLFDsaB8TKmKE3h aH/XVgOE9/tgQQpRDtZROWBktqwfG6A6U1v19rNTV4IIjQkVlkB6wFk6E5Ie+UGWRPSLqbbvwb51 NZwT9paEL0JDVrICiouf4tN6v6mRgYEe5ZV7kTgW0c2DPW869Vyq1Dy9ZIib+dQlWWKSIuYoNgNA SgrtMZ1UrIlP723bKjwaRysHDyo2xbHQy9istm7RFgKO7FiT/ZaehcnwkEg6u4p6LOzVF7UpKFVv KM6a7+TezS6QYKYeqifKQ3g0Xe0TEftuRnRleHQCAAAAcAgAAIR5ooYjZ6LZf9/7w3yvusKHgbm8 SXi2AJwWrypH6oCRXcmg+F1tKSnGsGKvGSskcYsUUHfKbd4cnNJrPs51on6hpglIa1gThjGMANri eog3gwcWfr5V7UFsxFWwb1LhB5Cz8Jf+GoOX0IzsVY5xEh6jojpCXLmTs6KcJHxdTPjqCh0g8kXK fQkIhjDFshqrNNga2w6HzpROxN7H1J02he4WON3w3ASOiS1GDjijrEwfiEZgBh2ErUlFXHn0DtV7 zteiw8dgBGoErm0Kz7DTdv7HheX7MVOxo/lVtziOomDGNqe5Ou0HXyiqTkWUFFntvEJWkn7R2XQs 3ft6I7uSGSvl13/B+1y67omuZaWX/m54B6KNj1xsPHDbZTiXkHOtz6SA4wEVvjqtXJAdQsY1UYpq Zf/Yp1czzAdrrhyeY+S88Yxh38M4LZG13cZPO/I/GCnqg9zE162RQihpFqYKC08bzRJ6NJ8ZTTNU z9YBBxA3SZsXla+G2EHbDm7vAumjo1wfZgm4JRybC3UYtcOFJhxhdmlwAQAAAJABAABC6Q2D9vWf pWxZYayHaWKj9V/NTb3VEf0IuWUmB4L3fOdR4beD/cjwc5o5vTSEc4O5MP5bafGZ+aIv+gExVGqQ X343c/0RWthYfhBuWPadIStZrDCUR22Ubq2ZuIIUbxRTi14YHT/a+5kX6DqWr5XpPf6qbRZUf5yg 96uZmIH771AtsWn23SfzUhS8Bykd3F7sk9HDAAr/bvr4jENoPAyobWq9VKugXoA4YSzSwpNPr39P HwQidhwtmkwCYWE8Lc09JNYJPAEBxP/cQWTSYNWr0Yj+B0Fr2KV43fd4kK8leeNf+YSFF+xW79F4 VmTq/AhBpF1ncWgpLrJOO7xeo9WtW9QKFBze/qYET83+0RBbrTvHR/T6xBbHsygq8y+I+VAaoX+Y Pv3IPrbEgWzQZ18+ilQ7tiJR8g5qtfASd0Qokj3Fgr424d4wjjI+IHBmLJulbt7tadq22lH5nQ3g r3vPCBeU568Tfwq3CBzP5tXaOoh7KFRDgWwY4pYW3dhql/qtiTAAU/k+GZZlPP0I1T9xDBKHqvLA vjJ4oXhxshcU47gm/ug5kv36i0o8j/12ONYmHIIWQX7UWz9LvWJTvHPk5+hW8+DTUDaCh//f4GVb Qt4p2GLUgzJ7cILAMg5XbLdC07VA/ml9fMU0GvQWFzBxJuHLoNyCF1azw6tCFKCZB0GbgpSg0Tdx 8j1ykG+BNJlscgYP8sCNt7ORf20Hrz8tHvnawOCSsAmQZSCRjVEO/YuOAiTzlLFp5jxJZLXSCVXx PHeF5xSY21ycEmeuBK7vY0X38/JfAc0k+WEBK1432hGIdtLz1RwjbzvLBznh5EX0WIuThxQoJ6u7 ZJr17HjylbFgFwfcJkWVeZS7ICHG1D7hJ4yqYrCxyVLxC5qkTmzfpqwdxaHf1ZmbZ8rI6w4QcXMy hNDOaZOGV5ju6DHGR3ie0tDXyYuKu/UugnmAgBVm0+GZ6wmRmX/N3FRSWLG61pDuI5JWwYXQ6uWj hNgzoRXblO6eEUq/BLXZ0Fv4/Q1R4zNwOcVbdYorWlWxPBfEO8uRJiO1FL6n3hBsT7pbEDXp4yLQ G+bgJfU5Q6tLKIXR+1fGAA+GLgHKv6YdAh5TwP6oNrI4h3s6JnJRvriwoir2R4iUcjUIJmk+XDY7 fuDMiZCU+DvGp6XmwgC4THIccmYUCcQduCzr9W8y8A3U0K83fCPQAa/hTKpYjHP5WzG4HzWg5VDs yWwuLszr2hc5WX/4/kddZLuzTOAWro+hjUJR1PJcMUJI6qjr5OlnPZ80qv+ZD4T3hMTcDc18Ayfh gP5WXqQMpiMRto1TKLZtl7i74jn2Jq9CE1Vkz2KVohYbTGl9/WZhncWfeI8ihGBQwk3DCCl7fZW7 hxWvNZxxW2e5RzmKqAzPUlfEq8WpNzwu8uL7QVeQRjq4wZrT5VgALXkHfms5r1MAJbueXKf9U8Gk dTF00QmQnOkOAK6RNmPvlCUafRXh+h7pvlBOleUVJW2hddVbLwJyH1N1qnC3nM35MTT/lCRoQQz9 qv3c6ZL+eSt9TQx+hAgkSzLALZCfMstqbj0ZkVc5I55sZqyxyM2XkOGoVrAz7kn9u2P62Xoo7lz7 iVQEl5/qcM00Ll32lz9IKlkQOGpddwwqcbdap4DA3CqYONNWtUK4Cbcx6sSKVBxADpoCr1m8BRWV Sx2PQ9Tw2V8eiO79iuAFHo0TCa1RA1no3E7yAZVjctRpn340EHfO2xiEPzG8zLHxqtcrcqp3IzHJ KoHHGvSC606cDGh0dHACAAAAMAUAAA5/+IJnWs7WVAscosvo+dn39bgMbnyuUKhBGmF+rCynWFDf 6E0x2QVJqVKRukBrgo1XzhTG7XdKDjYyfQ43y1+cX9AKKOTXVwDpXLxnoHMRWlXmO36YDzBivO4E h7GAnaJco0z9FfqPYsT0v49gurvEHDWixk/5GLnuwHTRyTBG20kvEvnQKEWWmonBHsnlpFnEPB3s ttG/fZQsh5/3vqjkHgZ9vWPKnqZJbTTVt8ISJcZ1vj3z5j6Hsnh2B8x9ze7Lo3z2aNmMoWUaNPr7 db58b1oEyBQyLoHv33it/zdP/D06O/XdoZ+PLWfHnqx/4dqaNaXK5aBPqWQCP8ztjPGMBJwqyTSk m1aeQUdjwBmLE+dH52MV3ol3gcVRTrRknGnJW4OVAdq6SCzBRsXV/M4S3Agxf99Is2YWRmMLLzAm nUo+tTv+7b8KkNPoJCQF4foIJX8XRx5o0REbHvlCGpxSckPZeXsSJHXTd4E3wSxUySZHQC8t4jle 9DQ/X5BlS364ni/Ara+flpT0kWv5MmqUsetT8S/wqGH6zvr/jWq1GC+CV1aQo0JKO5vOB7cOr/vl qfOvo+0g69h48fv40+BMHFQhlazcETWcm40l4W4AAxFDE/QwBhQUHgoKdwYeVhYmrl5rFtl0IiT3 zRlBkCpJf/bQPkQc8R3VKSh3BRZxrQWYWLTf5VTRaGhbrFELpp9iUrSGor+2YFkZ78+DyRzT+zFy V3u9IAIt8kAd/sNB5riVO5ZxErVI+usYgjb2D5ZcmUEHpgWse76VeWCn2dRH3YWQQJg+G8vFoT21 NjaT7JB65Mdaqjqe3yM5GpsUhKZfF3tL11J6lM7v2ldx/TR6HsC3eCgCMl70relxQOIC9HKP3s8A uIFxV6vUPpoMhtHO4lb5s7dVRG4G0Aw8H1AImDyd5m33UE1Bvj1yXWhGJUqR0XKDLFoahrBFYjV/ 6lfAlneiIL5jt3dgG3zroe9nDMqObhNY98C8gk6A5eYKH7raOVCI9uWIC4Fc02/E9FHYA11CNlzF WRRmMs77S7AkTV4M9a6RuWd7bfJSUD+THx47DhbHwbQm5l+CmSkBm56kXE7W8TA+j+fNlMXVLtrL VFj8sL4spM0QUuoP6RynDX7b8gtkytPIpXqq07Mv+Qqhwg7Eyfp77DpotmxyWLl/3EUl5MyuSv+l cvTVUBD5K4CeI6KeRQssFZBdXAPGEGu27ho/b30/83YWe1HpyuxynU5TwBNCW7RlkufkCxISjV+v G8G8AsXAD6nUYX2cSNjOQbh7RL0oqbSkhCLCuBeD//IAAAyNQ7fEREOgszKx9F0aGVJju0Ezcpmp IY158YQz09mnldhJQsO4lf0ffZkqHNX8ufbU4UCRWGNCtu/Df8ong1c7x3lSTQ6VLzhsriO+YFRg z9CpiLsFY1w5QpGVrjQD+0sPCIlLfwW3jmHdi1/NnuefjLPTaYxD978dhWFJqIMzv6Mg+557DCOy oZJE52dK6C59ESO6+uNaRR9eDlNyNhqpkCtCzV7CzLSWK6vpS/32UsavTNvR/Xj6KSTyUMLBYaoB xc39MsL3YO+XRfJy+sRSs2d2VEZDCEFzbuZGPzbHWGLpt09sCVL9802p8leOVBd4SS94WlWpMe/t dLsJuR54vZ5vQ9rRTgB12W+hAkOJkDCk9rnwVAnWgrOhgcuAJaxcFxrx6pgNBB+o2Sg125eM5ubI TJXUN0CM7VUlrGG5CWWfdkfQOU0E9D3B4Vbi7PWeTtA1fIDqEl6C9Ic/2R12uhHaATVcO44YUE3M KEsAAWl4rY4P6VgCsVfPFfxiwuB3iXagmnf59Y391HznsL3HaOp3H/ddEelw3tRSdsRDvc8QMfJE +V+kdN1j4xnnWZriufkhDQ0sxrgtQqZEQKRVpee4X5ddfIMXwtlhlxr7iVPSIBSGDRtTXJzUonnZ l7UbU/R24MxRmi4GQ0MVnvc0acSkJtiEfp+fy3YebBfuvlGWl92lDY4W4OdFoziC6iJl34hxZu+7 Hz3et9h/fsaLnzi+yVoQcFhVJhhXyJHeUleepON6BDAjjP/19pXOAEio0xSdGgCFICzZuZwkp54C wM4WQapTS6phaAEHIMmeLcrdLh1QNGvKiZfYQ7qz2OfUOuxl1ZtcbrQ4CpFx7AQAYtSL4Nzk0lIW yMcCu9L1VhOfd0pnh5qYqAqUSSu2AcQDapxDTnVesrdbzgJ60YZOfeXI4AvyeiqlEGx6OZfT2AhF u9wDOlHLyHW7Xu8vqL39RFVjcZnaftNK6CCEaWT5kwdfznyNaxHH/W/V1Qm3/m56vhWgDYDKZAJJ QzMwqcLPcvP5ugo2nj9BuCIj1kkVTw4uRwokpwUEFKmOV3WoC1QdsG+LfW8gDDWirdYIdyRWKTeq Maa/1ZuhHiBqvupL+pSGSwgTVKwNUL2O+j6OmVejPAFlBxAjWrr3dpSm/DWJyQ3cELWQNKdUeopH CkeFVKO1QKRf6TexuD7TwOkkqD1wjZ3TVq0ykjzMq8emyUt+tSJi56BqhYHo/fSWZ6foLnDDh2yb fTYNU9dfCZgL9rI3PoCPeEV2NQKcIAUtcL3sA6RysFlirvwi2a7MdCoq9QWRyoFzh8G27OhV1ZZ8 1nueizE0XcT6VthXvn2F/YEDQNAMa5FdcBe7vfDcGZUM5OjXkB8+RTxTd+rusXkNzweXd881qriM BLa+lWrneaT/VhkzuVWOkobEbOvUzwInE7XH6f6zM9mbNxqn7CBOmxLNC6kJ/7a/+2jQglawnYuL UqIEmxboAKsA3GmwIvgBV8KDqNnDBwMxCiUKapWgt2oJaLwClKD5lmy/h1ssrA89PjLeV97vWpYF mozY5zv6Z3zDufPlqU8qxmyPpz+MFhYqWYC3f3EcEhxiSvog6UsmCUBt6zgd2rrZ6E5BUOwlthh1 DaoJsSygiNUsgqJCmRyCSU4ePaq3xGDSs0GS/Dtej6P0UOHjFotwLewpF9khpsKqiYi39BR9CvAj S7i5jumkn018haC18G1Dc39DpRywDkjwOirFqG/2w4zx9htmTyuMrD943/M1wm+psVc0QQFOrIm9 NGym0m0naoN2ICu/16PanhCJu2lr46T7mi2xrSYxKy5QH4kflq5uaCMSia7t8+4fsdZDE222xHrq CSKHYXymhUs46OqzJi413Gc2TmfOxgLxhaPMIGOqflMCrZwPJYZoK9H/Vp4Kkmujn4ui7/g3ys+P ASrq9Gc4OzFLhPD8ia9+lKT9EQzcBZnwdaPKn6nXG1HV7GQFMpN08jCYIgHVnjnJAAE2A3ldRzT+ zoj85VwHEZXrGvTol5+OCeZ+RvwzHmiYod3rGpr3x3n/ZjDPZs4NDk3P/BwAyMix6Bb2l+Ln1VoA ZWuSEd5c8nsIkaZkQmXAzy1OyJpDC3BgbBd0UA631csPgfUaRMlGRaAI09zMcWkEMccjd/UubXuh e2U7w+fBkjpn0Ln+U1t63tnFN9eunqYVfsw5R2mthEzNMKr90xpwsQ61u/LXme6N3sim/S7Xe1XU cPBMe5fIi7VY6dQDhmNwVYFN8TufX1b1hYXVkgoown1zGKJXTp3rhwDSCsxhl8d/eEF2Xwdk3iOi P/DrZ2IZXzu6TV2sw60/TyDAbcjjMBVOtrbobnRjEvb+vqDfNdIAgvx64F21aE8pc5fPCLhymPDP fFqzBLH2YD5g5++86b8UTOkwGxbjIuJHcgFw8/t4HtfGldiIFHndA1MvIZ2+qBowJeuwTm3bCQ6c nGHUnFuYj2QWHm7dLqsX8Wwpg6Di4jYu4ONa0GfFD6Xxg9cyKaSkw08nX//xKBKT6GFhLMCNEECy xHyHzuTeiuPA/O5krlAueTl/tBHqMTCFsuXMrUG8NP3eupB4/lMC6y59xhsI76BOVuN2+/r7zr1I MHRONLGdnZkv1bG3DlrzLiu/ka5/ifLzRSLXBWmtzO7Y41T1u5FEeLLLorkyAL2pUYrw+BYgnO3W 61PHt+Q1EDIQFX8v8yFZmiL4Ip9Q2CGC7xLfYRWohp3cvnBZ82rWDhVYBU8h8HYfGC/suAmf9eq/ G204JaYYeyc7P+pPVU1DdlpfLk76PjxETBrOhwDWZsqY4eEcensZYaAFIDkaWrmPrL9Gg5dwo5O7 j536cu2p30UteSv1L2pe2nA4qN5B4s54vG9A1fnZdB5KdEY5nHVOliMngv39i/UHjyIlEkDKarzo dmMVxYJBHV90jezaOe/p25U3SOFj6fx4ZOXK5quuVeuhN3GHWFkgkTC0322OGHRXWoEpNARYNv+z hT+CubmnKToNod9a4MfI76p6fmRNl9++ZOFR+O3zt7XzQOhqn31ZHjLg0nCJGpV70kQYXmqEkdJe LdFeGOE2elBr+NS/ioiLYE+8JtSHktJVJOanjQ4PZe3gSkGMWpRanxyTaJOTRaME23oAPi3h9Axs DprP79rIOTzBU+LQU/Hwxl3mapCAet2a6OBBcce/7wD+sA2se16kQwlZCIAGp88e/Pv5MCE3Bb0d dm7LEzCoiHTyVvqLe7nu6KKiHI29/oDWVjrHrEVrHYt4rInxFM+6wo8ZVp7EWbpPvHCrwN7iU2QX 7ENNxZb2SefMHgDTfn87yF//NIasbekUM6o6Oe8bEU03tTS4Mj9v9nEyY4o/4vKvtKr5t+O0Zpuz yrAoKYqrUzxdc1Rs3Tlv1YwsdzTFC8po63CbiJoIb7PbX4rlM6TVgW6MX1YJg2le+hTikcIEsTFu ZXdzAgAAAPANAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADhwAAAAAAAAMHAAAAAAAAAAAAAATHAAAABwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAADhwAAAAAAAAEQFHZXRNb2R1bGVIYW5kbGVBAABLRVJORUwzMi5kbGwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ----VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 13:19:54 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQ2JWd13693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (mx1.hcvlny.cv.net [167.206.112.76]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ2JPt13689 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:19:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from s1.optonline.net (s1.optonline.net [167.206.112.6]) by mx1.hcvlny.cv.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ2JMu06423 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:19:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from downstairs (ool-18bc01fd.dyn.optonline.net [24.188.1.253]) by s1.optonline.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id eBQ2JLi05430 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:19:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000901c06ee2$4819f9a0$fd01bc18@downstairs> From: "Art Brodsky" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Virus Warning Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 21:19:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-user-defined" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Don't open the attachment in Hahaha's post. It is infected with the W95.hybris.Gen.dr virus. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 14:22:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQ3LTT13784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:21:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQ3LMt13780 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:21:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhc8.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.69.136]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA00660 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:21:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:21:00 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marcus, Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. All: If this particular setting is possible, would others on the list mind if Marcus implemented it? A text-only mailing list, with no attachments permitted, would make receiving a virus through the list almost impossible. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 22:34:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQBWBR25018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:32:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQBW1t25010 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.10.121]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001226113156.XFVM18404.