From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 00:20:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VDGtj16362 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:16:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VDGDt16268 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:16:15 +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 f0VDG5456877 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:16:05 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131081023.00b46630@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, 31 Jan 2001 08:18:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau 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"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:55 AM 1/30/01, wayne.burrows wrote: >How do you see the law/ethics of alerting your partner's conventional >responses to your unalerted conventional bids? One should base one's subsequent actions -- both calls and alerts -- on the presumption that partner understood the conventional bid but forgot to alert it. You do or do not alert the response as you would have done had partner alerted (which depends on the SO's alert regulations). 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 Feb 1 00:26:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VDQ4e18903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:26:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VDPut18865 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:25:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer (dialup-018.sligo.iol.ie [194.125.48.210]) by mail.iol.ie Sendmail (v8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA50818 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:25:46 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:26:48 -0000 Message-ID: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: Bridge Laws Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:26:47 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 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. > > > Ton commented: 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 Herman wrote: > 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. Ton commented: So this is simply not true either. It might be a good idea to abandon these schools. ton H E L P! 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 Feb 1 00:32:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VDWE220617 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:32:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VDW6t20577 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:32:07 +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 f0VDW1k11287 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:32:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@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, 31 Jan 2001 08:33:58 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <003501c08add$21d5d040$7812f7a5@james> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the field" by refusing a waiver of a penalty. It seems to mean that the other pairs in the field in which the offenders are playing are entitled to the additional half a matchpoint on average which they gain from the penalty. But there are two "fields"; the opposing field, in which the NOs are playing, lose half a matchpoint on average relative to the score they would have obtained had there been no irregularity (AKA "equity"). Whether the penalty is waived or enforced, one field gains and the other loses. So doesn't it just come down to a choice of *which* field one chooses to "protect"? Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 00:53:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VDrTD25945 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:53:29 +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-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 f0VDr5t25879 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:53:07 +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 f0VDquI20918 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 08:52:56 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131084704.00a94780@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, 31 Jan 2001 08:54:53 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner In-Reply-To: <200101301931.LAA31821@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 02:31 PM 1/30/01, Adam wrote: >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.) A double of 3NT, regardless of meaning, is not a Lightner double, which, by definition, can only be a double of a slam contract. The ACBL's "Official Encyclopedia of Bridge" provides two alternative meanings of "Lightner Double": (1) "Partner is requested to choose an unusual lead which may result in defeat of the slam", and (2) "Partner must lead dummy's first-bid side suit". Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 01:20:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VE7lL29330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:07:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VE6qt29203 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:06:54 +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 14NxuD-0007FY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:06:46 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:25:35 +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]> <3A76B091.D811DE0F@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010130183538.00829720@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010130183538.00829720@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 >>Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" : >But I don't think the DWS principle should apply here Oh well, I suppose it makes a change. But may I suggest some other name? After all, I have just posted a DWS principle to this thread. -- 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 Feb 1 01:35:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VE7h229320 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:07:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VE6qt29204 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:06:56 +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 14NxuD-000Mi0-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:06:42 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 02:15:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? References: <200101302140.NAA02366@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200101302140.NAA02366@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 > >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. >> 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." I do. If a player has two possibilities, which lead tot he same number of tricks, but one to a 1-trick revoke, one to a 2-trick revoke, in my view that is a doubtful point. > 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); Reasonable, and perhaps better than relying on the interpretation above. > other solutions, such as scrapping >L64A2 entirely and going back to a two-trick penalty in all >circumstances, would be acceptable to me also. And me! -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 01:56:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VEuQ006266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:56:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VEu7t06261 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 01:56:08 +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 14Nyfy-00089Q-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:56:02 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:52:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> In-Reply-To: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.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 In article <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie>, Fearghal O'Boyle writes > >> 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. >> > >> >Ton commented: >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 > the de Wael school says you should possibly give MI to avoid UI the rest of the world says you must avoid MI so far as you can and if that results in UI then so be it. The de Wael school had been fighting an awesome rearguard action for the last two years with all the tenacity of a cornered rat. We have consumed more bandwidth than was available to the Apollo X astronauts arguing this, and I refer those interested in a good discussion of the de Wael school to an excellent argument on Herman's website. Needless to say the EBU TD's en masse reject the de Wael school evangelism. cheers john > >Herman wrote: >> 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. > >Ton commented: >So this is simply not true either. It might be a good idea to abandon these >schools. > >ton > > > > >H E L P! > >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/ -- 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 Feb 1 02:10:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VFAMN06361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:10:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VFAEt06357 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:10:15 +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 QAA29046; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:07:29 +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 QAA03845; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:09:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131161147.00841100@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 16:11:47 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131084704.00a94780@127.0.0.1> References: <200101301931.LAA31821@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 08:54 31/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >A double of 3NT, regardless of meaning, is not a Lightner double, >which, by definition, can only be a double of a slam contract. AG : which means that all sensible persons who extend the meaning of the 'unusual lead' to 5M contracts will have to alert it ... By the way, Theodore Lightner said this kind of double shall apply whenever a pure penalty double is impossible. 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 Feb 1 02:12:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VFCYS06381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:12:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VFCRt06377 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:12:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA13647 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA219193941; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:21 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:20 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump 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, 31 Jan 2001 10:12:19 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0VFCUt06378 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, I usually have no problem applying Law 70C (Contested claim when there is an outstanding trump). Do opponents can win a trick by any "normal play" (as define in the foot note)? Called to a table yesterday, I had to rule on such a claim by a declarer who can loose a trick by a "normal play" after simply facing his last 4 cards and saying "I have the rest". The only problem I had is that declarer said (when asked by me) and was ready to swear on the Bible that he was totally aware of the outstanding trump (he is a good player). After opening my lawbook (yes I do that sometimes...) I read carefully law 70C2: "it is all likely that the claimer was unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand". Not so easy : do I trust this declarer an allow the normal result on this board or do I rule against the claimer and give an extra trick to defenders? I finally choose the first option because declarer seems so sure but do not fell very confortable with my decision. I told declarer he should always mention an outstanding trump when claiming and said to the opponents they may contest my interpretation of facts. As they got the normal score they dont. Would you please tell me what is your approach in such a case. 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 Feb 1 02:19:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VFImS06417 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:18:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VFIet06413 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:18:41 +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 QAA02864; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:15:55 +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 QAA10270; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:18:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131162013.0083f690@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 16:20:13 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> References: <003501c08add$21d5d040$7812f7a5@james> <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 08:33 31/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the field" >by refusing a waiver of a penalty. It seems to mean that the other >pairs in the field in which the offenders are playing are entitled to >the additional half a matchpoint on average which they gain from the >penalty. AG : I understand it as follows : The winners will be the pair or team who made less errors that others. Bidding errors are (ideally) punished in the playing of bad contracts, card errors are punished in failures of makable contracts and in letting make others, preparedness errors are punished in mixups, procedural errors are punished in adjusted scores, and ethicals errors are punished in PPs. Who are we to pretend that only the first three types should decide of the outcome ? If your opponents miss a laydown slam, you win points, and the result of other pairs is affected. If they let you make an impossible contract, ditto. If they revoke, ditto. If somebody were to say that the cold slam you missed is adjusted to 6H making, a 'waiver of the -750', they would be laughed at. Why isn't it the same in the case of 'technical' errors ? 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 Feb 1 02:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VFS5W06459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:28:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VFRet06447 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 02:27:42 +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 f0VFRWf14983 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:32 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f0VFRVw04686 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:31 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:30 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 PAA07774 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:30 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA13341 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:29 GMT Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:29 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200101311527.PAA13341@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Needless to say the EBU TD's en masse reject the de Wael school > evangelism. cheers john A strange case which came before EBU L&E (simplified) Dealer West, NS silent: 2NT - 3H - 4H - 4S - Pass (no alerts). Responder (East) had spades, and 3H was systemically a transfer. 4H was systemically a slam try with spade support but East had to logical alternative to 4S (too little to accept a slam try). The appeals committee allowed the result to stand as East had not used UI and (because East had not alerted 4H) West had no UI. The L&E agreed with the appeals committee decision, except they thought East/West should have a standard PP for failure to alert 4H. They thought West had not alerted 4H knowing that it would be to their (EW's) benefit not to transmit UI. 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 Feb 1 03:14:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VGEVs06696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:14:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (mta07-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.47]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VGEGt06691 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:14:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([213.105.138.252]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010131161356.ZYMI26323.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:13:56 +0000 Message-ID: <002b01c08ba1$3b3071c0$fc8a69d5@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:16:55 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:12 PM Subject: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump > Hi all, > > I usually have no problem applying Law 70C (Contested claim > when there is an outstanding trump). Do opponents can > win a trick by any "normal play" (as define in the foot note)? > > Called to a table yesterday, I had to rule on such a claim by > a declarer who can loose a trick by a "normal play" after > simply facing his last 4 cards and saying "I have the rest". > The only problem I had is that declarer said (when asked > by me) and was ready to swear on the Bible that he was > totally aware of the outstanding trump (he is a good player). > > After opening my lawbook (yes I do that sometimes...) I read > carefully law 70C2: "it is all likely that the claimer was > unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand". > > Not so easy : do I trust this declarer an allow the normal > result on this board or do I rule against the claimer and > give an extra trick to defenders? > > I finally choose the first option because declarer seems > so sure but do not fell very confortable with my decision. > I told declarer he should always mention an outstanding > trump when claiming and said to the opponents they > may contest my interpretation of facts. As they got the > normal score they dont. > > Would you please tell me what is your approach in such > a case. > I require declerer to tell me how it is he is aware of the outstanding trump, and where it is. If he immediately tells me that he has played the ruffing finesse for two rounds for example, or if he describes how he left it outstanding for a particular manoeuvre, I allow the claim. If there is any degree of waffle I do not allow the claim, if he may lose a trick by careless play. Regards 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 Feb 1 03:32:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VGWUB06766 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 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 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 f0VGWJt06761 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:32:20 +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 KAA23336 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:33:35 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131103127.007d8a50@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:31:27 -0600 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010131162013.0083f690@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <003501c08add$21d5d040$7812f7a5@james> <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 04:20 PM 1/31/2001 +0100, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 08:33 31/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >>I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the field" >>by refusing a waiver of a penalty. It seems to mean that the other >>pairs in the field in which the offenders are playing are entitled to >>the additional half a matchpoint on average which they gain from the >>penalty. > >AG : I understand it as follows : >The winners will be the pair or team who made less errors that others. >Bidding errors are (ideally) punished in the playing of bad contracts, card >errors are punished in failures of makable contracts and in letting make >others, preparedness errors are punished in mixups, procedural errors are >punished in adjusted scores, and ethicals errors are punished in PPs. Who >are we to pretend that only the first three types should decide of the >outcome ? >If your opponents miss a laydown slam, you win points, and the result of >other pairs is affected. If they let you make an impossible contract, >ditto. If they revoke, ditto. >If somebody were to say that the cold slam you missed is adjusted to 6H >making, a 'waiver of the -750', they would be laughed at. Why isn't it the >same in the case of 'technical' errors ? I understand this point of view, but I don't think it answers the question. What you have given is, in effect, an argument that we shouldn't try to waive penalties for technical errors. It's a perfectly reasonable argument, a variant on the equally reasonable argument given by others [Craig S., et al, as I recall] that you should be playing to win and exploiting a penalty to the fullest is the only way to play to win. But the issue here is a different one: suppose, for the sake of argument, player X _wants_ to waive a penalty. Player X feels that winning because an opponent accidentally dropped a card while sorting his hand is not really 'winning at _bridge_'. So he dutifully calls the TD [rather than just waiving the penalty illegally like most people do who want to waive penalties, in the Cap Gemini or in the local club], and asks the TD to waive the penalty. While you or many others on this list might feel no compulsion to act this way, Player X does. _On what grounds should a TD deny this request_? I hold that a TD should deny the request only if the request seems motivated by outside reasons. [I.e., player X's pair is out of contention, their opponents are X's friends and are in second, and X is trying to help them win by waiving the penalty.] I could understand a TD who denied the request if the infraction was not a _purely_ accidental one, [for example, if a player requested a waiver of revoke or OLOOT penalty with no extenuating circumstances, as opposed to a dropped card, revoke caused by visual impairment, etc.] although I wouldn't do so. What I do not accept is the principle Eric is questioning here, which says that the TD may _never_ waive a penalty in a pairs competition because he must protect the 'field'. Like Eric, I don't see how the field _as a whole_ can possibly be protected, since all benefits one direction are cancelled by losses the other way, and like DWS I don't think that the TD should be worrying about protecting the field even if it could be protected [except in the case of deliberate dumping, as considered above]. > 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 Thu Feb 1 04:08:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VH7it06930 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:07:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VH7Ut06926 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:07:32 +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 SAA27499; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:04:45 +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 SAA22026; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:07:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131180904.008227b0@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 18:09:04 +0100 To: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0VH7Yt06927 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:12 31/01/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >Called to a table yesterday, I had to rule on such a claim by >a declarer who can loose a trick by a "normal play" after >simply facing his last 4 cards and saying "I have the rest". >The only problem I had is that declarer said (when asked >by me) and was ready to swear on the Bible that he was >totally aware of the outstanding trump (he is a good player). > > >Would you please tell me what is your approach in such >a case. AG : the fact that the declarer didn't mention the outstanding trump is strong evidence that he didn't know. Else it would be easy for him to say 'I draw the trump and have the rest'. One possible exception is the case when declarer tables after testing trumps and discovering they are well divided. In this case, the timing of the claim (just after having learned the repartition) is evidence that he knew what he was doing. But even so, why not state 'I end drawing, and claim on double ruff with the other trumps' or whatever ? Non, vraiment, le moindre atome de doute doit être utilisé contre le joueur qui table. And I could coldly swear on the Bible whatever you wish me to swear, because I'm an Agnostic, so don't let yourself be impressed. 