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:56 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:33:00 -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 Some mailings come with an embedded message and an attachment that say the same thing. I don't know why this is so. Meaningful attachments are rare, but those there are, are usually worth having. What I do not understand is how someone with the name "hahaha" can post to this group. If I cancelled my subscription, I am sure my mailings would be returned. Marcus will I am sure explain :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 3:21 AM Subject: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN > Marcus, > > Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary > attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly > reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy > virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. > > All: > > If this particular setting is possible, would others on the list mind > if Marcus implemented it? A text-only mailing list, with no > attachments permitted, would make receiving a virus through the list > almost impossible. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 22:34:18 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQBWIK25020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:32:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQBW1t25011 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:32:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.10.121]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001226113156.XFVM18404.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid>; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:56 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:33:00 -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 Some mailings come with an embedded message and an attachment that say the same thing. I don't know why this is so. Meaningful attachments are rare, but those there are, are usually worth having. What I do not understand is how someone with the name "hahaha" can post to this group. If I cancelled my subscription, I am sure my mailings would be returned. Marcus will I am sure explain :-) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 3:21 AM Subject: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN > Marcus, > > Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary > attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly > reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy > virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. > > All: > > If this particular setting is possible, would others on the list mind > if Marcus implemented it? A text-only mailing list, with no > attachments permitted, would make receiving a virus through the list > almost impossible. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 23:14:45 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQCEN326916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:14:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQCECt26856 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:14:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from m138-mp1-cvx1b.lan.ntl.com ([62.252.168.138]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001226121408.CMBI283.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@m138-mp1-cvx1b.lan.ntl.com> for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:14:08 +0000 From: pam To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:15:18 +0000 Message-ID: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.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 eBQCEFt26874 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:21:00 -0500, Hirsh wrote: >Marcus, > >Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary >attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly >reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy >virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. I am a little more concerned that the virus was NOT sent to BLML but to the individual members of BLML list (at least, I received it directly and the BLML tag line was not present). Setting the mailing list to reject attachments, though a very good idea, would not have helped in this case. I would guess that the BLML mailiing list has been "appropriated" by someone so expect a few more viruses chaps. Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Dec 26 23:14:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQCEN526913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:14:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQCE7t26833 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:14:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from m138-mp1-cvx1b.lan.ntl.com ([62.252.168.138]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001226121403.CMBD283.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@m138-mp1-cvx1b.lan.ntl.com> for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:14:03 +0000 From: pam To: Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:15:12 +0000 Message-ID: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> 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 eBQCEFt26873 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:33:00 -0000, Anne wrote: >What I do not understand is how someone with the name "hahaha" can post >to this group. He did not post to the group. He sent a mail to all the members of this group without going through BLML. Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 27 00:26:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQDPOs29005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:25:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQDPHt29001 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:25:18 +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 14Au6H-0007RX-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:25:12 +0000 Message-ID: <7unfKmAJNAS6EwkW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 02:32:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! References: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> In-Reply-To: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hahaha writes >Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and >polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a >*huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven >Dwarfs enter... > > >[ A MIME application / octet-stream part was included here. ] I have been told this is a *very* nasty virus. -- Cheers, 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 Dec 27 01:21:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQEKxN03562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:20:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQEKrt03558 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.10.163]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20001226142047.LHRE6427.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:20:47 +0000 Message-ID: <003301c06f47$39165560$a30aff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <200012251701.MAA24739@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Tr: Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:21:50 -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 I don't see floods of replies so I will have a go. I believe it is done in the same way as the http://www.ebuonline.com facility. The extreme scores are removed, as per Butler, the rest are used to establish a datum and scores achieved are calculated as plus or minus the datum, and International Match Points are ascribed to the difference. Interesting about the MSN Zone site is that bots are available to fill tables, and you can insist on having bots as opps or as opps and as partner. The bots on this site are unable to contest a claim, you can bid 7NT on every hand, claim on trick one, and do your IMPs a heap of good. So kindly tell your enquirer that while the score calculation is valid, the level of achievement indicated on the leader lists are IMO meaningless. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 5:01 PM Subject: [BLML] Re: Tr: > I received this email. I don't know if it was really meant for me > personally or not (it is possible--the wife of the Morrocan (ps?) > ambassador is an ardent bridge player here in Ottawa). I am afraid > I can't help; I am not sure how Imps are calculated on the Zone. > Anyone here have any idea? Thanks, > Tony (aka ac342) > > >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > > >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60 > >Content-Type: text/plain; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > >----- Original Message -----=20 > >From: Benslimane Skander=20 > >To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca=20 > >Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:22 AM > > > > > >Bonjour > > > >Je suis membre de la federation tunisienne de bridge. > > > >Ce jeu commence a se developper chez nous, timidement mais c est un = > >d=E9but. > > > >J essaye donc d'aider dans la mesure du possible. > > > >Auriez vous le logiciel qui calcule les resultatas des tournois en IMP = > >stats, comme le fait le site www.zone.com de msn > > > >En fait, c'est du par quatre mais contre toute la salle. > > > >Si oui et si c'est possible, me l'envoyer par email. > > > >Nous pourrions faire des echanges entre nos clubs respectifs. La Tunisie = > >est un tres beau pays. > > > >Benslimane Skander=20 > >57 RUE OUM KALTHOUM > >1001 TUNIS TUNISIE > >TEL 216 1 259344- FAX 216 1 353896 > >EMAIL: SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN > > > > > >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60 > >Content-Type: text/html; > > charset="iso-8859-1" > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > > > > > > >http-equiv=3DContent-Type> > > > > > > > > > >
 
> >
----- Original Message -----=20 > >
From: >href=3D"mailto:securitas.tun@planet.tn" = > >title=3Dsecuritas.tun@planet.tn>Benslimane=20 > >Skander
> > > >
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2000 9:22 AM
> >

> >
> >
Bonjour
> >
 
> >
Je suis membre de la federation = > >tunisienne de=20 > >bridge.
> >
 
> >
Ce jeu commence a se developper chez = > >nous,=20 > >timidement mais c est un d=E9but.
> >
 
> >
J essaye donc d'aider dans la mesure du = > > > >possible.
> >
 
> >
Auriez vous le logiciel qui calcule les = > >resultatas=20 > >des tournois en IMP stats, comme le fait le site >href=3D"http://www.zone.com">www.zone.com de msn
> >
 
> >
En fait, c'est du par quatre mais = > >contre toute=20 > >la salle.
> >
 
> >
Si oui et si c'est possible, me = > >l'envoyer par=20 > >email.
> >
 
> >
Nous pourrions faire des echanges entre = > >nos clubs=20 > >respectifs. La Tunisie est un tres beau pays.
> >
 
> >
Benslimane Skander
57 RUE OUM = > >KALTHOUM
1001=20 > >TUNIS TUNISIE
TEL 216 1 259344- FAX 216 1 353896
EMAIL: >href=3D"mailto:SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN">SECURITAS.TUN@PLANET.TN
>FONT>
> > > >------=_NextPart_000_004B_01C06E73.AFBD7F60-- > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 27 01:32:28 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQEVqY03656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:31:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQEVjt03651 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:31:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4og.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.16]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA31722; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:31:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01c06f49$10461ce0$1013f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML" References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 09:35:13 -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 would consider this a good idea. I have a policy to NEVER open attachments unless I had arranged with the sender to receive them. Our home office computer has sent upwards of 800 virus messages to us in the past 30 days. This is a serious problem and we should do whatever we can to counter it. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 10:21 PM Subject: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN > Marcus, > > Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary > attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly > reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy > virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. > > All: > > If this particular setting is possible, would others on the list mind > if Marcus implemented it? A text-only mailing list, with no > attachments permitted, would make receiving a virus through the list > almost impossible. > > Regards, > > Hirsch > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 27 01:39:03 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQEcnV03937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:38:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQEcUt03868 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 01:38:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts29.eiu.edu [139.67.16.29]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id IAA19367; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:39:16 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001226084142.007c2510@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 08:41:42 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Cc: pam In-Reply-To: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:15 PM 12/26/00 +0000, pam wrote: >On Mon, 25 Dec 2000 22:21:00 -0500, Hirsh wrote: > >>Marcus, >I am a little more concerned that the virus was NOT sent to BLML but >to the individual members of BLML list (at least, I received it >directly and the BLML tag line was not present). Mine had the BLML tag line intact, and showed the sender as the BLML address. I have been told that it is possible to falsify the originating address, so I suppose this may have happened in this case, but it certainly seemed to come from BLML. >Setting the mailing list to reject attachments, though a very good >idea, would not have helped in this case. I also favor rejecting attachments. I'm sure that arrangements can be made for downloading from websites anything that is currently sent by a useful attachment. >I would guess that the BLML mailiing list has been "appropriated" by >someone so expect a few more viruses chaps. You may well be right--but I hope not. :( >Pam -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 Wed Dec 27 02:49:13 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQFmWn25705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 02:48:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQFmIt25648 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 02:48:19 +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 14AwKi-000D0F-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:48:14 +0000 Message-ID: <1Zrn0LAkNKS6EwG9@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 13:55:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis writes >Marcus, > >Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary >attachments would not be passed with the messages? This would greatly >reduce the chances of a virus being passed along, such as "sexy >virgin.scr" which was just distributed to BLML. > >All: > >If this particular setting is possible, would others on the list mind >if Marcus implemented it? A text-only mailing list, with no >attachments permitted, would make receiving a virus through the list >almost impossible. Sure. Mailing list should be text only, though an exception is generally made for a v-card. -- Cheers, 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 Dec 27 03:08:46 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQG8Vo01904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:08:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQG8Ft01846 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:08:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.53.31] (helo=D457300) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Awe1-0006V5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:08:09 +0000 Message-ID: <001a01c06f56$13216480$1f35073e@D457300> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> <7unfKmAJNAS6EwkW@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:08:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > Hahaha writes > >Today, Snowhite was turning 18. The 7 Dwarfs always where very educated and > >polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a > >*huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven > >Dwarfs enter... > > > > > >[ A MIME application / octet-stream part was included here. ] > > I have been told this is a *very* nasty virus. It doesn't actually do anything too horrible - like many of its kind, it is simply a blasted nuisance. However, it is a highly sophisticated blasted nuisance, as can be seen from the attached description of it from the Sophos web site. I would strongly advise all BLML readers *never* to open an attachment of any kind to a message, unless you have complete confidence in its source. When I saw the message in my mailbox, I deleted it at once, and I recommend this practice to everyone. David Burn London, England Name: W32/Hybris-D Type: Win32 worm Detection: Detected by Sophos Anti-Virus February 2001 (3.42) or later. A virus identity (IDE) file is available for earlier versions from the Latest virus identities section. Sophos has received several reports of this worm from the wild. Sophos researchers have released an updated IDE file which improves detection of the virus. Comments: W32/Hybris-D is a worm capable of updating its functionality over the internet. It consists of a base part and a collection of upgradeable components. The components are stored within the worm body encrypted with 128-bit strong cryptography. When run, the worm infects WSOCK32.DLL. Whenever an email is sent, the worm attempts to send a copy of itself as an attachment to a separate message to the same recipient. Any other behaviour exhibited by the worm is entirely dependent on the set of installed components. The effects of components known to Sophos at the time of writing are described below. The text of the email message is determined by one of the installed components, and hence can be changed by the upgrading mechanism detailed below. Consequently the message can have any subject, any message text and any filename for the attached file. A common component of the worm checks the language settings of the computer it has infected, and selects a message accordingly from: English Subject: Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! Message text: polite with Snowhite. When they go out work at mornign, they promissed a *huge* surprise. Snowhite was anxious. Suddlently, the door open, and the Seven Dwarfs enter... French Subject: aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années après qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez Message text: sa belle mère, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... Portuguese Subject: muito feliz e ansiosa, porque os 7 anões prometeram uma *grande* surpresa. Message text: As cinco horas, os anõezinhos voltaram do trabalho. Mas algo nao estava bem... Os sete anõezinhos tinham um estranho brilho no olhar... Spanish Subject: siempre muy bien cuidada por los enanitos. Ellos le prometieron una *grande* Message text: sorpresa para su fiesta de compleaños. Al entardecer, llegaron. Tenian un brillo incomun en los ojos... The methods for upgrading the worm can also be changed as they are also upgradable components. At the time of writing, two have been seen. One of the upgrading techniques attempts to download the encrypted components from a website which is presumably operated by the worm author. This website has since been disabled. However, this component could be upgraded to have a different web address. The other method involves posting its current plug-ins to the usenet newsgroup alt.comp.virus, and upgrading them from other posts by other infections of the worm. These are again in the encrypted form, and have a header with a four character identifier and a four character version number, in order for the worm to know which plug-ins to install. Another component of the worm searches the PC for .ZIP and .RAR archive files. When it find one, it searches inside it for a .EXE file, which it renames to .EX$, and then adds a copy of itself to the archive using the original filename. There is a payload component, which on the 24th of September of any year, or at 1 minute to the hour at any day in the year 2001, displays a large animated spiral in the middle of the screen which is difficult to close. There is also a component that applies a simple polymorphic encryption to the worm before it gets sent by email. By upgrading this component the author is able to completely change the appearance of the worm in unpredictable ways in an attempt to defeat anti-virus products detecting 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 Dec 27 03:12:16 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQGC4203028 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:12:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQGBvt02986 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:11:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauh03.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.3]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA08276 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:11:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006c01c06f56$8cc70e20$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:11:47 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam, I have posted the headers from the message I received below. It appears to have been addressed to and distributed by BLML (I also got another copy sent directly to me that originated at another source- this one appears to be spreading quickly). Regards, Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "pam" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 7:15 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN > On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:33:00 -0000, Anne wrote: > > >What I do not understand is how someone with the name "hahaha" can post > >to this group. > > He did not post to the group. He sent a mail to all the members of > this group without going through BLML. > > > Pam > > X-NAV-TimeoutProtection0: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection1: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection2: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection3: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection4: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection5: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection6: X X-NAV-TimeoutProtection7: X Return-Path: Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au ([150.203.20.9]) by bissell.mail.mindspring.net (Mindspring Mail Service) with ESMTP id t4fugg.g2t.37kbi66 Mon, 25 Dec 2000 20:53:18 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQ1XMv13591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ1XDt13586 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigfoot (156.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.156]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBQ1WkM50984 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 27 03:31:53 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQGVVC08940 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:31:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQGVKt08896 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 03:31:22 +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 LAA27517 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:15 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00785 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:15 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200012261631.LAA00785@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > Would it be possible to set the mailing list so that binary > attachments would not be passed with the messages? I'd favor deleting all attachments. That would avoid the HTML some of us find annoying as well as viruses. The offending binary did come via BLML. It seems to have originated with uia.net or one of their subscribers. I'm including the message header below in case anyone cares to pursue this further. As I understand it, BLML is set up as an "open" mailing list, meaning even non-subscribers can send to it. There are advantages to that. (For example my posts wouldn't appear otherwise. I know not everyone considers this an advantage.) But Markus cah change it to a closed list if we get much more spam. -----Begin included message----- From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Mon Dec 25 20:35:19 2000 Return-Path: Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) with ESMTP id UAA20018 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 20:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQ1XMv13591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ1XDt13586 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigfoot (156.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.156]) by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBQ1WkM50984 for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200012260132.eBQ1WkM50984@trex.uia.net> From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Snowhite and the Seven Dwarfs - The REAL story! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEPAJK9EBCHEZCDUJC527C5AJ" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 31963 Status: 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 Dec 27 04:09:00 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQH7Cp14709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:07:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQH6lt14700 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 04:06:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id BA1EAD7CF2; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:06:40 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Irv Kostal Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 18:06:40 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200012261631.LAA00785@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200012261631.LAA00785@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 eBQH6ot14702 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:15 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >The offending binary did come via BLML. It seems to have originated >with uia.net or one of their subscribers. I'm including the message >header below in case anyone cares to pursue this further. Everything seems to indicate that it was sent from Irv Kostal's machine called "bigfoot", which is obviously infected by the virus. Irv: I suggest you use a virus cleaning program on your machine as soon as possible. This means that there is no particular reason to suspect that anybody has harvested the addresses from BLML: it has been sent to BLML because BLML's address has been found in Irv's address book. Technical details: The first "Received"-header from rgb.anu.edu.au is obviously reliable: >Received: from trex.uia.net (trex.uia.net [207.67.175.26]) > by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQ1XDt13586 > for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:33:14 +1100 (EST) trex.uia.net seems to be a mail server belonging to an Internet provider named UIA. The IP address 207.67.175.26 belongs to a provider named "Verio" which is probably UIA's network provider. So we can probably also trust the next header, produced by trex.uia.net: >Received: from bigfoot (156.uia.palm.cyberg8t.com [207.67.173.156]) > by trex.uia.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id eBQ1WkM50984 > for ; Mon, 25 Dec 2000 17:32:46 -0800 (PST) It seems very much to have been posted by a subscriber to uia.net (or possibly Verio). UIA could undoubtedly find out who posted it by checking their log files, but there is really no point in that: the sender is almost certainly a BLML subscriber with a virus-infected machine. So I checked for earlier BLML messages posted through uia.net, and found some from Irv. In addition, Irv's e-mail address is "bigfoot@uia.net": since the posting machine called itself "bigfoot", I am pretty sure it must have been Irv's. -- 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 Dec 27 06:31:11 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQJTvt15756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:29:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from whale.fsr.net (root@whale.fsr.net [207.141.26.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBQJTTt15751 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 06:29:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp053.pullman.com [204.227.174.53]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA69562 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:37:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20001226113122.0071ac70@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:31:26 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:49 PM 12/11/00 +0100, you wrote: >At 21:42 10/12/00 -0500, you wrote: >>At 12:22 AM +0000 12/11/00, David wrote: >> >>In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in >>bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >>its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action >>moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can >>tell one often missed. > >AG : in real life, bashing into your neighnbour's chest is not very kind. >In US Football, which *is defined by its rules and its rules only*, you are >allowed, even encouraged to. >In real life, saying you intend to slay the King could lead you to the >court. But if you say "checkmate" (lit. "king slain"), it won't happen. > > >This is very near to quoting Claude Levi-Strauss : the characteristic of a >game interaction is that it is defined by its laws and its laws only. Bridge is a game defined by its rules. The laws that engender so much discussion are NOT part of these defining rules. The basic rules define legal bids, card plays and the like. The rules are included in these laws, but are not the entirety of them. Some of the laws are necessary to deal with violations of the rules, these include the laws specifying the penalties for reneging, making an insufficient bid, bidding or leading out of turn, and so forth. It is appropriate for such laws to be severe, reneges, leads out of turn, etc. are disruptive to the game the laws in these areas need to both give redress to NO's and to deter offenders. The laws that are the subject of controversy relate to UI and MI. These have the purpose of preventing one side from accidently (or intentionally) achieving an unfair advantage. Unfortunately they frequently have undesirable side effects such as: punishing thinking in a game that is meant to call for thought, effectively requiring explanations to be a memorized formula rather than an honest informative response to the question, and most importantly the application of these laws can and often do give an unearned advantage to the nonoffending side. When Adam Wildavsky writes: >>In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in >>bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by >>its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action >>moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can >>tell one often missed. I can only assume that he is saying that any of the following are perfectly moral: 1. Seeking redress for UI based on a legalistic definition of LA when you know that the particularly player involved really would always take the action in question. 2. Giving explanations that meet the legal requirements but are designed to leave the questioner uncertain as to key aspects of the bid and then if they question you further call the director and seek redress for UI because they quizzed you. (The most common example of this occurs with artificial raises. For example: 1S P 3D(alert) Meaning? 10-11 points with four trumps. Does it say anything about diamonds? No. Then call the director if a diamonds are bid or led, etc. . -- In my view, even though the laws don't require it, the user of conventions that say nothing about the suit bid should (morally) include that information in their explanation such as "A limit raise of spades, with 10-11 points and four spades, says nothing about diamonds." BTW in practice this situation often begins with a legally insufficient answer as in: Meaning? Bergen raise. What's that? then ... .) 3. Seeking redress for MI when you know that the MI had no effect. 4. Intentionally trying to confuse inexperienced players in the bidding and then using the laws to try to gain advantage from their hesitations. I disagree. Scott -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 27 08:21:08 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBQLJ1Q14385 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:19:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBQLIkt14314 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 08:18:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hadfields.demon.co.uk ([194.222.188.60]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14B1UW-0000WW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:18:41 +0000 From: pam To: Subject: Re: [BLML] ATTN: ADMIN Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 21:19:49 +0000 Message-ID: References: <001e01c06eea$df7ba980$0200000a@mindspring.com> <001b01c06f2f$a1f1d360$790aff3e@vnmvhhid> <006c01c06f56$8cc70e20$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <006c01c06f56$8cc70e20$0200000a@mindspring.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 eBQLIst14344 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 11:11:47 -0500, Hirsh wrote: > >Pam, > >I have posted the headers from the message I received below. It >appears to have been addressed to and distributed by BLML (I also got >another copy sent directly to me that originated at another source- >this one appears to be spreading quickly). > >Regards, > Perhaps I was wrong (I hope so) but the copy I got was addressed to the email address that I use for BLML rather than bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au and, as I almost never post, it could not have been a reply. Also the post did not have the following sig at the end which normal BLML messages do. ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ I deleted the message as soon as it appeared (I would never execute an attachment) so I don't have the headers any longer but it was different enough from normal BLML stuff for me to bew immediately suspicious before I read past the subject. So, Marcus - can you explain how it got distributed without the normal sig and without bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au in the "to" address? Cheers, Pam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Dec 27 13:24:52 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBR2MRW06650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:22:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBR2MIt06600 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 13:22:20 +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 UAA03619 for ; Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:21:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004001c06fab$96828200$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" Subject: [BLML] virus + security checker Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 20:20:26 -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 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk http://nortonweb.zdnet.com/ Then choose "security analyzer" or the direct address is this: http://security2.norton.com/us/intro.asp?venid=sym&langid=us I have a software product called Norton Crash Guard Deluxe. One of the features is constant virus updating. Then one day they said you didn't need a password to log onto the system, they were going to make it free for everyone. There are two gray buttons on this page. One says "Run Security Check" the other says "Run Virus Check". If you run the "Virus Check" it also does the Security check. I don't know how long this is going to stay free, but for right now that means you have up to date virus definitions. To give you an estimate of time, my hard drive had 63,720 files and it took about 30-45 minutes for it to check my hard drive. It ran faster when I downloaded the virus definitions to my hard drive and ran it from Crash Guard, so the slow down must have something to do with the interaction of the web. For those of you around the world that might not recognize the company's name, Norton and Symantec are trusted names. * * * * * * * * * * * Zone Alarm Firewall for personal computers http://www.zonelabs.com/ What this is, is a firewall for your personal computer. There is a free version and a "Pro" version. I used the free version for awhile and then invested in the pro version. The first two days I kind of swore at the program as I was getting the hang of it, but then I liked it. One thing the Pro version does is scan your email as you are downloading it. I have a graphic that shows what the pro version does that the free doesn't, but I didn't want to send graphics to the list. I think they compare the two products on http://www.zonelabs.com/support.htm I am on a cable modem, which means I am always connected to the Internet. I was absolutely shocked to see how often someone tried to access my computer. It wasn't long before I disabled the pop up window and said stop them, don't tell me about it. You can configure this program to allow programs to pass through the fire wall. I was able to play online bridge and set my email and Internet Explorer to not ask me for permission to access the Internet. I feel the program is user friendly, but if people needed help I would be glad to answer questions. Like I said, the first two days were difficult, but after that I was fine. Hope this helps, 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 Thu Dec 28 03:38:27 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBRGYZQ11453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 03:34:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBRGYSt11449 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 03:34:29 +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 RAA08816; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:30:10 +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 RAA09765; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:34:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001227174607.00864d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 17:46:07 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] argument(s) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, Mea maxima culpa. I forgot to ask you about a problem that arose some time ago in a Belgiam team-of-four competition. I must add that I was personally involved, and that I had some hot e-mail exchanges with various people about that case. All players involved are reasonably experienced, both partnerships are usual and well-fitted. Teams, both vul, dealer South. A10xx x Kx K10xxxx K9xx QJxx A9xxx KJx Axx xxxx x xx x Q10xx QJ10x AQJx W N E S 1H p 1S (1) X (2) XX (3) 2H (4) p 2S p p (5) ? (1) relay, 7+ (2) alerted, enquired, explained : a 1S overcall of a 1H opening (3) any 3-suiter (including hearts, of course) (4) explained as a strong spade raise with heart values (5) break in tempo North's problem was : two things could have happened : a) E/W know what they are doing ; East overcalled on bilge, South has short spades. In this case, N/S might well win 5C, North has to bid now. b) West had long hearts and out, and wanted to go out of a potentially desastrous redouble (the "classical" explanation). East has given MI. South has short clubs. In this case, N/S would do well defending 2S undoubled, which seems to be a 5/0 'fit', and thank E/W for telling them they should not play 4S. North choose b) and passed. As you can see, he was wrong. My questions are : 1a) Wasn't it better for North to choose a), given that, if b) was the truth, he could have received redress ? Or would it be too much of a double shot ? Of course, E/W's system notes, however precise, didn't cover such an unusual case. By the way, North didn't lodge any appeal (there isn't any TD present in such matches) 1b)Since there is a general policy that when 'strange systems' cause mix-ups, they are often held partially responsible, it's unsure whether North would have received redress had he choosen a) and been wrong. So what could North have done ? 