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 Feb 1 04:55:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VHsWR07140 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:54:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mplspop6.mpls.uswest.net ([204.147.80.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f0VHsDt07134 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 04:54:13 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 6479 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2001 17:54:08 -0000 Received: from idslppp167.mpls.uswest.net (HELO oemcomputer) (63.225.145.167) by mplspop6.mpls.uswest.net with SMTP; 31 Jan 2001 17:54:08 -0000 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:41:17 -0600 Message-ID: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] A late alert debacle X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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 [BLML], Kx Kxx KJTxxx AJx - AJTxx Qxx JTxxx xxxx AQ KQxxxx x Qxxxxx Ax x xxx The bidding started: N E S W 1N 2d* 2s p While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I was called to the table and rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. The auction proceeded: N E S W X 2h 3d p 3N all pass E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? Also is the original 2S bid AI to either/both sides? Thanks and Regards, Chip -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 05:50:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VIoPH11499 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:50:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VIoEt11456 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:50:15 +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 KAA30815; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:50:10 -0800 Message-Id: <200101311850.KAA30815@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:41:17 CST." <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 10:50:09 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Chip wrote: > Hi [BLML], > > Kx > Kxx > KJTxxx > AJx > > - AJTxx > Qxx JTxxx > xxxx AQ > KQxxxx x > > Qxxxxx > Ax > x > xxx North needs to give South one of his cards. I'll assume a heart, if it makes any difference. > The bidding started: > > N E S W > 1N 2d* 2s p > > While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I > was called to the table and > rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. > > The auction proceeded: > N E S W > X 2h > 3d p 3N all pass > > E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity > led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. They weren't. Some people believe that if they get a bad result after their opponents committed an irregularity, the bad result must obviously have been caused by the irregularity. > Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? No. South's 2S is UI for East/West; however, given West's distribution, he really has no choice but to show his preference by bidding 2H. Nothing else is a logical alternative. East's passes are also routine; and given West's bid, I don't believe the heart lead was suggested by the UI. > Also is the original > 2S bid AI to either/both sides? It's AI for North/South. It's UI for East/West. Law 16C. -- 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 Feb 1 05:58:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VIwR113478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:58:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VIw3t13362 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 05:58:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca (Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA [192.77.51.2]) by Amnesix.UQSS.UQuebec.CA (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA23975; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:57:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA008177473; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:57:53 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:57:50 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:57:50 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f0VIwEt13431 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk AG wrote: And I could coldly swear on the Bible whatever you wish me to swear, because I'm an Agnostic, so don't let yourself be impressed. ____________________________________________________________ I am too...but he was ready to swear on the head of his mother... Laval Du breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 07:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKGIh04452 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:16:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VKG3t04395 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:16:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VDQau00932 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:26:36 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 13:19:55 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200101311527.PAA13341@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200101311527.PAA13341@tempest.npl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01013113263601.00866@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Robin Barker wrote: > > Needless to say the EBU TD's en masse reject the de Wael school > > evangelism. cheers john > > A strange case which came before EBU L&E (simplified) > > Dealer West, NS silent: 2NT - 3H - 4H - 4S - Pass (no alerts). > > Responder (East) had spades, and 3H was systemically a transfer. > 4H was systemically a slam try with spade support but East had > to logical alternative to 4S (too little to accept a slam try). > > The appeals committee allowed the result to stand as East had > not used UI and (because East had not alerted 4H) West had no UI. > > The L&E agreed with the appeals committee decision, except they > thought East/West should have a standard PP for failure to alert > 4H. They thought West had not alerted 4H knowing that it would > be to their (EW's) benefit not to transmit UI. If the 4H bid is alertable, then the penalty might be an adjusted score, not a PP, because E-W gained an advantage through the failure to alert, and East was aware that the bid was alertable. Had East alerted as required, West would have had the UI that he had forgotten the transfer, and would not have been allowed to guess this on his own. If West held the AK of spades, then the 4S bid itself would wake him up, and there would be no LA to passing. If West did not have a spade control, then the sequence would be normal given West's intention when he bid 4H, and he would be required to continue the slam-try sequence. -- 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 Feb 1 07:29:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKTl308069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:29:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VKTdt08031 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:29:40 +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 OAA24125 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:31:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010131142853.007bce10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:28:53 -0600 To: "blml" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? In-Reply-To: <00bc01c08a56$f8e128a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010128180349.00b3d830@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010129111406.007e9690@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 04:44 PM 1/29/2001 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >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. I do not dispute that it may be difficult for a player to get redress for such things--I don't have enough experience at it to know. But IMHO that says nothing about this case. a) If you agree that there are already laws on the books that deal with the problem we're trying to address [remarks that can mislead the defense], but that the problem is that these laws are not enforced by the ill-prepared and skeptical TD's you encounter, then how will making a counter-intuitive claim law interpretation help matters any? Will your local TD's know that this is what the law means, and be prepared to enforce it, when they don't know or don't enforce the current, much more comprehensible laws? Of course, you could advocate a serious and comprehensive re-education of TD's and players to stop these pseudo-claims. But I think it would be better to just educate them about potential damage instead. b) The majority of potentially damaging remarks are not claims, even by the literalist reading of the current claim law. And the majority or remarks that are claims only according to the lieral reading of the current claim law are not damaging. It seems inefficient to make a law to penalize actions that are mostly harmless while failing to penalize most of the harmful actions. >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. And, again, if the comments are abusive to partner or opponents and you want to give a penalty under the ZT provisions, fine and dandy with me. >Marv >San Diego, CA, USA Respectfully, Grant -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 07:40:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKebd10959 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:40:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VKeSt10915 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:40:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.111]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA21150 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:40:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001f01c08bc6$0ff5db10$6f13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: References: <6d.ec4ac45.27a87f04@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:40:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001C_01C08B9C.25E68FC0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_001C_01C08B9C.25E68FC0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is the way it has always been. I, for one, like it this way. I can = reply either privately or to the list. It ain't broke. Don't fix it. Craig ----- Original Message -----=20 From: WSFlory@aol.com=20 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au=20 Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not 1. Reply no longer goes to the discuss list.=20 2. Cut and paste seems to be the only way to quote.=20 Is it the consensus of the list that this is the best way to go?=20 The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and then = delete the=20 additional send-to names. Again, is this what the group as a whole = prefers?=20 It seems strange and clumsy to me, but I am but a single voice.=20 Walt Flory=20 ------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C08B9C.25E68FC0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is the way it has always been. I, for one, like = it this=20 way. I can reply either privately or to the list. It ain't broke. Don't = fix=20 it.
 
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 WSFlory@aol.com=20
To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au =
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 = 3:33=20 PM
Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or = Not

1. Reply no = longer goes=20 to the discuss list.
2. Cut and paste seems to be the only way to = quote.=20

Is it the consensus of the list that this is the best way to = go?=20

The only way to reply to the list is to do a "reply all" and = then=20 delete the
additional send-to names. Again, is this what the group = as a=20 whole prefers?

It seems strange and clumsy to me, but I am but = a=20 single voice.

Walt Flory =
------=_NextPart_000_001C_01C08B9C.25E68FC0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 07:44:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKiVn12059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:44:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VKiKt12004 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:44:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.111]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA30703; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:44:11 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002d01c08bc6$99f57640$6f13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <3A76B091.D811DE0F@village.uunet.be> <3.0.6.32.20010130183538.00829720@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:44:21 -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 I thought we had agreed on DwS for Herman's school, even though it is technically wrong. After all, sometimes a username is taken. Craig_489836 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not > alain gottcheiner writes > > >>Go check the home page for the "DeWael School" : > > >But I don't think the DWS principle should apply here > > Oh well, I suppose it makes a change. > > But may I suggest some other name? After all, I have just posted a > DWS principle to this thread. > > -- > 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 Feb 1 07:47:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKlMc12914 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:47:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VKlEt12873 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:47:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhuo.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.216]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14357 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:47:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009301c08bc6$faa867e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:47:08 -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: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: [BLML] A late alert debacle > Hi [BLML], > > Kx > Kxx > KJTxxx > AJx > > - AJTxx > Qxx JTxxx > xxxx AQ > KQxxxx x > > Qxxxxx > Ax > x > xxx > > The bidding started: > > N E S W > 1N 2d* 2s p > > While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I > was called to the table and > rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. > > The auction proceeded: > N E S W > X 2h > 3d p 3N all pass > > E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity > led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. > N/S were injured, but is wasn't a problem with the infraction, which had properly been corrected. (I'm assuming that the 14 cards in the N hand and 12 cards in S were divided 13/13 at the table, with the extra being an irrelevant spot.) N had the correct explanation when he called 3D, and S had it when he called 3N(!?!). These were the calls that did in N/S, and they had the correct explanation when they made them. Note that S was not required to change the 2S call, and if he had not done so, W could not have changed his pass. 2S by S is not awful, and S will know to play for the bad break. Hard to say more, without knowing which of the N cards is really part of the S hand and what the spots are. > Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? No, since N had not yet called, you were correct to roll the auction back to S (21B1). Since S changed his call, W is allowed to change his also (21B2). The 2H call by W after the double is routine preference. >Also is the original > 2S bid AI to either/both sides? > The original 2S is AI to N/S, UI to E/W (16C1, 16C2). The same applies to the original pass by W. The withdrawn calls are AI to the non-offending side, and UI to the offending side. > Thanks and Regards, > Chip > The ruling was correct. The N/S bidding was not. 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 Feb 1 07:52:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VKq0l14246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:52:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VKpgt14185 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 07:51:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.111]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA17883; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:51:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <004901c08bc7$a2017090$6f13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Grant Sterling" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <003501c08add$21d5d040$7812f7a5@james> <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010131103127.007d8a50@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:51:47 -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 Ouch...that;s twice I've agreed with you today Grant. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Sterling" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > At 04:20 PM 1/31/2001 +0100, alain gottcheiner wrote: > >At 08:33 31/01/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: > >>I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the field" > >>by refusing a waiver of a penalty. It seems to mean that the other > >>pairs in the field in which the offenders are playing are entitled to > >>the additional half a matchpoint on average which they gain from the > >>penalty. > > > >AG : I understand it as follows : > >The winners will be the pair or team who made less errors that others. > >Bidding errors are (ideally) punished in the playing of bad contracts, card > >errors are punished in failures of makable contracts and in letting make > >others, preparedness errors are punished in mixups, procedural errors are > >punished in adjusted scores, and ethicals errors are punished in PPs. Who > >are we to pretend that only the first three types should decide of the > >outcome ? > >If your opponents miss a laydown slam, you win points, and the result of > >other pairs is affected. If they let you make an impossible contract, > >ditto. If they revoke, ditto. > >If somebody were to say that the cold slam you missed is adjusted to 6H > >making, a 'waiver of the -750', they would be laughed at. Why isn't it the > >same in the case of 'technical' errors ? > > I understand this point of view, but I don't think it answers the > question. What you have given is, in effect, an argument that we shouldn't > try to waive penalties for technical errors. It's a perfectly reasonable > argument, a variant on the equally reasonable argument given by others > [Craig S., et al, as I recall] that you should be playing to win and > exploiting a penalty to the fullest is the only way to play to win. > But the issue here is a different one: suppose, for the sake of > argument, player X _wants_ to waive a penalty. Player X feels that winning > because an opponent accidentally dropped a card while sorting his hand is > not really 'winning at _bridge_'. So he dutifully calls the TD [rather than > just waiving the penalty illegally like most people do who want to waive > penalties, in the Cap Gemini or in the local club], and asks the TD to > waive the penalty. While you or many others on this list might feel no > compulsion to act this way, Player X does. _On what grounds should a TD > deny this request_? I hold that a TD should deny the request only if the > request seems motivated by outside reasons. [I.e., player X's pair is out > of contention, their opponents are X's friends and are in second, and X is > trying to help them win by waiving the penalty.] I could understand a TD > who denied the request if the infraction was not a _purely_ accidental one, > [for example, if a player requested a waiver of revoke or OLOOT penalty > with no extenuating circumstances, as opposed to a dropped card, revoke > caused by visual impairment, etc.] although I wouldn't do so. > What I do not accept is the principle Eric is questioning here, > which says that the TD may _never_ waive a penalty in a pairs competition > because he must protect the 'field'. Like Eric, I don't see how the field > _as a whole_ can possibly be protected, since all benefits one direction > are cancelled by losses the other way, and like DWS I don't think that the > TD should be worrying about protecting the field even if it could be > protected [except in the case of deliberate dumping, as considered above]. > > > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 08:16:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VLFvl17403 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:15:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VLFLt17399 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:15:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.111]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12292; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:15:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006b01c08bca$ead5f900$6f13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <200101302140.NAA02366@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:15:18 -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 A consummation devoutly to be wished. Is that in your Bartlett's Grattan? Craig > Adam Beneschan writes scrapping> >L64A2 entirely and going back to a two-trick penalty in all> >circumstances, would be acceptable to me also. > > And me! > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 08:19:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VLIJh17419 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:18:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f0VLIAt17415 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:18:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rf.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.111]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA13792; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:18:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "NARDULLO Ennio" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 16:17:55 -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 do not think it should be alerted in the ACBL because it is the normal meaning of the bid. In jurisdictions where this is not the case or where alertability relates to artificiality rather than the unexpected perhaps it should be. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "NARDULLO Ennio" To: Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 11:57 AM Subject: [BLML] Double lightner > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 10:11:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VNADs06957 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:10:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VNA6t06918 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:10:07 +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 PAA05413; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:10:00 -0800 Message-Id: <200101312310.PAA05413@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 31 Jan 2001 09:49:37 +0100." <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:10:00 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as > "thou shalt not MI", I haven't been participating in this debate before, so maybe this has already been addressed---but why isn't "thou shalt not MI" a necessary consequence of L40B, L75A, L75C, and L75D1? -- 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 Feb 1 10:35:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f0VNQnh11232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:26:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f0VNQ9t11139 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:26:11 +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 f0VNMOw13070; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:22:25 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 18:18:09 -0500 To: "Craig Senior" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Cc: "Marvin L. French" , Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >I do not think it should be alerted in the ACBL because it is >the normal meaning of the bid. In jurisdictions where this is >not the case or where alertability relates to artificiality >rather than the unexpected perhaps it should be. Double is not a bid. :-) From the ACBL alert chart: Type II doubles are those made when partner has made any call other than a PASS or the double is: of notrump, or a call above 4H or LATE in the auction. Type II doubles if for penalty or penaltyish do not require an Alert, non-penalty REQUIRE an Alert. Double of a slam bid or of 3NT which is lead directing is therefore alertable. Marv, you seem to have missed this in your Alert Regs summary - or am I wrong about it being alertable? :-) 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/AwUBOnifBb2UW3au93vOEQIxOgCfQA7rJDKVVWoRHxgt2CapmqCiksMAnjGr HSQ5ZQYqtIvZXP6UJwn1bfSg =XdJU -----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 Feb 1 11:50:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f110nXa24052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:49:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f110nNt24047 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:49:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.245.14] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14O7w3-0006Po-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:49:16 +0000 Message-ID: <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 00:49:07 -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 Fearghal wrote: > H E L P! Law 73A1: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. Law 75A: Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents. Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: ...when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something (...), a violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, "must" (...) indicates that violation is regarded as serious. This implies that if you have an unenviable choice between communicating illegally with partner and failing to disclose your agreements to the opponents, you should do the former, for then you are "only" doing something that the Laws say you shall not do, as opposed to something that the Laws say you must not do. Of course, this interpretation is based on no more than a literal reading of the words of the Laws. It is therefore, as has been shown by the "Claim?" thread, wholly without foundation, for by now it is more or less axiomatic that the Laws do not mean 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 Feb 1 12:19:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f111Hc724195 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:17:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f111Gwt24184 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:17:00 +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 MAA19320 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:19:42 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:10:25 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:09:30 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/02/2001 12:15:24 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that a contestant *must* always attempt to act in their own best interests. (Unless the notorious L74B1 is given a broader than usual interpretation.) 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 Feb 1 12:51:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f111oBn26676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:50:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta03.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.83]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f111nut26619 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:49:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from master ([63.12.1.17]) by mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010201014954.EMDN19418.mta03.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:49:54 +1100 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201124741.007ac9d0@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 12:47:41 +1100 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Re: Quotations In-Reply-To: <000d01c08a02$435fe6a0$2a9d01d5@pbncomputer> References: <033d01c0875a$746bc480$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 As one who derives the greatest pleasure from the discussions of the meaning of the English language, and from Grattan's apposite quotations.. where does he get them?, I commend David Burn's excellent finding: > >"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. > Cheers, Tony -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 14:34:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f113XWZ18283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:33:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f113XPt18246 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:33:26 +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 OAA07275 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:36:08 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:26:54 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:31:29 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 01/02/2001 02:31:53 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: [big snip] >...asks the TD to waive the penalty. While >you or many others on this list might feel >no compulsion to act this way, Player X does. >_On what grounds should a TD deny this >request_? I hold that a TD should deny the >request only if the request seems motivated >by outside reasons. [big snip] L81C8 specifically states that a TD may only use their discretion to waive a penalty *for cause*. Edgar Kaplan's example of *for cause* is an opponent revoking *because* you spilt coffee in their lap. Alternatively, *because* of medical reasons, such as a LOL with palsy exposing several cards, the TD may waive the penalty upon application by the opposing side. But a valid cause is *not* merely a personal morality which is philosophically opposed to mechanical penalties mandated by the Laws. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 16:00:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f114wiv06126 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:58:44 +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 f114wUt06122 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:58:31 +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 ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:55:08 -0800 Message-ID: <010d01c08c0b$911b7ac0$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> <3.0.6.32.20010131142853.007bce10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 20:53:46 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grant Sterling" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >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. > > I do not dispute that it may be difficult for a player to get > redress for such things--I don't have enough experience at it to know. > But IMHO that says nothing about this case. > a) If you agree that there are already laws on the books that > deal with the problem we're trying to address [remarks that can mislead > the defense], but that the problem is that these laws are not enforced > by the ill-prepared and skeptical TD's you encounter, then how will > making a counter-intuitive claim law interpretation help matters any? > Will your local TD's know that this is what the law means, and be prepared to > enforce it, when they don't know or don't enforce the current, much more > comprehensible laws? The law is plain, but proving the effect of coffeehousing is nearly impossible. > Of course, you could advocate a serious and comprehensive re-education > of TD's and players to stop these pseudo-claims. But I think it would be > better to just educate them about potential damage instead. It is not a matter of education. The best TDs cannot rule against coffeehousing when it involves a mild fumble, a little grunt, or a slight grimace. > b) The majority of potentially damaging remarks are not claims, > even by the literalist reading of the current claim law. So what? > And the majority > or remarks that are claims only according to the literal reading of the > current claim law are not damaging. So what? If any of them are, all must be treated equally. > It seems inefficient to make a law to > penalize actions that are mostly harmless while failing to penalize most > of the harmful actions. You nail what you can nail, doing the best you can. > > >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. > > And, again, if the comments are abusive to partner or opponents and > you want to give a penalty under the ZT provisions, fine and dandy with me. > I would rather that remarks to the effect that declarer will win a specific number of tricks be handled according to L68A. 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 Feb 1 16:20:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f115Isc07278 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:18:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f115Ikt07240 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:18:47 +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 ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:15:27 -0800 Message-ID: <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:18:01 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Ed Reppert" > Craig Senior wrote: > > >I do not think it should be alerted in the ACBL because it is > >the normal meaning of the bid. In jurisdictions where this is > >not the case or where alertability relates to artificiality > >rather than the unexpected perhaps it should be. > > Double is not a bid. :-) > > From the ACBL alert chart: > > Type II doubles are those made when partner has made any call other > than a PASS or the double is: of notrump, or a call above 4H or LATE > in the auction. Type II doubles if for penalty or penaltyish do not > require an Alert, non-penalty REQUIRE an Alert. > > Double of a slam bid or of 3NT which is lead directing is therefore alertable. > > Marv, you seem to have missed this in your Alert Regs summary - or am > I wrong about it being alertable? :-) > It's a business double, why would it be Alertable? Because partner would naturally lead the suit that any good bridge player would lead? I don't think so. Okay, let's clarify. 1C-P-1S-P 1N-P-2N-P 3N-P-P-X is for penalty. Obviously the doubler has spades under control, and is prepared for (if not demanding) a spade lead. Not Alertable. 1N-P-3N-X With no special partnership agreement, partner will lead a weak/short suit. That's just bridge, not Alertable. If the double calls for a heart lead, that is a convention, and conventions (with specified exceptions) are Alertable. Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't ignore that often-ignored word, "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 Thu Feb 1 16:41:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f115dPQ12880 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:39:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f115d3t12809 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:39:04 +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 ; Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:35:44 -0800 Message-ID: <012801c08c11$3d4f1720$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:31:15 -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 Richard Hills wrote: > > Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that a contestant > *must* always attempt to act in their own best interests. (Unless > the notorious L74B1 is given a broader than usual interpretation.) > L9b1(a) requires the TD to be summoned if attention is called to an irregularity. That puts a damper on most acts of kindness. However, L24 allows a declarer to decide if a card exposed during the auction will be a penalty card during the play, and the Laws say that BOOTs/LOOTs/POOTs may be accepted by LHO, at hir discretion. These Laws tell me that there is no principle that a contestant must always attempt to act in their own best interests, no matter what Edgar Kaplan 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 Thu Feb 1 19:33:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f118WKd17369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:32:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f118W6t17307 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:32:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhuo.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.216]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA06513 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:32:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 03:31:54 -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: "Eric Landau" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:33 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the field" > by refusing a waiver of a penalty. Think of it as ensuring that all entrants in the event are playing under the same conditions of contest. Then there's no matter of "choice" involved, either on the parts of the players or the TD. Rather than thinking of it as "protecting the field", think of it as protecting the integrity of the game, so that no contestant is at an advantage, or disadvantage, because the Laws are being fully enforced at some tables, but not others. >It seems to mean that the other > pairs in the field in which the offenders are playing are entitled to > the additional half a matchpoint on average which they gain from the > penalty. But there are two "fields"; the opposing field, in which the > NOs are playing, lose half a matchpoint on average relative to the > score they would have obtained had there been no irregularity (AKA > "equity"). Whether the penalty is waived or enforced, one field gains > and the other loses. So doesn't it just come down to a choice of > *which* field one chooses to "protect"? > > 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 Feb 1 19:34:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f118YBJ17913 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:34:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f118Y0t17862 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:34:01 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA04656; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:33:56 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 01 09:36:44 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 <01JZLAM3MXEW0027FA@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:33:25 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1BGHPLAZ>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:28:46 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:33:09 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not To: "'David Burn'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A2@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 > Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be > effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. > > Law 75A: > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > fully and freely available to the opponents. > > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > > ...when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something (...), a > violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, > "must" (...) indicates that violation is regarded as serious. > > This implies that if you have an unenviable choice between > communicating > illegally with partner and failing to disclose your agreements to the > opponents, you should do the former, for then you are "only" doing > something that the Laws say you shall not do, as opposed to something > that the Laws say you must not do. > > Of course, this interpretation is based on no more than a literal > reading of the words of the Laws. It is therefore, as has > been shown by > the "Claim?" thread, wholly without foundation, for by now it > is more or > less axiomatic that the Laws do not mean what they say. > > David Burn > London, England This reminds me too much of my infant experiences when somebody proofed 0 (zero) to be equal to 1 (one). We then had more doubts about aspects of the proof given than about the mathematical foundations being attacked. This (your) kind of statements brings Belgium bridge players up to its highest regions to spitting on the laws, the TD's applying those and the decisions taken. 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 Feb 1 22:36:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11BZAS05323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:35:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11BYvt05265 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:34:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from mikeamos ([213.48.210.211]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:36:25 +0000 Message-ID: <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> From: "mike amos" To: References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> Subject: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:35:07 -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 A simple situation Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs all 4 players quit their cards Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained TD at the table :) ) "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've revoked" How should the TD proceed in this situation? Mike -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 23:11:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11CBAt13949 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:11:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11CAxt13894 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:11:00 +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 NAA05495; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:06:53 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id NAA15586; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:10:43 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201131232.008444e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:12:32 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <012801c08c11$3d4f1720$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 21:31 31/01/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >Richard Hills wrote: >> >> Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that a contestant >> *must* always attempt to act in their own best interests. (Unless >> the notorious L74B1 is given a broader than usual interpretation.) >> >L9b1(a) requires the TD to be summoned if attention is called to an >irregularity. That puts a damper on most acts of kindness. > >However, L24 allows a declarer to decide if a card exposed during >the auction will be a penalty card during the play, and the Laws say >that BOOTs/LOOTs/POOTs may be accepted by LHO, at hir discretion. >These Laws tell me that there is no principle that a contestant must >always attempt to act in their own best interests, no matter what >Edgar Kaplan said. AG : See 72A4. Its mild tone is there to say you are not requested to demand maximal application of the Law, only you are expected to do it. And L9B1a still holds. Putting together the principles 'BOOT, LOOT, insufficient bid may be accepted' and 'you should act to the best of your interests' yields 'accept BOOT etc only when you feel it is helpful to you'. So, if you hold Qxx / Jxx / Kxxxx / xx and the bidding goes 1C-1S-1D, and if you are playing with somebody who requests sound competitive bidding, accept 1D and bid 1S (this is a real life case, and I was the 1S bidder). But if you can see no advantage in accepting the bid / pass / lead, do not, because it will usually be difficult for therm to cope with the restrictions. 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 Feb 1 23:20:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11CK4616537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:20:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11CJtt16498 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:19:56 +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 NAA22576; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:17:07 +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 NAA21644; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:19:37 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201132126.0082e210@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:21:26 +0100 To: "Chip" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle In-Reply-To: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 31/01/01 -0600, Chip wrote: >Hi [BLML], > > Kx > Kxx > KJTxxx > AJx > >- AJTxx >Qxx JTxxx >xxxx AQ >KQxxxx x > > Qxxxxx > Ax > x > xxx > >The bidding started: > >N E S W >1N 2d* 2s p > >While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I >was called to the table and >rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. > >The auction proceeded: >N E S W > X 2h >3d p 3N all pass > >E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity >led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. > >Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? Also is the original >2S bid AI to either/both sides? a) South was entitled to retract his bid. He decided to double instead. The fact that he had at first bid 2S is known to his partner, and since N/S didn't do anything wrong. 2S is thus AI to them. My gut feeling is that it isn't for E/W, but TFLB doesn't provide me with any answer. Anyway, the fact that West led a heart, not a spade, can't be wrong, since leading a spade was not a LA :-) b) Even if the infraction damaged N/S, I'd certainly let the score stand, because his 3NT is a huge gamble. c) By the way, North has 14 cards and South has 12. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 1 23:28:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11CSSS17166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:28:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11CS1t17158 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 23:28:03 +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 NAA14601; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:23:52 +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 NAA27339; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:27:44 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201132933.00847400@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:29:33 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner In-Reply-To: <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> 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 f11CS7t17160 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 21:18 31/01/01 -0800, you wrote: > >Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double >a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying >on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double >is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double >requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, >then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't >ignore that often-ignored word, "special." AG : I don't find it in my French version (I mean, French language). The word is 'particulière', which is the translation of 'specific'. If the bid has a specific meaning, alert it and, if requested, explain it. The English version seems to request more 'unusualness'. I'd say that if you play that 1NT-2C-2H-3NT always shows 4 spades (I don't : it could merely be a hand with short H that is now out of the woods), then the English version doesn't require us to alert, while the French one would. 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 Feb 2 00:37:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11DaSQ02332 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:36:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11DaGt02280 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:36:17 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id OAA03635; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:36:07 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 01 14:34:02 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 <01JZLKZFKKDM002TU4@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:30:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1CR9JDJ6>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:25:52 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:28:06 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Can I see that one again? To: "'mike amos'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A4@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 > > > A simple We should forbid the use of 'simple' related to any case brought into this group. 