2) In the post-mortem to this deal, and on the mail, several arguments were used. For each of them, the same question : were they relevant ? (5 points for evey correct response, for UK residents) 2a) East's "overcall" is peculiar (vulnerable !), and its pecularity did contribute to North's decision (points simply didn't add up, if West's bid is strong and East's genuine). Since it's East style to overcall on anything (and E/W agree that it is the case), West should have volunteered this information. 2b) Deciding that this E/W pair, who are proud of their fine tuning, had a mix-up is a deep position indeed. 2c) North is a former teammate of East, and can't pretend he doesn't know East's style. Thank you for your help. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 28 14:01:32 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBS2x2g11049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:59:02 +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.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBS2wst11000 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:58:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com1-118.connectnc.net [12.20.159.118]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA06750 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 21:58:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <000001c0707a$94b0a720$769f140c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <004001c06fab$96828200$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] virus + security checker Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 22:00:15 -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 Thanks for the reference to this page. I have been there, checked it out, got my computer scanned and learned of 6 Trojan horse viruses and wsock32.dll infection from the Snowwhite.... Computer is now all cleaned up with relatively small effort. Hope all is well with everyone else. Thanks again. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: [BLML] virus + security checker > http://nortonweb.zdnet.com/ > > Then choose "security analyzer" > > or the direct address is this: > > http://security2.norton.com/us/intro.asp?venid=sym&langid=us > > I have a software product called Norton Crash Guard Deluxe. One > of the features is constant virus updating. Then one day they said > you didn't need a password to log onto the system, they were > going to make it free for everyone. > > There are two gray buttons on this page. One says > "Run Security Check" the other says "Run Virus Check". > If you run the "Virus Check" it also does the Security check. > > I don't know how long this is going to stay free, but for right > now that means you have up to date virus definitions. To give > you an estimate of time, my hard drive had 63,720 files and > it took about 30-45 minutes for it to check my hard drive. It > ran faster when I downloaded the virus definitions to my > hard drive and ran it from Crash Guard, so the slow down > must have something to do with the interaction of the web. > > For those of you around the world that might not recognize > the company's name, Norton and Symantec are trusted names. > > * * * * * * * * * * * > Zone Alarm Firewall for personal computers > > http://www.zonelabs.com/ > > What this is, is a firewall for your personal computer. There is a > free > version and a "Pro" version. I used the free version for awhile and > then > invested in the pro version. The first two days I kind of swore at > the > program as I was getting the hang of it, but then I liked it. One > thing > the Pro version does is scan your email as you are downloading it. > I have a graphic that shows what the pro version does that the free > doesn't, but I didn't want to send graphics to the list. > > I think they compare the two products on > > http://www.zonelabs.com/support.htm > > I am on a cable modem, which means I am always connected to the > Internet. I was absolutely shocked to see how often someone tried > to access my computer. It wasn't long before I disabled the pop up > window and said stop them, don't tell me about it. > > You can configure this program to allow programs to pass through > the fire wall. I was able to play online bridge and set my email and > Internet Explorer to not ask me for permission to access the > Internet. > > I feel the program is user friendly, but if people needed help I > would > be glad to answer questions. Like I said, the first two days were > difficult, but after that I was fine. > > Hope this helps, > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Dec 28 14:04:58 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBS33Wq12545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:03:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBS33Rt12517 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:03:27 +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 NAA29364 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:56:39 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:57:41 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] argument(s) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:00:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 28/12/2000 02:02:51 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: [big snip] >1b)Since there is a general policy that when >'strange systems' cause mix-ups, they are often >held partially responsible, it's unsure whether >North would have received redress had he choosen >a) and been wrong. So what could North have done ? [snip] Some time ago, the converse of this argument was put in a deal posted by Herman De Wael. In that deal, a multi 2D made by HdW's partner had confused his opponents. They tried to play in the suit of Herman's partner. But Herman did not allow for his *strange system causing a mix-up*, and sacrificed in the suit he *thought* his partner held. My answer to both Alain and Herman is: IMHO, you assume at your own risk that the opponents have had a mix-up. IMHO, you also assume at your own risk that the opponents have *not* had a mix-up. 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 Dec 29 00:46:41 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSDhf703215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:43:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBSDh2t03201 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 00:43:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-238.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.238]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1248836BC4; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:42:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003a01c070d4$7e498920$5db6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Jesper Dybdal" , "Bridge Laws List" Subject: Re: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 14:45:27 +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 4.72.3110.1 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I did not know it existed. It is definitely not official in >Denmark. That does not mean that it is not interesting, of >course. > >>>From the ACBL LC minutes, Orlando, 1998, which address the WBFLC >>interpretations coming from Lille: >> >>"In regard to Law 43B2b, the ACBL maintains that the number of tricks >>awarded shall be determined by what would have occurred had play proceeded >>normally." > >I wonder what they mean by "normally". I would tend to interpret >these words as if the TD is to assign the score that he would >expect if the revoke had been established and not corrected. Or >possibly if the revoke had not occurred at all, but that makes >absolutely no sense. > >In both cases, it seems to say that the actual result of playing >the board with the revoke corrected is to be completely ignored, >in which case there does not seem much point in playing it that >way at all. Seems a good remark. Grattan said that some 'x' had caused this change and that he didn't like it'. I assume him to know that I was that 'x'. This issue has been discussed before, which might explain the lack of interest shown by 'us'. Before '97 the L43B2b infraction was penalized as it still says: substitution by a legal card and dealt with as an established revoke. But when defender asked partner the revoke card had to stay. I found that inconsistent and asked some experts for the reason. No explanation given. So preparing the '97 edition I suggested for an equal treatment, either not allowing the substitution in 43 or bringing in the substitution in 63B. The latter was the choice made. And I never considered the application as a problem, since we knew how to apply 43B2b, didn't we? The reason to treat this as an established revoke is clear, otherwise we would encourage inquiries about revokes. I am sure Grattan has it filed as an issue for the drafting committee, we still have that difference between the ACBL and the rest of the world (is that true or do some zones allow to join the ACBL?). ton Or perhaps they mean the interpretation that I >called (C): award the number of tricks expected with the revoke >established or the number of tricks actually won, whichever is >largest. > >It is obvious that the WBFLC has considered the question of at >least L43, since they issued a statement in Bermuda about it. >But it would be nice if we also understood what that statement >actually means, and what relationship - if any - it has to the >L63B "interim ruling" from Malta, which (according to the minutes >of later meetings, unless I've overlooked something) seem never >to have been reviewed by the full WBFLC and never to have been >sent to the NCBOs. > >-- >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 Dec 29 02:15:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSFDdg04125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:13:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBSFDXt04121 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:13:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teapot28.domain6.bigpond.com (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id da069501 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 01:09:50 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-125.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.125]) by mail6.bigpond.com (Claudes-Rustic-MailRouter V2.9c 11/11194599); 29 Dec 2000 01:09:49 Message-ID: <00d301c070df$da708900$7dd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:07:10 +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 Teams (imps), 28 December 2000. East is a top expert, the other three are good players, N, E and W have represented Australia. Dlr N, nil vul A93 42 AKQ6 AQ52 Q8652 KJ107 AQJ8 K765 - 985 K1098 63 4 1093 J107432 J74 West North East South 1C Pass 2D* X 3NT All Pass * 2D alerted, and explained as "limit raise in clubs" The Director was called by East who had considered bidding 4C over 3NT. Had he been told that 2D was natural andweak, East said he would have bid 4D over 3NT. Both 3NT and 4S make. NS explained that they had never played together before. Because each had partnered a third player ("x") recently, they decided to play whatever "x" played, expecting "x" to have played the same methods with each of them. So far they'd figured out, and written on their CC, that they played Bergen Raises and Weak Jump Shift Responses. North knew that x's methods were that only jump responses of 2H and 2S were weak, and that 2D (to 1C) and 3C (to 1D) were limit raises. Alas South had never found this out from "x" so he'd assumed that 2D was weak. The Director ruled Mistaken Explanation, and as Law 12C3 is enabled only for ACS (not for TDs yet) in Australia, the TD adjusted to EW + 590 in 4SX under Law 12C2. NS appealed that: (1) The Explanation was correct, being the systemic agreement. North could not be expected to realise that South was unaware that in x's methods 2D was a limit raise, so North could not have given any other explanation. (2) EW plus 590 did not seem equitable. The AC dismissed (1), deciding that North's explanation, expressed as a matter of fact without any doubt, was incorrect because it was not something his partner was aware of and was thus not the partnership agreement. The AC estimated that 60% of East's peers would have bid 4D had East suspected that South had long diamonds. They ruled under L12C3 a score of 60% of EW +590 (converted to imps) and 40% of EW - 400 (3NT making, converted to imps). Actually the Director looked after the method of calculation once L12C3 was invoked. There were a few problems: (1) East is a top international player whose opinions on bidding are unusually well known because he runs the Bidding Forum (= MSC) of Australian Bridge magazine. One AC member thought that in Bidding Forum, East's comments would be along the lines of "partner asks you for a major, you have both and you pass 3NT which you expect to make? Unbelievable. It's not as if partner has doubled at the one level; her two level double strongly suggests at least four cards in each major in a shapely hand." At the table he had decided to pass 3NT as the explanations suggested that NS had about the same number of clubs; the problem is vastly different if he expects South to have six or seven diamonds. Should the AC consider the well known individual style of this particular East, or only consider peers of East where "peers" means "experts who may not share East's views"? (2) When determining North's action after 3NT - (4D) - P - (4S) for Law 12C3 purposes, does the AC assume that North still thinks South has a limit raise, in which case Double seems clearcut? This is what the AC decided to do. (3) In determining how likely it is that East's peers will bid over 3NT for L12C3, East is entitled only to the correct explanation, not the helpful explanation "weak with long diamonds". So what is the correct explanation? Is it: - "technically a limit raise, but I'm not sure", or - "we're a scratch pair, but I think it's a limit raise", or - "could be a limit raise or a weak hand with diamonds", or - something else? It seems to me that it's very hard for the AC to decide the likelihood of East bidding 4D without being sure exactly what information East will have at the time. This makes L12C3 very difficult to apply. Is this a valid concern? 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 Fri Dec 29 03:21:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSGJ0206889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:19:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBSGImt06884 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:18:49 +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 LAA17188 for ; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:18:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA252610320; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:18:40 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:18:39 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] virus + security checker 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="Thu, 28 Dec 2000 11:18:37 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id eBSGIqt06885 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This morning I found only one grey button on this web page "Run Security Check". The "Run Virus Check" is no more there... or I did not find.... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City Objet : Re: [BLML] virus + security checker Thanks for the reference to this page. I have been there, checked it out, got my computer scanned and learned of 6 Trojan horse viruses and wsock32.dll infection from the Snowwhite.... Computer is now all cleaned up with relatively small effort. Hope all is well with everyone else. Thanks again. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:20 PM Subject: [BLML] virus + security checker > http://nortonweb.zdnet.com/ > > Then choose "security analyzer" > > or the direct address is this: > > http://security2.norton.com/us/intro.asp?venid=sym&langid=us > > I have a software product called Norton Crash Guard Deluxe. One > of the features is constant virus updating. Then one day they said > you didn't need a password to log onto the system, they were > going to make it free for everyone. > > There are two gray buttons on this page. One says > "Run Security Check" the other says "Run Virus Check". > If you run the "Virus Check" it also does the Security check. > > I don't know how long this is going to stay free, but for right > now that means you have up to date virus definitions. To give > you an estimate of time, my hard drive had 63,720 files and > it took about 30-45 minutes for it to check my hard drive. It > ran faster when I downloaded the virus definitions to my > hard drive and ran it from Crash Guard, so the slow down > must have something to do with the interaction of the web. > > For those of you around the world that might not recognize > the company's name, Norton and Symantec are trusted names. > > * * * * * * * * * * * > Zone Alarm Firewall for personal computers > > http://www.zonelabs.com/ > > What this is, is a firewall for your personal computer. There is a > free > version and a "Pro" version. I used the free version for awhile and > then > invested in the pro version. The first two days I kind of swore at > the > program as I was getting the hang of it, but then I liked it. One > thing > the Pro version does is scan your email as you are downloading it. > I have a graphic that shows what the pro version does that the free > doesn't, but I didn't want to send graphics to the list. > > I think they compare the two products on > > http://www.zonelabs.com/support.htm > > I am on a cable modem, which means I am always connected to the > Internet. I was absolutely shocked to see how often someone tried > to access my computer. It wasn't long before I disabled the pop up > window and said stop them, don't tell me about it. > > You can configure this program to allow programs to pass through > the fire wall. I was able to play online bridge and set my email and > Internet Explorer to not ask me for permission to access the > Internet. > > I feel the program is user friendly, but if people needed help I > would > be glad to answer questions. Like I said, the first two days were > difficult, but after that I was fine. > > Hope this helps, > > 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/ > -- ===================================================================== === (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Dec 29 03:44:50 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSGgAR07018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:42:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBSGg0t07014 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:42:01 +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 RAA27444; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:39:26 +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 RAA16703; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:41:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20001228175333.0085d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 17:53:33 +0100 To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia In-Reply-To: <00d301c070df$da708900$7dd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:07 29/12/00 +1100, Peter Gill wrote: >Dlr N, nil vul > > A93 > 42 > AKQ6 > AQ52 >Q8652 KJ107 >AQJ8 K765 >- 985 >K1098 63 > 4 > 1093 > J107432 > J74 > >West North East South > 1C Pass 2D* > X 3NT All Pass > >* 2D alerted, and explained as "limit raise in clubs" > >The Director was called by East who had considered bidding 4C >over 3NT. Had he been told that 2D was natural andweak, East >said he would have bid 4D over 3NT. Both 3NT and 4S make. > >NS explained that they had never played together before. Because each >had partnered a third player ("x") recently, they decided to >play whatever "x" played, expecting "x" to have played the same >methods with each of them. So far they'd figured out, and written >on their CC, that they played Bergen Raises and Weak Jump >Shift Responses. North knew that x's methods were that only jump >responses of 2H and 2S were weak, and that 2D (to 1C) and 3C >(to 1D) were limit raises. Alas South had never found this out >from "x" so he'd assumed that 2D was weak. >The Director ruled Mistaken Explanation, and as Law 12C3 >is enabled only for ACS (not for TDs yet) in Australia, >the TD adjusted to EW + 590 in 4SX under Law 12C2. AG : there is indeed mistaken explanation. It is possible that the correct explanation would be either : 'undiscussed' or 'undiscussed, but I take it as a limit raise in clubs', according to how much faith N/S place in their strange 'x-system' agreement. Here, you look at their convention card, which is evidence that they play it weak. Since one of the players thinks they do, it points towards the idea that they do. The correct explanation is that they play WJS. Bergen raises are only played over majors. Discard North's explanations as potentially self-serving. >NS appealed that: >(1) The Explanation was correct, being the systemic agreement. AG : nope. See above. >The AC estimated that 60% of East's peers would have bid 4D had East >suspected that South had long diamonds. They ruled under L12C3 a score >of 60% of EW +590 (converted to imps) and 40% >of EW - 400 (3NT making, converted to imps). Actually the Director >looked after the method of calculation once L12C3 was invoked. AG : if they estimated that 60% of Easts would bid 4D (and this is a reasonable assumption), they should tilt the balance and give about 75% of +590 and 25% of -400. >There were a few problems: > >Should the AC consider the well known individual style of this >particular East, or only consider peers of East where "peers" >means "experts who may not share East's views"? AG : I don't like this. It is only applicable to well-known experts who write. I don't see why such people should be advantaged in a ruling (I have the same tendencies, but they are less well known, so I would get a less advantageous ruling). Of course, anything that is written on a convention card could be taken into account ; these are objective and demonstrable matters of style, and provide one more incentive to full them in completely. If the NOS state on their convention cards they follow OBAR style (bid freely, especially T/O doubles, even not in balancing seat, when expecting the opponents to stop there), allow them to take a risky bid or T/O double. If they state sound opening bid style, allow the responder to make lightish penalty doubles, taking partner's soundness into account. >(2) When determining North's action after 3NT - (4D) - P - (4S) >for Law 12C3 purposes, does the AC assume that North still >thinks South has a limit raise, in which case Double seems >clearcut? This is what the AC decided to do. AG : they did well. He obviously bid 3NT thinking partner had some values. Why should he change his mind ? >(3) In determining how likely it is that East's peers will bid over >3NT for L12C3, East is entitled only to the correct explanation, >not the helpful explanation "weak with long diamonds". >So what is the correct explanation? Is it: >- "technically a limit raise, but I'm not sure", or >- "we're a scratch pair, but I think it's a limit raise", or >- "could be a limit raise or a weak hand with diamonds", or >- something else? AG : see above. The correct explanation is 'WJS in D' >It seems to me that it's very hard for the AC to decide the >likelihood of East bidding 4D without being sure exactly what >information East will have at the time. This makes L12C3 >very difficult to apply. Is this a valid concern? AG : they have to make an educated guess. What's the heck ? If they think they can't, let them express a range of probability, then take the upper limit as the value, tilting the balance of the doubt to the NOS. To all blmlists : Have a good millenium ! Why wish a good year ? Do you want them to fare bad in 2002 ? Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 29 06:01:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSIxCk22906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:59:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe38.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBSIx4t22871 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:59:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 10:58:54 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.46.43.20] From: "Hotmail" To: "blml" References: <00d301c070df$da708900$7dd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:00:44 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Dec 2000 18:58:54.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[39C2F2B0:01C07100] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Bridge Content] 1C-P-2D-P-3N-? >From east's point of view the indicated capacity of the hand is less than 7 tricks [800 non vulnerable] given that the honors of partner are sitting in front of the opener who has announced a strong hand without concern for attack on the majors. It is an inspired thought to take action at this point of the auction and I think that very few would act so much against the odds. What about 1C-P-2D-2S-3N-?? At this point it is reasonable to bid 4S by east. Therefore, if there is any damage it is the MI bluffing west out of his possible 2S overcall. It would be nice to know what W would have done had the auction been backed up to 2D before the opening lead. In America most players that use JSOm [jump shift other minor] are supposed to explain it as artificial, no four card major with at least 4 card support and a minimum of limit raise values, forcing. Perhaps the flavor used in this case is indeed limit raise of opener but I would want to investigate to clear it up. Imo N knew one thing and S knew one thing and they were different. Also what S knew coincided with the CC. And it seems irresponsible of EW to not consult the CC in connection with 2D. [Ruling Content} As for the AC. I think that in light of the CC it is irrelevant that N could not know that the system S used with X was different that what he used with X. in other words, the CC provides the relevant evidence. I think that the assertion that E would have bid 4D over 3N is on the order of fanciful and should not be made the basis of adjustment. If an assertion had been made by west prior to the opening lead that he would have bid 2S then I would feel that 4SX making would be an appropriate adjustment, otherwise I would not be so comfortable and would feel a weighted score of about 70% 4SX and 30% table result would be in order. [soap box] I find it disturbing that players believe they can conduct themselves in a fair manner by not being knowledgeable in their methods. What is curious about this case is the brevity of the auction. To me north's explanation makes it very easy for opener to visualize the possibility for 12 or 13 tricks after placing an ace, a king, and two queens in partner's hand. It seems most eccentric that there was no slam investigation. Could it be that the 3N suggests that N did not believe his own explanation? Undoubtedly the players were doing the best they could. But given the incongruity of the explanation and 3N I am wondering if opener was in a position to call the director before bidding 3N to suggest that his earlier explanation may have been in error. roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:07 AM Subject: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia | Teams (imps), 28 December 2000. | East is a top expert, the other three are good players, | N, E and W have represented Australia. | | Dlr N, nil vul | | A93 | 42 | AKQ6 | AQ52 | Q8652 KJ107 | AQJ8 K765 | - 985 | K1098 63 | 4 | 1093 | J107432 | J74 | | West North East South | 1C Pass 2D* | X 3NT All Pass | | * 2D alerted, and explained as "limit raise in clubs" | | The Director was called by East who had considered bidding 4C | over 3NT. Had he been told that 2D was natural andweak, East | said he would have bid 4D over 3NT. Both 3NT and 4S make. | | NS explained that they had never played together before. Because each | had partnered a third player ("x") recently, they decided to | play whatever "x" played, expecting "x" to have played the same | methods with each of them. So far they'd figured out, and written | on their CC, that they played Bergen Raises and Weak Jump | Shift Responses. North knew that x's methods were that only jump | responses of 2H and 2S were weak, and that 2D (to 1C) and 3C | (to 1D) were limit raises. Alas South had never found this out | from "x" so he'd assumed that 2D was weak. | | The Director ruled Mistaken Explanation, and as Law 12C3 | is enabled only for ACS (not for TDs yet) in Australia, | the TD adjusted to EW + 590 in 4SX under Law 12C2. | | NS appealed that: | (1) The Explanation was correct, being the systemic agreement. | North could not be expected to realise that South was unaware | that in x's methods 2D was a limit raise, so North could not | have given any other explanation. | (2) EW plus 590 did not seem equitable. | | The AC dismissed (1), deciding that North's explanation, | expressed as a matter of fact without any doubt, was incorrect | because it was not something his partner was aware of and | was thus not the partnership agreement. | | The AC estimated that 60% of East's peers would have bid 4D had East | suspected that South had long diamonds. They ruled under L12C3 a score | of 60% of EW +590 (converted to imps) and 40% | of EW - 400 (3NT making, converted to imps). Actually the Director | looked after the method of calculation once L12C3 was invoked. | | There were a few problems: | | (1) East is a top international player whose opinions on bidding | are unusually well known because he runs the Bidding Forum | (= MSC) of Australian Bridge magazine. One AC member | thought that in Bidding Forum, East's comments would be along | the lines of "partner asks you for a major, you have both and | you pass 3NT which you expect to make? Unbelievable. It's not | as if partner has doubled at the one level; her two level double | strongly suggests at least four cards in each major in a shapely | hand." At the table he had decided to pass 3NT as the | explanations suggested that NS had about the same number | of clubs; the problem is vastly different if he expects South to | have six or seven diamonds. | | Should the AC consider the well known individual style of this | particular East, or only consider peers of East where "peers" | means "experts who may not share East's views"? | | (2) When determining North's action after 3NT - (4D) - P - (4S) | for Law 12C3 purposes, does the AC assume that North still | thinks South has a limit raise, in which case Double seems | clearcut? This is what the AC decided to do. | | (3) In determining how likely it is that East's peers will bid over | 3NT for L12C3, East is entitled only to the correct explanation, | not the helpful explanation "weak with long diamonds". | So what is the correct explanation? Is it: | | - "technically a limit raise, but I'm not sure", or | - "we're a scratch pair, but I think it's a limit raise", or | - "could be a limit raise or a weak hand with diamonds", or | - something else? | | It seems to me that it's very hard for the AC to decide the | likelihood of East bidding 4D without being sure exactly what | information East will have at the time. This makes L12C3 | very difficult to apply. Is this a valid concern? | | Peter Gill -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 29 08:49:56 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBSLlXL03066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:47:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBSLlOt03026 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:47:25 +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 IAA11827 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:40:33 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:41:35 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:44:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 29/12/2000 08:46:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill wrote: [big snip] >NS explained that they had never played >together before. Because each had partnered >a third player ("x") recently, they decided >to play whatever "x" played, expecting "x" >to have played the same methods with each of >them. So far they'd figured out, and written >on their CC, that they played Bergen Raises >and Weak Jump Shift Responses. North knew >that x's methods were that only jump >responses of 2H and 2S were weak, and that >2D (to 1C) and 3C (to 1D) were limit raises. >Alas South had never found this out from "x" >so he'd assumed that 2D was weak. [big snip] In this particular case it is clear that North and South did not have a partnership agreement on the meaning of a 2D response to a 1C opening. Therefore, the TD and AC were correct in ruling that MI had been given. In a more interesting, hypothetical, case, let us assume that "x" had given 21 pages of system notes to both North and South. Let us further assume that North and South had agreed that their methods would be strictly in accordance with the written notes provided to both of them by "x". As a final assumption, South accidentally failed to read page 17 of the notes, which described how a 2D response to 1C is a limit raise. In this hypothetical, North has not only accurately transcribed the "x" system onto the CC, but also produces the 21 pages of "x" system notes at the AC hearing. So in this hypothetical case, would the AC rule that South has misbid, or would they still decide that North and South had no partnership understanding? 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 Dec 29 11:11:34 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBT09LQ14885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:09:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBT08wt14875 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:08:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-25.connectnc.net [12.4.97.89]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA85097; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:08:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <004f01c0712c$012251e0$5961040c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] virus + security checker Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:12:16 -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 Try it again. I was there just before I typed this and it was to the right of the security check. It is down the page just a bit. I think this page has been available for a long time from symantec. I had been there before but had forgotten the address. It is now bookmarked for me. Happy New Year... I hope all is well in Quebec. I lived in Ontario for 40+ years!! Love Montreal.... ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] virus + security checker > This morning I found only one grey button on this web page > "Run Security Check". The "Run Virus Check" is no more there... > or I did not find.... > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > Objet : Re: [BLML] virus + security checker > > Thanks for the reference to this page. I have been there, checked it > out, > got my computer scanned and learned of 6 Trojan horse viruses and > wsock32.dll infection from the Snowwhite.... Computer is now all > cleaned up > with relatively small effort. Hope all is well with everyone else. > Thanks > again. Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chyah Burghard" > To: "BLaw" > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:20 PM > Subject: [BLML] virus + security checker > > > > http://nortonweb.zdnet.com/ > > > > Then choose "security analyzer" > > > > or the direct address is this: > > > > http://security2.norton.com/us/intro.asp?venid=sym&langid=us > > > > I have a software product called Norton Crash Guard Deluxe. One > > of the features is constant virus updating. Then one day they said > > you didn't need a password to log onto the system, they were > > going to make it free for everyone. > > > > There are two gray buttons on this page. One says > > "Run Security Check" the other says "Run Virus Check". > > If you run the "Virus Check" it also does the Security check. > > > > I don't know how long this is going to stay free, but for right > > now that means you have up to date virus definitions. To give > > you an estimate of time, my hard drive had 63,720 files and > > it took about 30-45 minutes for it to check my hard drive. It > > ran faster when I downloaded the virus definitions to my > > hard drive and ran it from Crash Guard, so the slow down > > must have something to do with the interaction of the web. > > > > For those of you around the world that might not recognize > > the company's name, Norton and Symantec are trusted names. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * > > Zone Alarm Firewall for personal computers > > > > http://www.zonelabs.com/ > > > > What this is, is a firewall for your personal computer. There is a > > free > > version and a "Pro" version. I used the free version for awhile and > > then > > invested in the pro version. The first two days I kind of swore at > > the > > program as I was getting the hang of it, but then I liked it. One > > thing > > the Pro version does is scan your email as you are downloading it. > > I have a graphic that shows what the pro version does that the free > > doesn't, but I didn't want to send graphics to the list. > > > > I think they compare the two products on > > > > http://www.zonelabs.com/support.htm > > > > I am on a cable modem, which means I am always connected to the > > Internet. I was absolutely shocked to see how often someone tried > > to access my computer. It wasn't long before I disabled the pop up > > window and said stop them, don't tell me about it. > > > > You can configure this program to allow programs to pass through > > the fire wall. I was able to play online bridge and set my email > and > > Internet Explorer to not ask me for permission to access the > > Internet. > > > > I feel the program is user friendly, but if people needed help I > > would > > be glad to answer questions. Like I said, the first two days were > > difficult, but after that I was fine. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > 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/ > > > > > -- > ===================================================================== > === > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Dec 29 11:14:06 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBT0CSc14919 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:12:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBT0C5t14910 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 11:12:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-25.connectnc.net [12.4.97.89]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA85679; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:11:59 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <005a01c0712c$7110ccc0$5961040c@mom> Reply-To: "nancy" From: "nancy" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] virus + security checker Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:15:24 -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 Forgot to say use the second address not the Norton one. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 11:18 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] virus + security checker > This morning I found only one grey button on this web page > "Run Security Check". The "Run Virus Check" is no more there... > or I did not find.... > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > > > Objet : Re: [BLML] virus + security checker > > Thanks for the reference to this page. I have been there, checked it > out, > got my computer scanned and learned of 6 Trojan horse viruses and > wsock32.dll infection from the Snowwhite.... Computer is now all > cleaned up > with relatively small effort. Hope all is well with everyone else. > Thanks > again. Nancy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chyah Burghard" > To: "BLaw" > Sent: Tuesday, December 26, 2000 9:20 PM > Subject: [BLML] virus + security checker > > > > http://nortonweb.zdnet.com/ > > > > Then choose "security analyzer" > > > > or the direct address is this: > > > > http://security2.norton.com/us/intro.asp?venid=sym&langid=us > > > > I have a software product called Norton Crash Guard Deluxe. One > > of the features is constant virus updating. Then one day they said > > you didn't need a password to log onto the system, they were > > going to make it free for everyone. > > > > There are two gray buttons on this page. One says > > "Run Security Check" the other says "Run Virus Check". > > If you run the "Virus Check" it also does the Security check. > > > > I don't know how long this is going to stay free, but for right > > now that means you have up to date virus definitions. To give > > you an estimate of time, my hard drive had 63,720 files and > > it took about 30-45 minutes for it to check my hard drive. It > > ran faster when I downloaded the virus definitions to my > > hard drive and ran it from Crash Guard, so the slow down > > must have something to do with the interaction of the web. > > > > For those of you around the world that might not recognize > > the company's name, Norton and Symantec are trusted names. > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * > > Zone Alarm Firewall for personal computers > > > > http://www.zonelabs.com/ > > > > What this is, is a firewall for your personal computer. There is a > > free > > version and a "Pro" version. I used the free version for awhile and > > then > > invested in the pro version. The first two days I kind of swore at > > the > > program as I was getting the hang of it, but then I liked it. One > > thing > > the Pro version does is scan your email as you are downloading it. > > I have a graphic that shows what the pro version does that the free > > doesn't, but I didn't want to send graphics to the list. > > > > I think they compare the two products on > > > > http://www.zonelabs.com/support.htm > > > > I am on a cable modem, which means I am always connected to the > > Internet. I was absolutely shocked to see how often someone tried > > to access my computer. It wasn't long before I disabled the pop up > > window and said stop them, don't tell me about it. > > > > You can configure this program to allow programs to pass through > > the fire wall. I was able to play online bridge and set my email > and > > Internet Explorer to not ask me for permission to access the > > Internet. > > > > I feel the program is user friendly, but if people needed help I > > would > > be glad to answer questions. Like I said, the first two days were > > difficult, but after that I was fine. > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > 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/ > > > > > -- > ===================================================================== > === > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Fri Dec 29 13:20:19 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBT2IGt15731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:18:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe4.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.108]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBT2I8t15726 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 13:18:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 28 Dec 2000 18:17:59 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.46.37.122] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.32.20001228164530.00726b34@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:20:54 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Dec 2000 02:17:59.0579 (UTC) FILETIME=[9063FEB0:01C0713D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Good eyes Scott, thanks. My error, I may never get the egg off my face. Please accept my apologies for burning bandwidth. But I will risk a couple of 'retractions' before crawling into my hole. I would judge that 2DX raises the EW indicated capacity of the hand to about 8 tricks- and with the promised length in diamonds makes the indicated capacity of the NS hands to however many tricks are left over after EW cash out which may or may not be 9 tricks. Anyway, I retract that 4D is fanciful, especially when east can judge that this time 3N is likely to make. Also, the point of damage for the auction is east's call after 3N. Btw, it kind of appears that W had looked at the CC after all :). Because player's judgement [using correct information] as to the closeness of 3N making vs going down it appears a weighted score between 3N and 4SX is appropriate. roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: N. Scott Cardell To: Hotmail Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia | At 01:00 PM 12/28/00 -0600, you wrote: | >[Bridge Content] | > | >1C-P-2D-P-3N-? | | But W doubled 2D (showing majors, see previous postings in this thread). | | | Scott | -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 29 23:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBTCtq109851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBTCtZt09837 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA13746 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? 