'Nice' is what you meant: a nice case. And another possibilty to point to inadequate laws. But there is an escape. The answer could be: 'yes, it is possible that you revoked'. I wait for the answers and have one myself, made up in an imaginary bridgeworld. I am not saying that this problem is an imaginary one, it is real stuff. We can be happy it was not LHO. ton situation > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > all 4 players quit their cards > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a > well trained > TD at the table :) ) > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's > possible that I've > revoked" > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? > > Mike > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 00:56:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11DuK208305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:56:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-5.cais.net (stmpy-5.cais.net [205.252.14.75]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Dtwt08243 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:55:59 +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 f11Dtqr39772 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 08:55:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010201084759.00b27740@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, 01 Feb 2001 08:57:50 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <012801c08c11$3d4f1720$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:31 AM 2/1/01, Marvin wrote: >However, L24 allows a declarer to decide if a card exposed during >the auction will be a penalty card during the play, and the Laws say >that BOOTs/LOOTs/POOTs may be accepted by LHO, at hir discretion. >These Laws tell me that there is no principle that a contestant must >always attempt to act in their own best interests, no matter what >Edgar Kaplan said. Having been thoroughly grounded in utility theory, I maintain that one always acts in one's own best interests. Some of us, including Marv and I, simply believe that it may be in our own best interests to have an enjoyable and friendly game of bridge rather than to maximize our score. Mr. Kaplan seems to have believed that it was in his own best interests to maintain purity and consistency in the way the game was played and administered rather than either of the above. If one owns a bridge club, one may believe that it is in one's own best interest to keep the customers coming regardless of any of the above. We are all entitled to our own utility functions. What's at issue here is the extent to which the laws of Bridge permit us to act in our own best interests rather than someone else's. 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 Feb 2 01:38:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11EbWY20256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:37:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Eb5t20170 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:37:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax2-31.connectnc.net [63.160.175.223]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00248; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:36:30 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Chip" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:31:41 -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 solving this problem, did you take South away from the table to discuss the problem? Many directors here do not talk to the player away from the table. Should this happen, how does one handle the UI that has occurred. It has been suggested that if a director does talk to a player away from the table the player's answer should be something like "I am not sure what I would do" or some other noncommittal answer. This sounds to me like waiting to see what happens and then protesting. I would like to hear some discussion about this thought. Thanks, Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chip" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:41 PM Subject: [BLML] A late alert debacle > Hi [BLML], > > Kx > Kxx > KJTxxx > AJx > > - AJTxx > Qxx JTxxx > xxxx AQ > KQxxxx x > > Qxxxxx > Ax > x > xxx > > The bidding started: > > N E S W > 1N 2d* 2s p > > While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I > was called to the table and > rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. > > The auction proceeded: > N E S W > X 2h > 3d p 3N all pass > > E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity > led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. > > Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? Also is the original > 2S bid AI to either/both sides? > > Thanks and Regards, > Chip > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 2 01:38:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11EbWe20262 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:37:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Eb6t20176 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:37:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (spmax2-31.connectnc.net [63.160.175.223]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA00367; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:36:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "mike amos" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:36:47 -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 ACBL land, one can look at his own just turned card before the lead to the next trick. Is it different in other countries? Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike amos" To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 6:35 AM Subject: [BLML] Can I see that one again? > A simple situation > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > all 4 players quit their cards > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained > TD at the table :) ) > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've > revoked" > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? > > Mike > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 01:58:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11EwMY23103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:58:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Evtt23094 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:57:57 +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 f11EvrJ29699 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:57:53 +1100 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:57:52 +1100 (EST) From: Mark Abraham X-Sender: mabraham@medvesajt.anu.edu.au To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? In-Reply-To: <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> 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, 1 Feb 2001, mike amos wrote: > A simple situation > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > all 4 players quit their cards > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained > TD at the table :) ) > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've > revoked" > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? Practically speaking the TD can look at the card led to the previous trick without revealing it, look at the player's card likewise and then the players hand. Easy... but I don't know that it's covered in a law. 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 Feb 2 02:02:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11F21A23179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:02:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11F1gt23171 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:01:43 +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 KAA29411; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA232079686; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:01:26 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:01:22 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Mime-Version: 1.0 From: Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, mamos@blueyonder.co.uk, nancy@pinehurst.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline ;Creation-Date="Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:01:21 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f11F1kt23173 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy wrote: In ACBL land, one can look at his own just turned card before the lead to the next trick. Is it different in other countries? Nancy ________________________________________________________________________ _ Cannot be. Read Law 66B. Until a card is lead to the next trick, declarer or either defender may inspect, but not expose, his own last card. If called, TD should ask declarer's RHO to look at his card and see if he revoked. If yes, the revoke is not yet established (offendind side did not play to the next trick). RHO simply corrects his revoke but the card played to the trick becomes a major penalty card (Law 50). 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 Feb 2 02:26:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11FPiX23679 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:25:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11FPZt23675 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:25:37 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id QAA28584; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:25:32 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Thu Feb 01 16:28:13 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 <01JZLOYY8DA4002SF6@AGRO.NL>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:24:38 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1CR9JLGN>; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:20:00 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:19:50 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Can I see that one again? To: "'Nancy'" , mike amos , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A5@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 > > > In ACBL land, one can look at his own just turned card before > the lead to > the next trick. Is it different in other countries? Nancy > I hope not, our lawbooks are identical, apart from some translation errors. (RHO suggested not to remember the lead in this trick, so he wanted more cards turned faced up) 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 Feb 2 02:26:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11FQQQ23704 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:26:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11FQJt23698 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 02:26:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id QAA20378; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:23:33 +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 QAA16413; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:26:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201162753.0084c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:27:53 +0100 To: "mike amos" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? In-Reply-To: <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> 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 11:35 1/02/01 -0000, mike amos wrote: >A simple situation > >Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick >3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > >all 4 players quit their cards > >Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > >"Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained >TD at the table :) ) > >"We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've >revoked" > >How should the TD proceed in this situation? AG : the TD asks who played the first card to that trick, and inspects the cards played taking all possible steps so that the players don't see the cards again. If RHO didn't revoke, that's that. If he did, his card is to be put face up on the table and treated as MPC. No problem, really. 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 Feb 2 03:20:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11GDoa25954 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:13:50 +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 f11GD3t25855 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:13:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-26.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.26]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f11GCvg25162 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:12:57 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A792E6E.D60A3D3B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:37:50 +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] Alert or Not References: <200101312310.PAA05413@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: > > Herman wrote: > > > I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as > > "thou shalt not MI", > > I haven't been participating in this debate before, so maybe this has > already been addressed---but why isn't "thou shalt not MI" a necessary > consequence of L40B, L75A, L75C, and L75D1? > Of course there is a Law, or rather a set of them, that says "if you give MI, your opponents are entitled to redress". But there is no actual overriding eleventh commandment that says "thou shalt not MI". There is a Law (L75D2) that says "Thou shalt not give UI". I happen to believe this law is more important, but I am alone. But don't say I don't have a point. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 03:35:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11GDns25951 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:13:50 +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 f11GCrt25815 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:12:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-26.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.26]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f11GCkg25018 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:12:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7929BD.B2B0F7B6@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:17:49 +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> <3.0.6.32.20010131113641.00844940@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: > > > >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 ?). No I'm not. > DwS looks > fishy (the De Wael school of fish ?) because you name isn't written De > wael. Yes it is. Want to see my ID ? My partner always writes our partnership as TdN-HDw. What about HDWS ? > The name De Wael School was coined by David Burn before it was discovered that the acronym could cause confusion. > >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. Bring us more exams. I like your mood ! -- 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 Feb 2 03:44:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Ghsw04218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:43:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11GhXt04157 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:43:34 +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 KAA11043 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:44:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201104245.007cc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:42:45 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:31 PM 2/1/2001 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Grant Sterling wrote: > >[big snip] > >>...asks the TD to waive the penalty. While >>you or many others on this list might feel >>no compulsion to act this way, Player X does. >>_On what grounds should a TD deny this >>request_? I hold that a TD should deny the >>request only if the request seems motivated >>by outside reasons. > >[big snip] > >L81C8 specifically states that a TD may only >use their discretion to waive a penalty *for >cause*. Agreed. >Edgar Kaplan's example of *for cause* is an >opponent revoking *because* you spilt coffee >in their lap. Alternatively, *because* of >medical reasons, such as a LOL with palsy >exposing several cards, the TD may waive the >penalty upon application by the opposing side. > >But a valid cause is *not* merely a personal >morality which is philosophically opposed to >mechanical penalties mandated by the Laws. a) I am not opposed to all mechanical penalties mandated by the laws. But why should one's personal morality count as a _bad_ reason to waive a penalty--I'd say it was the best reason of all. In any case, the law does not specific what counts as 'cause'. Is the TD supposed to apply his own personal morality to decide what he thinks is a 'cause'? I could certainly live with that, but I'm sure many on this list could not. b) More importantly, if we accept the 'protecting the field' argument, than don't we have to forbid the waiver of penalties even in Edgar's examples? "Too bad if she has palsy--the penalty must apply to her just as it would to anyone else! Think of the poor 'field'!" >Best wishes > >R And to you, 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 Feb 2 03:50:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11GDi725937 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:13:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11GCwt25835 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:12:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-26.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.26]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f11GCsg25138 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 17:12:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A792DDA.AD592951@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:35:22 +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: <200101311527.PAA13341@tempest.npl.co.uk> <01013113263601.00866@psa836> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David J Grabiner wrote: > > On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Robin Barker wrote: > > > Needless to say the EBU TD's en masse reject the de Wael school > > > evangelism. cheers john > > > > A strange case which came before EBU L&E (simplified) > > > > Dealer West, NS silent: 2NT - 3H - 4H - 4S - Pass (no alerts). > > > > Responder (East) had spades, and 3H was systemically a transfer. > > 4H was systemically a slam try with spade support but East had > > to logical alternative to 4S (too little to accept a slam try). > > > > The appeals committee allowed the result to stand as East had > > not used UI and (because East had not alerted 4H) West had no UI. > > > > The L&E agreed with the appeals committee decision, except they > > thought East/West should have a standard PP for failure to alert > > 4H. They thought West had not alerted 4H knowing that it would > > be to their (EW's) benefit not to transmit UI. > > If the 4H bid is alertable, then the penalty might be an adjusted score, > not a PP, because E-W gained an advantage through the failure to > alert, and East was aware that the bid was alertable. > > Had East alerted as required, West would have had the UI that he had > forgotten the transfer, and would not have been allowed to guess this > on his own. If West held the AK of spades, then the 4S bid itself > would wake him up, and there would be no LA to passing. If West did > not have a spade control, then the sequence would be normal given > West's intention when he bid 4H, and he would be required to continue > the slam-try sequence. > Do you see where this is leading ? First you try and force a player to give UI (by alerting 4H). Then you go and see whether or not partner, when in the possession of UI, would have LA to an action which he now took, without UI ! Then you are forcing on him an action that he would only have taken because it was not the one suggested by UI that he never got in the first place. Actually, I prefer a Burnian approach : forgetting an alert = immediate bottom on the deal. -- 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 Feb 2 03:52:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11GqUM06610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 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 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 f11GqKt06552 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:52:21 +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 f11Gq8f02427; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:09 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f11Gq8c07729; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:08 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 16:52:07 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 QAA11297; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:06 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA01259; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:06 GMT Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:52:06 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102011652.QAA01259@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > But don't say I don't have a point. You don't have a point. :-) L75D1 says you must correct your own incorrect explanations. So if you deliberately give UI you must immediately call the TD and correct it. Thats pretty close to saying you must not MI. 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 Feb 2 04:05:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11GVip00818 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:31:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11GVBt00735 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 03:31:13 +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 KAA06537 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:32:30 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010201103017.007b0e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:30:17 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@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 03:31 AM 2/1/2001 -0500, Hirsch Davis wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:33 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > > >> I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the >field" >> by refusing a waiver of a penalty. > >Think of it as ensuring that all entrants in the event are playing >under the same conditions of contest. Then there's no matter of >"choice" involved, either on the parts of the players or the TD. >Rather than thinking of it as "protecting the field", think of it as >protecting the integrity of the game, so that no contestant is at an >advantage, or disadvantage, because the Laws are being fully enforced >at some tables, but not others. But the Laws themselves allow one to ask for a waiver of penalty! If you do not like that Law, by all means seek to get it changed. But that is a different matter than explaining why 'protecting the field' requires the law to be castrated. Some laws allow players various options as to how to deal with an opponent's irregularity. This law gives another option--waive the penalty. It is an option I wish to emply on a number of occasions, to increase my enjoyment of the game. It is an option that other players do not wish to emply, ever. I don't see that as a problem, I guess. I do not advocate making even fairly commonly-shared notions of sportsmanship mandatory. But I do not like the idea of making them illegal, either, especially when they seem to have been explicitly provided for by the laws. _I_ think it is unsportsmanlike, 'not bridge', to try to win because of a dropped card or a mis-heard bid or impaired vision. I do not demand that anyone else share those notions. But I will be very displeased if I ask a TD to waive a penalty for somesuch thing and they say "no, sorry, I must uphold the integrity of the game and forbid you to waive that penalty. L81 only says that you can request a waiver, not that I ever have to grant one under any circumstances." >Regards, > >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 Fri Feb 2 04:12:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11HBuu11381 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:11:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11HBat11313 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:11:37 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:08:17 -0800 Message-ID: <003001c08c71$fbaebda0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010201131232.008444e0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:08:57 -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: "alain gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Richard Hills wrote: > >> > >> Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that a contestant > >> *must* always attempt to act in their own best interests. (Unless > >> the notorious L74B1 is given a broader than usual interpretation.) > >> > >L9b1(a) requires the TD to be summoned if attention is called to an > >irregularity. That puts a damper on most acts of kindness. > > > AG : See 72A4. Its mild tone is there to say you are not requested to > demand maximal application of the Law, only you are expected to do it. Its mild tone is that there is nothing wrong with demanding maximal application of the Law, period. Perhaps the French "approprié" carries more weight than the English "appropriate," which does not have the flavor of "expected" in this context. > And L9B1a still holds. As I said. But it holds only "when attention is drawn to an irregularity." An opponent dropped the king of diamonds on the table while sorting her hand, and quickly snatched it up. That was an irregularity that would require the card to stay on the table throughout the auction, barring her partner for the first round of bidding, and perhaps become a penalty card during the play. Certain that no one but me had seen the card, I ignored the irregularity, as was my right (provided I didn't call attention to it). The Laws wisely allow for this sort of non-action, even if EK would disapprove. 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 Feb 2 04:26:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11HPpl12683 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:25:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11HPct12672 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:25:39 +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 JAA30388; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:25:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200102011725.JAA30388@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:37:50 +0100." <3A792E6E.D60A3D3B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:25:32 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as > > > "thou shalt not MI", > > > > I haven't been participating in this debate before, so maybe this has > > already been addressed---but why isn't "thou shalt not MI" a necessary > > consequence of L40B, L75A, L75C, and L75D1? > > > > Of course there is a Law, or rather a set of them, that says > "if you give MI, your opponents are entitled to redress". I'm well aware of those Laws (L21B, L40C, L47E2(a)). I did not cite any of them!!! I also did not cite the Law (L20) that says that player has a right to request an explanation, since that Law does not specifically say that the opponents are required to answer correctly (although attempting to argue in that way would be weaselish). But did you look over the Laws I actually did cite? 40B. A player may not make a call or play based on a special partnership understanding unless an opposing pair may reasonably be expected to understand its meaning, or unless his side discloses the use of such call or play in accordance with the regulations of the sponsoring organization. This Law explicitly says you must disclose. In particular, if the SO regulations say that a certain call is alertable, Law 40B says you *must* alert when you make the call. 75A. Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). This Law, which uses the word *must*, definitely implies that one may not give MI. Information about one's agreements must be fully and freely available; and this requirement is violated when one gives MI. 75C. When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience. "A player shall disclose all special information" about one's agreements. Again, a *requirement* that one give correct information. 75D1. If a player subsequently realizes that his own explanation was erroneous or incomplete, he must immediately call the Director (who will apply Law 21 or Law 40C). Technically, you could argue that this Law doesn't say you can't give MI. You could argue that this law allows you to misinform the opponents as long as you call the Director immediately after you do so! Of course, this argument would be foolish and pointless. This Law makes it clear that you are *not* allowed to misinform the opponents. So your statement that there is no "thou shalt not MI" law is false. There are at least four such 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 Fri Feb 2 04:32:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11HW7u13365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:32:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11HVst13308 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:31:55 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:28:35 -0800 Message-ID: <004401c08c74$d2034ae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <3.0.6.32.20010201132933.00847400@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:28:33 -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" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > >Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double > >a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying > >on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double > >is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double > >requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, > >then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't > >ignore that often-ignored word, "special." > > AG : I don't find it in my French version (I mean, French language). The > word is 'particulière', which is the translation of 'specific'. If the bid > has a specific meaning, alert it and, if requested, explain it. The English > version seems to request more 'unusualness'. I'd say that if you play that > 1NT-2C-2H-3NT always shows 4 spades (I don't : it could merely be a hand > with short H that is now out of the woods), then the English version > doesn't require us to alert, while the French one would. > My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French approach on this one. 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what should be Alerted. My understanding of "special partnership agreement" is one that would not be assumed with a strange partner without discussion. Perhaps something has been lost in the translation. Not usual for the French, whose translations often reveal that something was lost in the original. 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 Feb 2 04:52:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11HqTi18790 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:52:29 +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 f11HqFt18735 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:52:16 +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; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:48:56 -0800 Message-ID: <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Nancy" , "mike amos" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 09:47:13 -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 From: "Nancy" > In ACBL land, one can look at his own just turned card before the lead to > the next trick. Is it different in other countries? No, but one may have to see other cards in order to know if one revoked. > > > A simple situation > > > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > > > all 4 players quit their cards > > > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained > > TD at the table :) ) > > > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've > > revoked" > > > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? > > > > Mike The TD says, "You can examine your own card, but don't expose it. You can't see other cards that have been played." The TD cannot look at the other cards to determine a revoke possibility, as that would be helping a 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 Feb 2 04:59:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Hwkb19601 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:58:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Hwct19597 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 04:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA17383; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:58:22 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005701c08c78$990acd40$5713f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 12:58:30 -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 do hope you have not been eating caramel, as it would be most awkward to have your tongue stuck in your cheek. The Laws of course mean what they say. It is just that to some they say strange things. We need not change the Laws...just education people to understand that when it walks, looks and quacks like a duck and the Laws say unequivocally "It is a duck" that this IS a duck, however much your might like a fowl of some other plumage. I dearly hope that none of the "it isn't a claim because I didn't mean it as one" folks never attend an auction, command a firing squad, or push buttons in a missile silo. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not > Fearghal wrote: > > > H E L P! > > Law 73A1: > > Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be > effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. > > Law 75A: > > Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be > fully and freely available to the opponents. > > Scope and Interpretation of the Laws: > > ...when these Laws say that a player "shall" do something (...), a > violation will be penalised more often than not. The strongest word, > "must" (...) indicates that violation is regarded as serious. > > This implies that if you have an unenviable choice between communicating > illegally with partner and failing to disclose your agreements to the > opponents, you should do the former, for then you are "only" doing > something that the Laws say you shall not do, as opposed to something > that the Laws say you must not do. > > Of course, this interpretation is based on no more than a literal > reading of the words of the Laws. It is therefore, as has been shown by > the "Claim?" thread, wholly without foundation, for by now it is more or > less axiomatic that the Laws do not mean 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 05:41:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11IefM20377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:40:41 +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 f11IeYt20372 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:40:35 +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 KAA32321; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 10:40:30 -0800 Message-Id: <200102011840.KAA32321@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 "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 09:28:33 PST." <004401c08c74$d2034ae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 10:40:30 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote [regarding 1NT-2C-2H-3NT]: > My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not > promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French > approach on this one. > > 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when > he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention > "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what > should be Alerted. Alerts are generally used to indicate something that isn't "standard". When determining what is "standard", the original meaning an inventor gave to a convention shouldn't have any relevance. In fact, my dim and possibly faulty recollection tells me that the original version of the Stayman convention, as invented by Rapee' was a way that nobody plays it any more. Didn't he give a meaning to a 2NT rebid by opener? (I.e. the possible responses to 2C were 2D, 2H, 2S, and 2NT.) I could be very wrong here (and I could be confusing it with a Marx or Kempson version); but the point is that the original invention doesn't matter. If I'm right, the 2NT response was soon dropped from the convention and the newer version became "standard", anything Stayman wrote notwithstanding. As for 1NT-2C-2H-3NT: The "standard" is indeed that this promises four spades; that's how it is in any textbook I've ever read. In fact, you could rephrase this a little, and say that 3NT doesn't *tell* partner you have four spades, but rather it *asks* partner to correct to 4S if he has four. (You could thus use Stayman on something like AQT 3 KJ952 K643 and try to play in a 4-3.) In any case, the "standard" inference is that responder is interested in a spade contract (he's not interested in hearts, but he did ask about the majors, Q.E.D.). If this inference doesn't apply in your case, what *can* one infer from the fact that responder went through Stayman instead of just bidding 1NT-3NT? Whatever inference this might be, or if no inference can be drawn at all (e.g. if you played 1NT-3NT as conventional), it's not standard, and thus it doesn't seem weird to me to require that it be alerted. -- 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 Feb 2 05:49:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11InoM20542 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:49:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Inht20535 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:49:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA30545; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:49:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009701c08c7f$c1b7fe50$5713f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:49:29 -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 Pedantically (sp?) correct. But Ed, surely the double of 3N is at least "penaltyish". The lead direction is to set the contract and extract a penalty, no? Unlike a Lightner slam double this call may be alertable...but not because it is non-penalty. My original (quoted) comment referred to the Lightner doubles. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" To: "Craig Senior" Cc: "Marvin L. French" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:18 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > >I do not think it should be alerted in the ACBL because it is > >the normal meaning of the bid. In jurisdictions where this is > >not the case or where alertability relates to artificiality > >rather than the unexpected perhaps it should be. > > Double is not a bid. :-) > > From the ACBL alert chart: > > Type II doubles are those made when partner has made any call other > than a PASS or the double is: of notrump, or a call above 4H or LATE > in the auction. Type II doubles if for penalty or penaltyish do not > require an Alert, non-penalty REQUIRE an Alert. > > Double of a slam bid or of 3NT which is lead directing is therefore alertable. > > Marv, you seem to have missed this in your Alert Regs summary - or am > I wrong about it being alertable? :-) > > 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/AwUBOnifBb2UW3au93vOEQIxOgCfQA7rJDKVVWoRHxgt2CapmqCiksMAnjGr > HSQ5ZQYqtIvZXP6UJwn1bfSg > =XdJU > -----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 Feb 2 06:00:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11J06021292 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:00:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Ixwt21247 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:59:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.36]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010201185953.FNEO285.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:59:53 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c08c81$950e8340$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:02:53 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike amos" To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:35 AM Subject: [BLML] Can I see that one again? > A simple situation > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > all 4 players quit their cards > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained > TD at the table :) ) > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've > revoked" > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? > I'm not sure what it is you are in doubt about Mike, or is there something I have not understood. I'm about to learn I feel :-) Law 66C allows for the TD to instruct the facing of a quitted trick, specific example cited, "to verify the claim of a revoke". I believe in this instance the director should only allow the facing of the card led to the trick.The person who thinks he might have revoked is pemitted to examine the face of his quit card, until a card is played to the next trick - Law66B. If he had revoked, and the revoke has not been established - he must correct it Law62A.and the withdrawn card is faced as a major penalty card to be disposed of according to Law 50. The presence of the penalty card is authorised to all players, but the knowledge of it having been in the offenders hand is not authorised to the offenders partner. Law 16C2. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 06:23:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JMr627837 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:22:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11JMgt27788 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:22:43 +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 f11JIQb24913; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:18:28 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:13:24 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 9:18 PM -0800 1/31/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >It's a business double, why would it be Alertable? Because partner >would naturally lead the suit that any good bridge player would >lead? I don't think so. > >Okay, let's clarify. > >1C-P-1S-P >1N-P-2N-P >3N-P-P-X is for penalty. Obviously the doubler has spades under >control, and is prepared for (if not demanding) a spade lead. Not >Alertable. > >1N-P-3N-X > >With no special partnership agreement, partner will lead a >weak/short suit. That's just bridge, not Alertable. If the double >calls for a heart lead, that is a convention, and conventions (with >specified exceptions) are Alertable. > >Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double >a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying >on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double >is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double >requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, >then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't >ignore that often-ignored word, "special." Perhaps I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Lightner doubles - a double of a slam contract which calls for the lead of a specific suit. I said (and still say) that if the double calls for a specific lead, it's alertable *even if one would lead that suit anyway*. What would pass mean in this case? Don't lead that suit, right? So the double says "we can set the contract *if* you lead the specified suit". Seems to me that says more than just "I think we can set the contract." Huh. I suppose the pass above is also alertable, on the same argument. Yeah, it seems odd, or silly, or maybe wrong. But that's what the alert regs *say*. Same argument applies to a lead directing double of 3NT. If double doesn't call for the lead of a specific suit, and pass doesn't say "don't lead that suit", then neither is alertable - but then you aren't playing Lightner doubles, either. 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/AwUBOnm3Wb2UW3au93vOEQLk1QCgj+BfSfHyBokrc/GzA0ur/eiw4owAn3v8 HEG4mYl3FhfTC2Zf0eEyHvSk =P2h/ -----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 Feb 2 06:24:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JOrS28507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:24:53 +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 f11JOjt28472 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:24:46 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:21:27 -0800 Message-ID: <00b401c08c84$966447e0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> Subject: [BLML] Taking Players Away from Table Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:23:17 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Nancy" > It has been suggested that if a director does talk to a player > away from the table the player's answer should be something like > "I am not sure what I would do" or some other noncommittal answer. > This sounds to me like waiting to see what happens and then > protesting. It sounds to me like the only answer that should be given, even when a call obviously would not be changed, if only to discourage this TD practice. > I would like to hear some discussion about this thought. The ACBL TD organization, and Rich Colker, NABC Appeals Administrator, believe that it is good procedure for a TD to take players who have received MI away from the table for questioning. They are asked, "Would you have done anything different if you had been properly made aware of their partnership agreement?" (or words to that effect) Case 32 from the Cincinnati NABC was occasion for comments on this subject in the casebook. David Stevenson expressed my opinion (and Ron Gerard's, evidently) very well: "The method of taking players away from the table to ask them what they would have done is an unfair practice and should be discontinued. Players are under pressure and rulings should be based on multiple possibilities as the law suggests, rather than on what some poor player has answered, especially as he [sic] is probably not told by the Director that it is in his interest to name as many possibilities as he can." Yes, per L12C2 a possibility need not have a high probability. To that I add that a player cannot do his side any good by answering the question at this time. If the answer is accepted, it could have been given at a later time just as well. If not believed, the answer will be ignored when the TD rules. The practice therefore wastes time in a time-driven event, especially considering that most MI does not affect the actions of the NOS. The only immediate step a TD should take after determining that there was MI is to allow a non-offender to change a call if that is permitted by L21B. All else can wait. Here is what Gary Blaiss, ACBL CTD, has to say: "When there is an opportunity to get a commitment from an affected player prior to disclosure of additional information about the hand, it is difficult to present a cogent argument which says that one should not obtain that information. The reliability of or weight given to the testimony is quite another matter. "Having used this procedure many times over the last 30 years or so, it is effective and productive. The TD and committee have information which they may believe or not when considering their decision." The implication is that a player may change his mind about the matter after seeing the entire deal, or after giving consideration (perhaps with help from others) to the consequences of what s/he "might have done." Rich Colker, similarly, in discussing Case 32: "...all of this should be done before the non-offending players have had a chance to consult with one another, see the entire deal, or ask other players, all of which may happen if you wait before asking these questions. ...it certainly can't be wrong to ask the questions, as long as we are not unreasonably bound to believe the answers." (part of a very long discussion) One reason that TDs like this procedure is that it gets a case over with quickly if the NOs say they would not have changed a call. At least one ACBL TD has told me that if I don't answer immediately, I will lose all rights. The next one to do that gets reported. As to statements of the NOs as to what they "would have done," I would hope to make a ruling without using that input, perhaps after asking questions about the NOs' system and partnership agreements. Then, if either side argues with the ruling, let the discussions begin. This is one subject about which I hope BLML can reach a consensus. Agreement might be useful as a lever to get the ACBL TD practice revised, perhaps with the help of the C&C committee and/or BoD members. Maybe DWS can provide us with a complete procedure for handling MI, as he did so well for a LOOT. 