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: <000701c06d36$a4262a00$683c01d5@D457300> David Burn wrote: > If what you are trying to say is that Americans should not label a > statement "self-serving" and then ignore it, than of course you are > right. No one should ignore any statement, without trying to verify it. > But if it cannot be verified, then it should be ignored Which I found most depressing. The TD/AC should be entitled (but not obliged) to accept any statement at face value if they so desire. Obviously a statement like "I would always bid that way" is very unlikely to be accepted. One would also expect statements that would typically be supported on the CC but are not to be given less credence. However there are many situations where a statement like "With that sort of hand partner would have bid 2S not 2D on the second round" that will not be on a typical CC. Most pairs have all sorts of these understandings (which they will properly disclose if asked) but few have "system notes" of any description. It is highly unlikely that they can be verified but seems grossly unfair to ignore them. A specific example. My wife was asked whether my "12-14 approx" no trump could be bid with a 15 count and replied "I know he does it a lot with 11 and sometimes 10 or a singleton but I don't think he will with 15". My own reply would have been "Occasionally and then usually in 3rd/4th seat, I'll have 11 or 10 more often than 15." We haven't actually discussed it this way. Would you, as a TD/AC wish to adjust when I do turn up with 15? 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 Dec 29 23:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBTCtn709850 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBTCtZt09838 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA13770 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia 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: <00d301c070df$da708900$7dd936cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Peter Gill wrote: > NS appealed that: > (1) The Explanation was correct, being the systemic agreement. > North could not be expected to realise that South was unaware > that in x's methods 2D was a limit raise, so North could not > have given any other explanation. What if North had been 'x' and given the same explanation (along with the system notes). Would the panel have ruled differently? If so the least they could have done is try to contact x and find out what his agreements with South actually were. > (3) In determining how likely it is that East's peers will bid over > 3NT for L12C3, East is entitled only to the correct explanation, > not the helpful explanation "weak with long diamonds". > So what is the correct explanation? Is it: The correct explanation is "We haven't played before but agreed to play what we both play with X. When I play with X it shows a limit raise in clubs. I don't know what South plays with X but I do know that we both play 2H/2S as WJS." East may a) hope for a bidding misunderstanding and double b) hope for a bidding misunderstanding and pass c) hope partner gets it right when he bids 4D (does South play a double here as anti-lead?) d) bid 4C for the majors (what would South bid?) e) decide to go with the explanation and pass f) quite possibly summon the TD. North is asked to leave the table. South explains ('X' and I haven't discussed this specific sequence but we did agree WJS), North returns and the auction goes 4D-P-4S. North, as far as I can tell, has no UI from partner. However it is pretty clear what is going on and 5D now seems to have a lot to recommend it. I'll try 35% 3N = 30% 4Sx= 15% 3Nx= 15% 5Dx-1 5% 5Cx-4 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Dec 29 23:56:48 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBTCtmR09849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 eBTCtZt09836 for ; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 23:55:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id MAA13756 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 12:55 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular 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: <3.0.32.20001226113122.0071ac70@pullman.com> "N. Scott Cardell" > When Adam Wildavsky writes: > > >>In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in > >>bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by > >>its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action > >>moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can > >>tell one often missed. > > I can only assume that he is saying that any of the following are > perfectly > moral: > > 1. Seeking redress for UI based on a legalistic definition of LA when > you know that the particularly player involved really would always take > the action in question. This means you think the particular player had no LA. Since you have no "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative" etc under L16 you should not be calling the director - thus this is illegal. > 2. Giving explanations that meet the legal requirements but are > designed to leave the questioner uncertain as to key aspects of the bid > and then if they question you further call the director and seek redress > for UI because they quizzed you. (The most common example of this > occurs with artificial raises. For example: > 1S P 3D(alert) Meaning? 10-11 points with four trumps. This is not full explanation (see L20/75). If you are deliberately trying to give less than full explanations you are acting illegally. > 3. Seeking redress for MI when you know that the MI had no effect. The director is called (compulsory in MI situations) and asks you how it might have affected you - you say "It didn't" - no adjustment. Or you lie to the TD - a very serious breach of L74. I agree that you almost certainly won't get caught if you try any of the above but they are still illegal. > 4. Intentionally trying to confuse inexperienced players in the bidding > and then using the laws to try to gain advantage from their hesitations. Obviously it is perfectly legal (and moral) to develop a system which will be difficult for inexperienced or ill-prepared opponents to defend (even with full disclosure). Obviously you may call the TD if you believe opponents may have taken advantage of UI (but see 1). You can also use any info you gain from opponents hesitations (at your own risk). But if you are intentionally trying to confuse them in some other way you are in breach of L74. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Dec 30 02:59:30 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBTFwep12206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:58:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBTFwWt12168 for ; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 02:58:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.24.7] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14C1vH-0002am-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:58:27 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 15:58:39 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > If what you are trying to say is that Americans should not label a > > statement "self-serving" and then ignore it, than of course you are > > right. No one should ignore any statement, without trying to verify it. > > But if it cannot be verified, then it should be ignored > > Which I found most depressing. The TD/AC should be entitled (but not > obliged) to accept any statement at face value if they so desire. Not really. If that happened, then rulings would depend on the persuasiveness of the appellants and the gullibility of the director or appeals committee. This should not happen, which is why only statements that can be objectively corroborated should be admitted as evidence. If we have TDs deciding whether or not to accept statements at face value on the basis of no evidence, then we will have no hope of having the Laws administered with any kind of fairness or consistency. > Obviously a statement like "I would always bid that way" is very unlikely > to be accepted. Yes, but "very unlikely" should be "never" (otherwise inconsistency will once again supervene). Of course, if the appellant can show evidence that he has in the past frequently bid "that way", then his statement may stand a good chance of being accepted. > One would also expect statements that would typically be > supported on the CC but are not to be given less credence. Yes, but "less" should be "none" (otherwise inconsistency will once again supervene). > However > there are many situations where a statement like "With that sort of hand > partner would have bid 2S not 2D on the second round" that will not be on > a typical CC. Most pairs have all sorts of these understandings (which > they will properly disclose if asked) but few have "system notes" of any > description. It is highly unlikely that they can be verified but seems > grossly unfair to ignore them. On the contrary, it would be grossly unfair not to ignore them. I could, by reference to a set of undocumented "understandings" that I have with any given partner, easily show that my "methods" gave me no logical alternative to any call I may have chosen. But I am an expert, and I can make up "system" to justify doing almost anything. People who cannot do this should not be disadvantaged compared to people who can. If you are going to adduce that "with that sort of hand, partner would have done X", then unless you can show either: documentation about your system that supports the assertion; or previous hands of similar nature on which partner has indeed done X, then your statement should not be admitted as evidence. It may, of course, be true, but that is unfortunate. > A specific example. My wife was asked whether my "12-14 approx" no trump > could be bid with a 15 count and replied "I know he does it a lot with 11 > and sometimes 10 or a singleton but I don't think he will with 15". > My own reply would have been "Occasionally and then usually in 3rd/4th > seat, I'll have 11 or 10 more often than 15." We haven't actually > discussed it this way. Would you, as a TD/AC wish to adjust when I do > turn up with 15? If your opponents have been told that your "agreement" is that you won't have a 15 count, while your "agreement" appears to be that you will, then there is a case for redress if the misinformation had damaged them. Burbling on about having 11 or 10, with or without a singleton, is likely only to confuse the issue (since people who are often sub-minimum for their actions are very rarely or never super-maximum). Of course, your disclosure of what appear to be your methods would have to improve many fold in order to be woefully inadequate. But you already know that. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Dec 31 23:12:43 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBVCAWk11172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:10:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBVCAPt11167 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-42-38.host.btclick.com [213.1.42.38]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06784; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:10:00 GMT Message-ID: <000801c07322$d161be20$262a01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 09:44:35 -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 "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when that's the only one you have got." - Emile Auguste Chartier. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular > In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001226113122.0071ac70@pullman.com> > "N. Scott Cardell" > > > When Adam Wildavsky writes: > > > > >>In life an action can be legal but immoral. This is not possible in > > >>bridge. The difference is that bridge, being a game, is defined by > > >>its laws. Without the laws we have no context for judging an action > > >>moral or immoral. This is an important point, and so far as I can > > >>tell one often missed. > > > > I can only assume that he is saying that any of the following are > > perfectly > > moral: > > > > 1. Seeking redress for UI based on a legalistic definition of LA when > > you know that the particular player involved really would always take > > the action in question. > > This means you think the particular player had no LA. Since you have > no "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical > alternative" etc under L16 you should not be calling the director - thus > this is illegal. > +=+ I think a distinction should be made as between system and style in this context. Where system demands a given call no problem, but if it is said the individual player's style would cause him to make it the case is more difficult. Style is subjective and only the player himself can speak to it with assurance; the normal requirement is to judge by reference to what his peers would do if playing the same system and I do not believe there is an onus on Directors or ACs to make subjective judgements as to style. The term 'logical alternative' is not attached in the laws to the style of the individual but to objective standards. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in 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 Dec 31 23:12:44 2000 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id eBVCAd111177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:10:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id eBVCAWt11173 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 23:10:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-42-38.host.btclick.com [213.1.42.38]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA06817 for ; Sun, 31 Dec 2000 12:10:05 GMT Message-ID: <000901c07322$d5c4ca20$262a01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws List" References: <003a01c070d4$7e498920$5db6f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] L63B and L43B2b revisited Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 10:27:22 -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 "Nothing is more dangerous than an idea when that's the only one you have got." - Emile Auguste Chartier. <===> > > Seems a good remark. Grattan said that some 'x' had caused this change and > that he didn't like it'. I assume him to know that I was that 'x'. > +=+ In fact I did not trust my memory on the point but regarded the provenance as immaterial.+=+ > > This issue has been discussed before, which might explain the lack of > interest shown by 'us'. Before '97 the L43B2b infraction was penalized as it > still says: substitution by a legal card and dealt with as an established > revoke. But when defender asked partner the revoke card had to > stay. I found that inconsistent and asked some experts for the reason. No > explanation given. So preparing the '97 edition I suggested for an equal > treatment, either not allowing the substitution in 43 or bringing in the > substitution in 63B. The latter was the choice made. And I never considered > the application as a problem, since we knew how to apply 43B2b, didn't we? > > The reason to treat this as an established revoke is clear, otherwise we > would encourage inquiries about revokes. > > I am sure Grattan has it filed as an issue for the drafting committee, we > still have that difference between the ACBL and the rest of the world (is > that true or do some zones allow to join the ACBL?). > +=+ Indeed the subject is amongst those listed. I think we should go to the basics and review our intentions generally. I do not know whether the EBL LC is as vehemently insistent on the retention of the 61B prohibition as they were when the possibility of reversion to the pre-1987 position was last mooted. Against that I incline more generally to a belief that Dummy should have no right of intervention whatsoever in the course of events during the play period, and that an action of a defender which draws attention to any aspect of the play of the cards should be deemed by law to provide unauthorized information to partner. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/