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 Feb 2 06:27:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JReK29468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:27:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin1.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11JRYt29434 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:27:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.55]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G83FLF00.2LU for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 05:32:03 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-003-p-213-182.tmns.net.au ([203.54.213.182]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kickin-MailRouter V2.9c 7/4646004); 02 Feb 2001 05:27:30 Message-ID: <03cc01c08c84$7f6e9860$b2d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:23:46 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: >Think of it as ensuring that all entrants in the event are playing >under the same conditions of contest. Then there's no matter of >"choice" involved, either on the parts of the players or the TD. >Rather than thinking of it as "protecting the field", think of it as >protecting the integrity of the game, so that no contestant is at an >advantage, or disadvantage, because the Laws are being fully >enforced at some tables, but not others. But I thought that if I revoke, and nobody else notices, it is up to me whether to tell everyone and call the Director. I don't have to, but I can if I want to. This doesn't seem to fit too well with your "no matter of choice involved" concept. Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the Director, do I? I have a choice... Returning to the Cap Gemini thread, I find it remarkable that noone has pointed out that the relevant Law 50 (study the original post carefully if you doubt that it was a Penalty Card not a Revoke that was waived) reads: "A card prematurely exposed by a defender is a penalty card unless the Director designates otherwise." Plenty of scope there for the Director to waive the penalty, without needing to call on L81C8. If I were in Forrester's seat in the following HYPOTHETICAL situation, I would have done the same as him. Say that at the start of the session my opponent told me that he was having a severe vision problem caused by the fluorescent lighting in the venue (originally caused by a hypothetical punch breaking his glasses a year earlier). Then he revokes, and I look around for Ton but alas can see only the other TD, the one who gossips a bit. I realise that if I call him, my opponent's problem will become the talk of the bridge world which will be most embarrassing for my opponent and even more embarrassing for the punching movie star from 12 months earlier (still hypothetical). Since his temporary affliction has caused the penalty card, I say to forget about it. Normally he wouldn't let me, but under the unusual circumstances, he accepts my offer. If something like this were the case (and we cannot be certain that it is not), then - unlike some BLMLers - I would have no problems with Forrester's actions, although of course the Bulletin Editor's comments were inappropriate. My point is that we should not feel badly towards Forrester over this case because we do not know all the facts. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 06:32:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JVx700920 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:31:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11JVmt00854 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:31:48 +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 f11JSBm13156; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:28:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <009701c08c7f$c1b7fe50$5713f7a5@james> References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <009701c08c7f$c1b7fe50$5713f7a5@james> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:13 -0500 To: "Craig Senior" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Cc: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:49 PM -0500 2/1/01, Craig Senior wrote: >Pedantically (sp?) correct. But Ed, surely the double of 3N is >at least "penaltyish". The lead direction is to set the contract >and extract a penalty, no? Unlike a Lightner slam double this >call may be alertable...but not because it is non-penalty. My >original (quoted) comment referred to the Lightner doubles. Well, yeah, it's "penaltyish", but if it conveys another message ("lead this suit") it seems to me that makes it alertable - even if one would lead that suit anyway, as I said to Marv in another message. Towards the beginning of the alert regs, I find "Natural bids that convey an unexpected meaning must be Alerted. This includes strong bids that sound weak, weak bids that sound strong, and all other bids that, by agreement, convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning ascribed to them." This says bids, not calls, but given the section it's in and the previous discussion, I think that's sloppy editing, rather than intent to exclude calls which "convey meanings different from, or in addition to, the expected meaning". If a double of a slam contract is Lightner sufficiently often for Lightner to be called "standard", then I suppose it's not alertable. But I'm not sure that's the case - I know several players around here who wouldn't know a Lightner double from their left elbow. :-) 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/AwUBOnm5nr2UW3au93vOEQKAwgCfeZzVWNPpMdzm5HAh280Mp56IQAQAn3KG cLDWIEl9+2ReG71m9u6rWx3n =GNru -----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 Feb 2 06:35:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JYtN01932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:34:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11JYmt01887 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:34:48 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:31:30 -0800 Message-ID: <00cf01c08c85$fdcbba20$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c08c78$990acd40$5713f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:31:45 -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 Craig Senior wrote: > The Laws of > course mean what they say. It is just that to some they say > strange things. We need not change the Laws...just education > people to understand that when it walks, looks and quacks like a > duck and the Laws say unequivocally "It is a duck" that this IS > a duck, however much your might like a fowl of some other > plumage. I dearly hope that none of the "it isn't a claim > because I didn't mean it as one" folks never attend an auction, > command a firing squad, or push buttons in a missile silo. > Can we amend this a bit, and say that obvious mispunctuations, grammatical errors, typos, inadvertent inclusions of superseded words, etc., need not be taken literally? 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 Feb 2 06:41:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Jewc04030 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:40:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Jeit03960 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:40:45 +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 OAA21321 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:46:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102011946.OAA21321@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] MI, UI, or what? Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 14:46:25 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had an interesting situation happen at the GNT qualifiers this weekend. I wasn't going to start another dWS discussion (I note that HdW tried very hard not to restart it, either - just posted an URI to his position and ducked, until it had started. Thanks, Herman), but now that it's in full swing... All vul, teams. Opps are competent. Dlr N. N E S W 2S X 3S 4H p 5H! p 6H AP After the auction (I guess more pedantically, after the third pass and before the lead), 5H is alerted (correct timing in ACBL) and explained, when asked, as "Asking about trump quality." N then asks me (E) if that's our agreement. Well, when I bid 5H, I meant it as "asking about trump quality". Between that time and the question being asked, I reviewed our agreements, and realized that it probably asks for a spade stopper, instead ("One suit = that suit; zero or two suits = trump quality"). My response? "Um, our agreements are a bit hazy here, but I was asking about trump quality. Sorry." I believe that this told the opponents what they wanted to know (that no matter what our agreements are, I was asking for trump quality), perhaps even more than was required, and definately illegal. I also believe that (like the famous Kaplan(?) case) telling them that our agreements were that it asked for a spade stopper, and then putting dummy down (I forget the minors, but the majors were AJ KJ9) would have definately been a problem. The result? No matter the lead (it was a spade, the worst for our side), pard's job was to make the two-way guess for the CQ. He did. Submitted simply as evidence. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 06:42:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Jfrs04149 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:41:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Jfkt04106 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:41:46 +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 f11JcCw15800; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:38:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:33:56 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The TD cannot look at the other cards to determine a revoke possibility, >as that would be helping a player. Er, um, what about Law 66C? "Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific instruction, for example, to verify a claim of a revoke)." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOnm79r2UW3au93vOEQIqnQCcCxBpw3tdz8ic1nDdgVqjNUAgTPoAoJGN s4JjDh79RNTJKXVygfdecrFT =s1P2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 06:49:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Jmp806557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:48:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from granger.mail.mindspring.net (granger.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.148]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Jmht06525 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:48:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA32115; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:48:21 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a501c08c87$f678a830$5713f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <005701c08c78$990acd40$5713f7a5@james> <00cf01c08c85$fdcbba20$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:48:33 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I sure hope so. :-)) I had 2 instances ar least in that post...it is a problem when one thinks faster than he types. (And hopefully better) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not > Craig Senior wrote: > > > The Laws of > > course mean what they say. It is just that to some they say > > strange things. We need not change the Laws...just education > > people to understand that when it walks, looks and quacks like a > > duck and the Laws say unequivocally "It is a duck" that this IS > > a duck, however much your might like a fowl of some other > > plumage. I dearly hope that none of the "it isn't a claim > > because I didn't mean it as one" folks never attend an auction, > > command a firing squad, or push buttons in a missile silo. > > > Can we amend this a bit, and say that obvious mispunctuations, > grammatical errors, typos, inadvertent inclusions of superseded > words, etc., need not be taken literally? > > 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 Feb 2 06:56:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Ju1i09023 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:56:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Jtqt08971 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:55:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4qn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.87]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA26365; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:55:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00b901c08c88$ff623140$5713f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ed Reppert" Cc: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <009701c08c7f$c1b7fe50$5713f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:55:57 -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 What do they play? Surely not bridge. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Reppert" I know several players around here > who wouldn't know a Lightner double from their left elbow. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 07:00:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Jxso10281 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:59:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Jxdt10215 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:59:39 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:56:20 -0800 Message-ID: <00fb01c08c89$75eabc60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:49:26 -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: "Ed Reppert" (who makes me cut BLML from Cc and paste it on the To: line): > Marvin L. French wrote: > >Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double > >a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying > >on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double > >is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double > >requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, > >then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't > >ignore that often-ignored word, "special." > > Perhaps I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Lightner > doubles - a double of a slam contract which calls for the lead of a > specific suit. I thought the discussion was being extended to similar situations. > I said (and still say) that if the double calls for a > specific lead, it's alertable *even if one would lead that suit > anyway*. If the double would generally be understood by the other side, I don't believe it's Alertable. It's common bridge knowledge that one doubles a slam only with (1) certainty of defeating it with any lead or (2) hope to defeat it if partner makes an unusual lead. It is also common bridge knowledge that the first suit bid by dummy is the most likely candidate for the lead (for bridge reasons, not for artificial reasons.). If partner opens a weak two bid and I double a 3NT contract, it is bridge knowledge that I expect partner to lead hir suit. As I said, it is difficult to draw the line. It depends, I think, on what the opponents are likely to understand from a penalty double, whether it should be Alerted or not. > What would pass mean in this case? Don't lead that suit, > right? So the double says "we can set the contract *if* you lead the > specified suit". Seems to me that says more than just "I think we can > set the contract." > > Huh. I suppose the pass above is also alertable, on the same > argument. Yeah, it seems odd, or silly, or maybe wrong. But that's > what the alert regs *say*. Not in my opinion. 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 Feb 2 07:00:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11JxxY10300 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:59:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Jxdt10217 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 06:59:40 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:56:21 -0800 Message-ID: <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 11:57:50 -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: "Ed Reppert" Marv wrote: > > >The TD cannot look at the other cards to determine a revoke possibility, > >as that would be helping a player. > > Er, um, what about Law 66C? "Thereafter, until play ceases, quitted > tricks may not be inspected (except at the Director's specific > instruction, for example, to verify a claim of a revoke)." > With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should exercise this right even if allowed to do 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 Fri Feb 2 07:41:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Kdhe18187 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:39:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11KdZt18142 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:39:36 +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 f11Ka1w03632 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:36:01 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:34:49 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should >exercise this right even if allowed to do so. Law 62A requires a player to correct his revoke if he becomes aware of it before it has become established. The player in question is aware that he *may* have revoked - he needs only to know what suit was led to the quitted (but still current) trick in order to be sure. If I were in that situation, and a TD told me I'm not going to be allowed to know what suit was led, I'm not going to be happy. Granted, sometimes that's just too bad, but I don't think this should be one of those times. 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/AwUBOnnJg72UW3au93vOEQLsagCbB5Gval7pnYvi407xtAdg2srHpRgAoIg9 0yTkycZHG1c5/DqnKGjGt6fg =1WiT -----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 Feb 2 08:06:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11L5AW20998 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:05:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f61.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.61]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11L4ft20925 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:04:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:04:31 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.27 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2001 21:04:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.27] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 13:04:31 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2001 21:04:31.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[92A0CEE0:01C08C92] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If declarer were a good player, I'd be concerned about bullying. Lead a club and no one follows? He *knows* whether or not someone has revoked and is intentionally trying to prevent his opponent from correcting before it's established. But 66C gives TD the right to check. -Todd >From: Ed Reppert >To: Bridge Laws >Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:34:49 -0500 > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > > >With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should > >exercise this right even if allowed to do so. > >Law 62A requires a player to correct his revoke if he becomes aware >of it before it has become established. The player in question is >aware that he *may* have revoked - he needs only to know what suit >was led to the quitted (but still current) trick in order to be sure. >If I were in that situation, and a TD told me I'm not going to be >allowed to know what suit was led, I'm not going to be happy. >Granted, sometimes that's just too bad, but I don't think this should >be one of those times. > >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/AwUBOnnJg72UW3au93vOEQLsagCbB5Gval7pnYvi407xtAdg2srHpRgAoIg9 >0yTkycZHG1c5/DqnKGjGt6fg >=1WiT >-----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/ _________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 2 08:10:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11L9ED22263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:09:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11L92t22212 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:09:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f11LA2006132 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:10:02 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200102012110.f11LA2006132@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:10:01 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <00b901c08c88$ff623140$5713f7a5@james> from "Craig Senior" at Feb 01, 2001 02:55:57 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 Craig Senior writes: > > What do they play? Surely not bridge. > > Craig > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Reppert" > > I know several players around here > > who wouldn't know a Lightner double from their left elbow. :-) That's an unfortunate attitude Craig. Lead directing doubles are common knowledge to be sure. But if you don't read much about the game and never play in set partnerships when will you pick up the knowledge. It's not something that comes up often after all. How many Lightner doubles have come up at your table in your bridge playing career? I've read about them, but I don't think I've ever had one. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 09:27:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11MQkq06720 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:26:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11MQgt06716 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:26:42 +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 JAA23394 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:29:11 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:19:55 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.C3EXTERNAL.gov.au Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:16:34 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.3 (Intl)|21 March 2000) at 02/02/2001 09:24:52 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: 107542 87 Q103 K108 The bidding: LHO Pard RHO You Pass Pass 1H Pass 2D Pass 2S Pass 4H Pass 4NT Pass 5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass (1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs What lead do you make? Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest a particular one of those suits? Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged to lead a trump? 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 Feb 2 09:36:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Mad406907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:36:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11MaWt06901 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:36:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from utcpoqli (pool0527.cvx2-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net [209.178.136.17]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA08896 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:36:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <000d01c08c9f$cbcbe580$1188b2d1@utcpoqli> From: "Tom Wood" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:39:08 -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 Grant and DWS, Unfortunately, I am running several days behind on digesting BLML postings. I have, however, had a brief look at your responses to my 1/27 Law 68 quick re-draft. Thx for the comments and analysis. I will try to post a response soon. Tom Wood, Crestline, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 09:57:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11MvG507282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:57:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11Mv8t07275 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:57:09 +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 ESMTP id OAA24484 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:11:50 -0900 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 13:57:40 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam 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 I lead H7. I have some questions for the opponents, too, before I lead; 2D in Standard American is nonforcing, 8-12, denies 3 hearts - so the jump to 4H is a little puzzling: must be a damn good doubleton?? Or did LHO gamble he'd get a second chance with a 2-3-5-3 11-count? I think it is a close decision what to lead, and can see some case for almost anything. Whatever I think is most passive --- would I rather kill my own minor honours, or kill my partner's major honours by leading through them? In ACBL all four suits are LAs, elsewhere I don't know. Partner's hesitation IMO suggests nothing other than that the opponents have blundered into such a bad slam partner is inclined to believe he has it beat in his own hand. I can't tell if partner is thinking "I can't stand a diamond lead after Lightner" or just "the opening lead is such an unknown quantity I don't want to risk it" or even "as much as I want a diamond led, if partner has a goodie of his own I want him to lead what looks best, so I won't double." As to your hypothetical question, I was going to lead a heart anyway without the UI, so I should anyway, unless I have to go out of my way to avoid unathorized information that says partner LIKES a heart lead. GRB On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: > > 107542 > 87 > Q103 > K108 > > The bidding: > > LHO Pard RHO You > Pass Pass 1H Pass > 2D Pass 2S Pass > 4H Pass 4NT Pass > 5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass > > (1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs > > What lead do you make? > > Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? > > Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs > for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest > a particular one of those suits? > > Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for > the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not > suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* > lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged > to lead a trump? > > Best wishes > > R > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 10:10:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11NA4r07528 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:10:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from diana.inter.net.il (diana.inter.net.il [192.114.186.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f11N9vt07522 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:09:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (Ramat-Gan-4-136.access.net.il [213.8.4.136] (may be forged)) by diana.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AIV37856; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:09:44 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A79EDB9.4BFF197D@inter.net.il> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 01:14:01 +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 -January 2001 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 28th 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). ______________________ This is the first time we decided to add our lovely Human's nicknames ! """""""""""""""""""""" 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 Nickname (cats) Linda Trent - Panda(RB 2/2000), Gus, Gizmo (none) Dany Haimovich -Ghinghis - 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 -Columbo - 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 Fri Feb 2 10:24:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11NNfx07789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:23:41 +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 f11NNYt07783 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:23:35 +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 PAA08199; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 15:23:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200102012323.PAA08199@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 08:16:34 +1000." Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 15:23:03 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: > Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: > > 107542 > 87 > Q103 > K108 > > The bidding: > > LHO Pard RHO You > Pass Pass 1H Pass > 2D Pass 2S Pass > 4H Pass 4NT Pass > 5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass > > (1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs > > What lead do you make? The only one that lets them score up the slam. That's what I usually lead against slams. > Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? I haven't chosen a lead, but the answer is clearly "no" anyway, because I don't know what the hell to lead. > Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs > for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest > a particular one of those suits? I think it tends to suggest diamonds. The theory is that at IMPs, you can double a small slam with, say, Kxx behind dummy's suit to get partner to lead it, risking the doubled contract premium in order to improve your chances of beating it. Of course, last time I tried this, declarer redoubled and could have made an overtrick if he had not decided to play it safe. (We would have won the match anyway.) > Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for > the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not > suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* > lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged > to lead a trump? I'm assuming here that you're playing Lightner doubles, in which a double could either mean "lead dummy's first-bid suit" or "make an unusual lead that I'm probably going to ruff." In this case, the double could suggest either spades or diamonds, but a club void is an impossibility here (and the unbid suit would be a fairly "normal" lead anyway, that a Lightner double wouldn't ask for). Therefore, I think you're obliged to lead either a trump or 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 Fri Feb 2 10:57:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f11Nv7L08407 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:57:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f11Nuxt08400 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:57:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauh16.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.38]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA08488 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:56:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001601c08caa$a668f840$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B79C@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:56:51 -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: "Kooijman, A." To: "'David Stevenson'" ; Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 3:31 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim? > 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 > I can drag out a hand I would rather forget, to ask the question of just how much detail needs to be stated when the defenders still have options. A similar situation to the double squeeze above happened to me a while back. I saw the threats, and in fact the defenders had each shown out of one of the threat suits, so the squeeze was absolutely written in stone, unless I had forgotten an early discard and was unable to fully count the discards, which is what had happened. I was aware that I had lost the count, didn't claim, and justly went down. Would an unethical Declarer have done the same? This raises the question of just how much detail needs to be in a claim statement. I could actually have claimed and stated a line of play, card by card in accordance with David Burn's principle, that would have wound up with the following conclusion at trick 11: "E has shown out of hearts, so W must keep a heart guard. W has shown out of clubs, so E must keep a club guard. Neither can hold three spades, so unless one of them discards their guard, the AKx of spades in Dummy will run (Declarer's hand was a small club, heart and spade)." Absolutely true, and who would have challenged the claim? The only way I can think of to get around this sort of "pseudo claim" would be to require that play continue until the remaining tricks did not depend on specific cards to be played by the opponents at all (marked finesses when a defender shows out of a suit could be an exception). The problem is that those players who have actually remembered the count in this type of situation, as I do on my better days, will be inconvenienced, and perhaps insulted, by having to play on. The only way I can think of to get around this is to have the claimer state the relevant contents of the hand(s) that will have options (If I had claimed above, it would be required at the time of claim to state that E had three clubs remaining, and W had 4 hearts remaining, or some such, to indicate that Declarer indeed had the count, and was unlikely to lose it) 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 Feb 2 12:24:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f121NwG17100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:23:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f121Nkt17035 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:23:47 +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 MAA20895 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:26:33 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 12:17:14 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking Players Away from Table To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:21:48 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 02/02/2001 12:22:12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree that TDs taking players away from the table is generally an ungood thing. However, there is one exception where it can be useful. Suppose that Partner A has made a conventional call. Suppose also that the opponents desire to know the meaning of this call. And suppose that Partner B's explanation is, "It is conventional, but I have forgotten which convention we play." Under L40B, L40D and L75A the TD could remove Partner B from the table (to prevent further UI being transmitted), and then require Partner A to inform the opponents of the A&B partnership agreement about Partner A's own conventional call. [Note that Partner A is *not* required to explain what they hold in their hand. It is possible that Partner B's forgetfullness has coincided with Partner A's misbid.] 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 Feb 2 13:25:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f122PEM03516 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:25:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f122P6t03484 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:25:07 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:21:46 -0800 Message-ID: <012b01c08cbf$4f321ba0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" References: <03cc01c08c84$7f6e9860$b2d536cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:15:31 -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: "Peter Gill" > Hirsch Davis wrote: > >Think of it as ensuring that all entrants in the event are playing > >under the same conditions of contest. Then there's no matter of > >"choice" involved, either on the parts of the players or the TD. > >Rather than thinking of it as "protecting the field", think of it as > >protecting the integrity of the game, so that no contestant is at an > >advantage, or disadvantage, because the Laws are being fully >enforced > at some tables, but not others. > > > But I thought that if I revoke, and nobody else notices, it is > up to me whether to tell everyone and call the Director. I don't > have to, but I can if I want to. This doesn't seem to fit too well > with your "no matter of choice involved" concept. Absolutely correct. Wait for the revoke to be established, and wait for that second trick. Extracting the maximum penalty is perfectly appropriate, although never revealing a friend's (or pretty girl's) revoke seems questionable. Perhaps not doing so constitutes a scoring error? > > Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable > call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the > Director, do I? I have a choice... Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible UI violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not enough. See the footnote to L16A2. (Snip of reminder, to which I can add nothing that hasn't been 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 Fri Feb 2 13:38:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f122c7707084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:38:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f122bht07014 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:37:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010202023737.VNEL3589.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:37:37 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 18:39:13 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here is a sneak preview from the Ananheim casebook... It covers some aspects of claims that some have been discussing... Thought you might find it interesting... It is split into two parts (due to length). First is the appeal. Second is the panel commentary. Linda >CASE FORTY-SEVEN > >Subject (Claim): The Fine Line Between Irrational And Careless >Event: Red Ribbon Pairs, 15 Aug 00, First Qualifying Session > >Bd:23 *S* 752 >Dlr: South *H* A3 >Vul: Both *D* J62 > *C* Q9875 >*S* AKJ109 *S* Q63 >*H* K104 *H* J6 >*D* 10 *D* AK8753 >*C* J432 *C* 106 > *S* 84 > *H* Q98752 > *D* Q94 > *C* AK > >West North East South > Pass >1*S* Pass 2*D* 2*H* >2*S* Pass 4*S* All Pass > >The Facts: The play proceeded as follows: *H*A; club to the king; *C*A; >heart to dummy’s jack; *S*9; *S*10; club ruffed with dummy’s *S*Q; *D*AK, >declarer pitching a losing club. The layout, with four cards remaining, is >shown in the diagram below: > > *S* 7 > *H* --- > *D* J > *C* xx >*S* AKJ *S* --- >*H* K *H* --- >*D* --- *D* 8753 >*C* --- *C* --- > *S* --- > *H* xxx > *D* Q > *C* --- > >West faced her hand and said, “These are all good.” N/S called the Director >because West had not stated a line of play and a trump remained outstanding. >The Director allowed the claim, ruling that the board be scored as 4*S* made >four, +420 for E/W. > >The Appeal: N/S appealed the Director’s ruling. Declarer had made no mention >of the outstanding trump when the claim was made. Her statement was, “My >hand is good” or something similar. The Director had cautioned West about an >incomplete claim. N/S believed that declarer may have forgotten the last >trump since only four tricks remained. Declarer believed that the situation >was “obvious” to all and that her intent was to ruff the diamond with the >jack, following with top trumps and the *H*K. Both declarer and dummy agreed >that no mention was made of the outstanding trump. They did not think that >the Director call was made with undue haste. Declarer reaffirmed that she >knew about North’s trump and that not drawing it would be ridiculous. > >The Panel Decision: Law 70C states “…the Director shall award a trick or >tricks to the opponents if: (1) claimer made no statement about that trump, >and (2) it is at all likely that claimer at the time of his claim was >unaware that a trump remained in an opponent’s hand, and (3) a trick could >be lost to that trump by any normal* play.” A footnote clarifies that normal >“…includes play that would be careless or inferior for the class of player >involved, but not irrational.” The declarer on this hand had around 350 >masterpoints. The Panel noted that her early play of the hand was not best—a >club should be ruffed with the *S*Q early. With the actual play, if South >had started with three spades, two diamonds and two clubs, a diamond could >have been discarded when the club was ruffed. South then could have trumped >the second high diamond. The Panel noted that West freely rebid her (strong) >spade suit. Three players were consulted. The first expert believed that >there was “a distinct possibility” that declarer was unaware of North’s >trump. The second expert said that “declarer might have forgotten the > trump.” The Flight B player stated that he thought declarer knew about the >trump but that he would have called the Director if he had been a defender. >The Panel was divided over the issue of whether to award a trick to the >defense. Some members believed that what might be obvious if declarer >claimed very early—after first obtaining the lead, say—is quite different >than a claim at trick ten. Those members also believed that declarer must >mention the outstanding trump at the minimum. That requirement did not seem >burdensome, particularly when the opponents cannot be expected to evaluate >declarer’s skill, experience and intentions. While all Panel members >considered the end position to be fairly simple, the failure of declarer to >include any mention of the trump persuaded the Panel to award a trick to the >defense. The contract was changed to 4*S* down one, +50 for N/S. > >Dissenting Opinion (Charlie MacCracken): I wish to express my >dissatisfaction with this decision. Law 70A states as the general objective: >“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.” Law 70C (quoted above) deals specifically >with an outstanding trump. Part of the rationale for awarding a trick to the >defense in this case was that declarer might have forgotten the fifth trump >because the claim was made at trick ten. However, declarer did not start >playing (and counting) trump until tricks five and six. Thereafter only >three tricks were played before the claim. Since everyone’s play to those >tricks was routine, I suspect little time elapsed. The above analysis points >out that declarer could have found a superior line. However, she avoided >trying to ruff both a heart and a club in dummy (which would have resulted >in an uppercut and an eventual club overruff). She did not play for >three-three diamonds and three-two trumps, which, while clearly inferior, >would have worked. Therefore, she exhibited some forethought. For these two >reasons, I believe she very likely knew there was a trump outstanding and >the claim should have stood. The claim laws are unique in that the Director >is instructed to rule “as equitably as possible.” Recently the claim laws >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing declarer >to repeat a successful finesse). I believe this decision was punitive and >created a bonanza for the defense at a slight detriment to the field. One >other minor point. With the *S*AK and *H*K, I think it would be irrational >not to play a trump, so I think this case fails Law 70C3. This is one of the >few holdings where I would apply this Law. > >DIC of Event: Millard Nachtwey >Panel: John Ashton (Reviewer), Charlie MacCracken, Matt Smith >Players consulted: Kay Schulle, Haig Tchamitch, one Flight B player -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 14:16:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f123FtH17805 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:15:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f123FVt17723 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:15:32 +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 TAA14503; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:15:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "BLML" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:15:31 PST." <012b01c08cbf$4f321ba0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:15:17 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin French wrote: > > Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable > > call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the > > Director, do I? I have a choice... > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible UI > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not enough. > See the footnote to L16A2. Why not? L16A2 tells you that "should" summon the TD immediately when you have reason to believe that an illegal LA was chosen. But where in the Laws does it say you "are not to" call the TD except at those points when the Laws specifically say you "must" or "may" or "should" do so? I don't think there is one, and in fact I thought it was the rule that players should call the TD whenever they're in doubt about something. In fact, once I called the TD because, when I was trying to concentrate on the play, the hotel staff picked that moment to open a door leading from the tournament room to the hallway, where they were making a very loud racket carting their dishes and utensils around. I don't see anywhere in the Laws where it says I can call the TD for this reason; so was I therefore in violation some Law? I've gotten a little off topic, but the point is I don't believe there's anywhere in the Laws, except in 43A1(a) if you're the dummy, that prohibits or restricts you from calling the TD. Thus, if the ACBL says you should call the TD at some specific time, I see nothing about this that contravenes 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 Fri Feb 2 14:20:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f123KZk19044 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:20:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f123KJt18972 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:20:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010202032013.WPOG3589.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:20:13 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 19:21:47 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" 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) 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 and the commentary... (sorry if it is a mess.. did it in a hurry... leaving for 3 weeks in New Zealand in an hour! Linda >Directors’ Ruling: 76.2 Panel’s Decision: 63.3 > >While I wish the claim laws would allow the sort of decision the dissenter >advocates, I’ve seen enough of these cases to know that what he alleges >would have been “irrational” (declarer not playing her high trumps before >the *H*K) must fall in the “careless” category if we are to retain a >meaningful distinction between the two. Claiming in a case like this should >not have been all that difficult. With only four tricks left the end >position was simple enough for declarer to have said something like, >“Ruffing a diamond and drawing the last trump.” Her failure to do this and >her statement that her hand was high are strong indicators that she had >forgotten about the outstanding trump; her hand was not high until that >trump was drawn. I don’t like either that N/S were given a plus score in >this way nor that the field was even slightly disadvantaged by this >decision. But the same thing would have happened had declarer not claimed >and simply ruffed a diamond and then tried to cash the *H*K. In the final >analysis, it was declarer who was responsible for this outcome and not the >Directors—either those involved in the table ruling and who should have >disallowed the claim or those who served on the Panel and got it right. >Frankly, I don’t think this decision is even close and I’m distressed that >the panelists are split down the middle over it. > >Bramley: “The majority is correct. The quoted parts of Law 70C are explicit >with reference to missing trumps. The law could hardly be clearer with >regard to this case. The dissenter is way off the mark in his willingness to >exercise his Director’s discretion here. He observes that declarer played >‘only three tricks’ after starting to draw trumps and before the claim. >Sorry, Charlie, but that’s a lot of tricks. Further, if declarer were >unaware of the missing trump, it would be careless, not irrational, to lead >winners indiscriminately, trumps or not. The decision points out that >declarer’s line would fail against 3-6-2-2 distribution in South. Her line >would also fail against four-one trumps. The carelessness of her line of >play reinforces the obviousness of resolving all doubts against her. This >decision seems so easy that I am amazed that, in addition to the dissenter, >the table Director blew the call.” > >Gerard: “Charlie is confused. Declarer had only one loser to ruff and an >absolute guaranteed line of play. Who would choose a 24% chance over that?” > >The next panelist makes an excellent point about the rhetoric used by the >dissenter to justify his position. > >Stevenson: “Do we really know whether declarer forgot the trump? No, we do >not. Charlie MacCracken has one view; the other Panelists another. The >result is quite reasonable. But I have absolutely no sympathy for declarer >whatever. If she really remembered, then failing to mention the trump was >criminally careless and she fully deserved the result. > “Note that Charlie MacCracken quoted a bonanza for the opponents and >detriment to the field. This is an unacceptable method of trying to >influence people. Directors, Appeal Committees and Panels make decisions >because they believe them to be right. It is the laws of bridge which >sometimes give a good score to another pair, and the negligible effect on >the field must always be ignored. > “Assume the declarer had forgotten the trump and played it out instead of >claiming. Perhaps she would have gone off and now her opponents get their >‘bonanza.’ Would Charlie MacCracken have said we should adjust the score? >Gifts from opponents are part of bridge and if they come via a ruling it >does not matter.” > >Precisely, David. > >Endicott: “This is a suitable place for mentioning that the footnote quoted >in this appeal has been altered by the WBF Laws Committee to read: ‘For the >purposes of Laws 69, 70 and 71, ‘normal’ includes play that would be >careless or inferior, but not irrational, for the class of player involved. ’ >(It was confirmed that the previous footnote should be interpreted as though >it read like this.) Charlie MacCracken produces inferential reasoning to >argue that there is evidence that the player knew of the existence of the >outstanding trump but the Panel generally was not persuaded. I agree that >players who do not mention the trump can expect rulings to go against them, >more often than not, because any doubtful points must be ruled against the >claimer. The existence of a trump is always an important point and players >should cover it when claiming. The Director ruled unwisely and not well.” > >Part of my distress with some panelists’ support of the dissenter’s position >and the table ruling is that two of them are members of the ACBL Laws >Commission. > >R. Cohen: “If the ruling is supposed to be ‘equitable to both sides’ and the >Director is not supposed to impose any ‘irrational’ play on the claimer, >then I’m with the dissenter. Declarer is actually sitting with the ace-king >of trumps. What’s the problem?” > >The obvious problem is that declarer said nothing about playing trumps first >nor did she indicate being aware of the outstanding trump. If a claimer can >get away with this then we should remove the distinction in the claim laws >between irrational and careless or inferior. What would be “irrational” >about returning to the hand one believed high and cashing one’s high tricks >in some random order? It would be “careless” not to play the trumps first, >it would even be “inferior” technique, but it would not be irrational. > As for the part of Law 70 which says the result is supposed to be >adjudicated “as equitably as possible to both sides,” that instruction is >immediately qualified by “but any doubtful points are to be resolved against >the claimer.” In other words, the law says to be as equitable as possible >and not allow sloppiness in the expression of the claim to override the >claimer’s clear intent. As Edgar Kaplan wrote in 1982: > > >“Thus, it is important…to avoid a punitive attitude towards minor errors in >claim procedure…The basic approach is not to punish the flaw, but to rule in >equity: to protect innocent opponents against any substantial chance of >damage from a faulty claim, while trying to give the claimer the tricks he >would have won had he played the hand out.” (Appeals Committee X, The Bridge >World, December, 1982.) > >A few paragraphs later Edgar wrote: > >“When declarer has made no statement about a missing trump…you start out >with a mild presumption that declarer had forgotten.” > >Amazingly, he then gives several examples of ruling in cases involving >claims with an unmentioned outstanding trump. This is his Case 4, in which >declarer starts with A-K-J-10-2 of trumps in hand opposite 6-5-4 in dummy: > > >“Case 4. Declarer cashed the ace, everyone following low, then the king, >catching a low trump to his left and the queen to his right. Next, he ruffed >a loser with dummy’s last trump, cashed two winners in dummy to pitch two >more losers, and finally claimed—no statement about the little trump still >outstanding. Has he forgotten it? Here, the sequence of plays is consistent >with either answer. Even though declarer remembered, he had to leave one >trump outstanding temporarily in order to ruff his loser in dummy. Yet, a >lot of time has gone by since he played trumps—he might well have forgotten. >This is a doubtful case, and so should be resolved in favor of the >defenders. The original mild presumption, that declarer forgot, governs.” > >This is eerily similar to the present case except for one critical >difference: In the present case declarer did not have to cash two trumps >before ruffing her losing club with dummy’s high queen of trumps while in >Edgar’s case the missing high trumps threatened a potential overruff if >declarer ruffed his loser early. This difference argues more strongly for >not allowing the claim in the present case since declarer could simply have >ruffed her losing club high and then drawn all the trumps without being >threatened with an overruff or having a diamond winner ruffed out. This >convinces me that declarer very likely thought all the trumps were drawn. >Note that with more reason to allow the claim in Edgar’s case he still >advises not allowing it. > And one more point. In both cases the same number of tricks went by between >declarer drawing the two rounds of trumps and the claim (a loser was ruffed >and two winners cashed). Edgar says of this, “Yet, a lot of time has gone by >since he played trumps—he might well have forgotten.” Charlie says, “Since >everyone’s play to those tricks was routine, I suspect little time elapsed.” >Do I need to point out that the play was no less routine in Edgar’s example? > >Rigal: “I sort of like the dissenter’s opinion here. My view is indirectly >supported by the fact that the Directors initially ruled in favor of E/W. I >can’t help feeling that declarer would have made the contract at the table >and that equity was not restored here. But I find it hard to explain why, so >I guess I’ll leave it to the laws experts.” > More misguided dissenters. > >Treadwell: “I totally agree with the dissenter on the Panel: it would be >irrational for declarer not to play two more high trumps after ruffing to >her hand. Had I been an opponent at the table, it would not have occurred to >me to even call the Director. We must educate players not to win a score on >a technicality when the chance of its affecting the table result is >virtually non-existent.” > >I might not have called the Director either, but once he was called the game >was up: he had to rule according to the law. > >Polisner: “I agree with the dissenting opinion as to the intent of the law >and would have decided in favor of the claimer; however, if I couldn’t bring >myself to do this, I would be inclined to E/W –100, N/S –620.” > >Nonsense. There’s absolutely no justification for not giving to the >non-claiming side the reciprocal of what you assign to the claiming side. >Nothing that I know of suggests that Law 12C2 applies here. This is more PC >“protect the field” nonsense, as David mentioned earlier. It is wholly >inappropriate and without any basis in law. > And speaking of PTF… > >Wolff: “While the Committee’s decision certainly was in the ballpark, >Charlie MacCracken’s dissent achieved a home run. We’ve been moving toward >equity, why not allow us to get there? To me there is an enormous difference >between a routine claim (albeit faulty) and an actual call of a card that >leads to a stupid loss of a trick(s). With the claim, one can only visualize >what is likely to happen and, in this case, almost all roads lead to making >the hand. When a card is called, unless it is allowed to be retracted, all >roads lead to the loss of an unnecessary trick(s). Let's follow where these >roads lead and trumpet Charlie’s dissent.” > >I’d leave any trumpeting to those more suited to the task, like Gabriel. > Now I’m really bummed out. Good grief! -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 15:38:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f124bBS10590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:37:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f124awt10539 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:36:59 +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 ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:33:39 -0800 Message-ID: <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:28:43 -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 From: "Ed Reppert" > > >With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should > >exercise this right even if allowed to do so. > > Law 62A requires a player to correct his revoke if he becomes aware > of it before it has become established. The player in question is > aware that he *may* have revoked - he needs only to know what suit > was led to the quitted (but still current) trick in order to be sure. > If I were in that situation, and a TD told me I'm not going to be > allowed to know what suit was led, I'm not going to be happy. > Granted, sometimes that's just too bad, but I don't think this should > be one of those times. > I think there is a general principle that a TD should avoid exposing quitted tricks, or looking at a player's hand. See the footnote to L67B2, for instance. Let's see. We can't have everyone turning over their cards, obviously. This could be a ruse to see a missed card. The TD would have to look at the card led, without exposing it. If the doubtful one's card matches, no revoke, nothing happens. If the TD sees that the doubtful one's card is of a different suit than the one led, s/he has to look at the hand to see if there is a possible revoke. If it is, the s/he has to tell the player which suit was led. I doubt that this is correct procedure, but stand ready to be corrected. 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 Feb 2 16:10:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1259dT19344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:09:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1259Ut19295 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:09:32 +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 ESMTP id UAA31482 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:24:14 -0900 Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:10:03 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim 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 If I may be excused for extracting one sentence from the writeup that caught my attention: Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > >Recently the claim laws > >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing > declarer > >to repeat a successful finesse). I sincerely hope a) that he is wrong and b) that there is an editorial insertion in the casebook explaining that there is a flaw in the reasoning. I can't see any basis for allowing claimer to repeat a successful finesse without a statement unless one of the opponents has shown out (or one opponent is out of the suit but hasn't shown out and declarer has indicated he has a complete count.) It is perfectly normal for a defender holding Kxx (or even Kx if he's daring) behind AQJ to let the J win the first round of the suit. Even in a situation where it would have been bizarre and foolish (but not physically impossible) for the defense to refuse to win the trick if the finesse wasn't working, I still find it 100% clear to force drop-or-finesse-whichever-is-worst on a declarer who doesn't state that he is repeating a finesse. Would anyone care to present an example of a case in which he feels the new "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" clause of L70E comes into effect? I can believe (just barely) that there are such cases. I feel however that it would be a disaster for an official ACBL publication to give the impression that we *routinely* allow declarers to repeat previously successful finesses. --- As to the original case, I think ruling down 1 at the table is clear, but if E/W appealed and asked for making 4 I would return the deposit, given the current fuzziness over careless-vs-irrational. (And, of course, post-2007 I want it to be absolutely crystal clear that this declarer is down one for being too lazy to give a statement, but that is another thread we don't need to have again yet.) 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 Feb 2 16:38:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f125cIK27004 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:38:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f125bst26931 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:37:55 +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; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:34:32 -0800 Message-ID: <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "BLML" Cc: References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 21:33:10 -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: "Adam Beneschan > > Marvin French wrote: > > > > Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable > > > call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the > > > Director, do I? I have a choice... > > > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible UI > > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not enough. > > See the footnote to L16A2. > > Why not? L16A2 tells you that "should" summon the TD immediately when > you have reason to believe that an illegal LA was chosen. But where > in the Laws does it say you "are not to" call the TD except at those > points when the Laws specifically say you "must" or "may" or "should" > do so? I don't think there is one, and in fact I thought it was the > rule that players should call the TD whenever they're in doubt about > something. In fact, once I called the TD because, when I was trying > to concentrate on the play, the hotel staff picked that moment to open > a door leading from the tournament room to the hallway, where they > were making a very loud racket carting their dishes and utensils > around. I don't see anywhere in the Laws where it says I can call the > TD for this reason; so was I therefore in violation some Law? > > I've gotten a little off topic, but the point is I don't believe > there's anywhere in the Laws, except in 43A1(a) if you're the dummy, > that prohibits or restricts you from calling the TD. Thus, if the > ACBL says you should call the TD at some specific time, I see nothing > about this that contravenes the Laws. > There can hardly be "substantial reason to believe" until one has been able to see the opponent's complete hand. I thought that was the reason for the footnote, to clarify what can constitute sufficient evidence for reaching such a conclusion. In my mind the implication that someone may have made illegal use of UI, without seeing evidence that this is so, ought to be a Zero Tolerance offense. Most people find the calling of the TD on mere suspicion to be rather offensive. Count me as one of them. Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 17:20:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f126FfQ06638 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:15:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.email.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f126F0t06553 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:15:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.55]) by mailin9.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G849KD00.BNN for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:19:25 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-002-p-212-145.tmns.net.au ([203.54.212.145]) by mail4.bigpond.com (Claudes-Tidy-MailRouter V2.9c 7/4990711); 02 Feb 2001 16:14:55 Message-ID: <008701c08cde$ee58cfc0$91d436cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:11:06 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Richard Hills wrote: >Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: > >107542 >87 >Q103 >K108 > >The bidding: > >LHO Pard RHO You >Pass Pass 1H Pass >2D Pass 2S Pass >4H Pass 4NT Pass >5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass > >(1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs > >What lead do you make? A club or a trump. Their diamonds possibly breaking 3-3, and my poor spades being badly placed, argues for the attacking club lead. >Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? No. >Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs >for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest >a particular one of those suits? Yes, a diamond I think, but it depends on our agreements (if any) about what Double of 6H means. >Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for >the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not >suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* >lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged >to lead a trump? No, I don't think so. Peter Gill Australia, where a lot of pairs play Acol, which would explain the auction, LHO having three card heart support. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 17:26:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f126Q3H09458 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:26:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f126Pnt09399 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:25:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauh16.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.68.38]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA26299 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:25:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <005501c08ce0$f66ee6c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 01:25:39 -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: "Nancy" To: "Chip" ; "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle > In solving this problem, did you take South away from the table to discuss > the problem? This comment is applicable to this particular case, but does not address the more general issues you raised. In this particular problem, there is absolutely no need to take S away from the table. S should be made aware of his options: he can leave his call stand, W must leave his call stand, it's North's call and the confusion is UI to E. Alternatively, S can change his call, which would let W change his call also, but the withdrawn calls would be AI to N/S and UI to E/W. Since it's not too late to roll the auction back to S, there's no need to find out what he would have done away from the table. The auction goes back, and he simply does it. If the original MI (failure to alert) caused damage, we adjust. Regards, Hirsch >Many directors here do not talk to the player away from the > table. Should this happen, how does one handle the UI that has occurred. > It has been suggested that if a director does talk to a player away from the > table the player's answer should be something like "I am not sure what I > would do" or some other noncommittal answer. This sounds to me like waiting > to see what happens and then protesting. I would like to hear some > discussion about this thought. > Thanks, Nancy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chip" > To: "Bridge Laws" > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 12:41 PM > Subject: [BLML] A late alert debacle > > > > Hi [BLML], > > > > Kx > > Kxx > > KJTxxx > > AJx > > > > - AJTxx > > Qxx JTxxx > > xxxx AQ > > KQxxxx x > > > > Qxxxxx > > Ax > > x > > xxx > > > > The bidding started: > > > > N E S W > > 1N 2d* 2s p > > > > While N was thinking, West said "Oops, I should have alerted" (majors). I > > was called to the table and > > rolled the bidding back to South upon his request. > > > > The auction proceeded: > > N E S W > > X 2h > > 3d p 3N all pass > > > > E lead a heart and hearts at every opportunity > > led to down 3 red and N/S felt injured. > > > > Was it wrong to let W now bid 2h? Also is the original > > 2S bid AI to either/both sides? > > > > Thanks and Regards, > > Chip > > > > > > > > -- > > ====================================================================== == > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 2 17:59:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f126wuI18517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:58:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f126wjt18464 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:58:46 +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; Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:55:25 -0800 Message-ID: <019401c08ce5$8ac157a0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: <200102011840.KAA32321@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:55:51 -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: "Adam Beneschan > > Marv wrote [regarding 1NT-2C-2H-3NT]: > > > My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not > > promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French > > approach on this one. > > > > 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when > > he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention > > "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what > > should be Alerted. > > Alerts are generally used to indicate something that isn't > "standard". When determining what is "standard", the original meaning > an inventor gave to a convention shouldn't have any relevance. Not saying otherwise. I bow to general practice in complying with the ACBL Alert Proceure, even if it is a mistaken practice. > > In fact, my dim and possibly faulty recollection tells me that the > original version of the Stayman convention, as invented by Rapee' was > a way that nobody plays it any more. Didn't he give a meaning to a > 2NT rebid by opener? (I.e. the possible responses to 2C were 2D, 2H, > 2S, and 2NT.) I could be very wrong here (and I could be confusing it > with a Marx or Kempson version); but the point is that the original > invention doesn't matter. If I'm right, the 2NT response was soon > dropped from the convention and the newer version became "standard", > anything Stayman wrote notwithstanding. Dropped by Stayman himself. His 1970 book, *High Road to Winning Bridge* presents what is for me the definitive description of the convention. Is there a more authoritative source? Amalya Kearse??? > > As for 1NT-2C-2H-3NT: The "standard" is indeed that this promises four > spades; that's how it is in any textbook I've ever read. Not in the original book, as I remember. What I do remember is that Stayman and others said that if one always has a major when using Stayman, that is being overly revealing about one's hand. Responder asks, opener tells, that's it. Then the teachers and players took the convention and twisted it around, for simplicity (or maybe not understanding the importance of deception in this game). Instead of saying that 2C asks opener if s/he has a major, that's all, they said that responder uses 2C to show that s/he has one or both majors, and is seeking a fit. This wasn't written at the time, but it became "standard" because it was the highest level of understanding that these people were capable of. > In fact, you > could rephrase this a little, and say that 3NT doesn't *tell* partner > you have four spades, but rather it *asks* partner to correct to 4S if > he has four. (You could thus use Stayman on something like > AQT 3 KJ952 K643 and try to play in a 4-3.) In any case, the > "standard" inference is that responder is interested in a spade > contract (he's not interested in hearts, but he did ask about the > majors, Q.E.D.). If this inference doesn't apply in your case, what > *can* one infer from the fact that responder went through Stayman > instead of just bidding 1NT-3NT? Whatever inference this might be, or > if no inference can be drawn at all (e.g. if you played 1NT-3NT as > conventional), it's not standard, and thus it doesn't seem weird to me > to require that it be alerted. It's such a pleasure to play against "standard" Stayman bidders. The bidding goes 1N=2C=2H=3N, and I know there will be four spades in dummy. My opponents (and Stayman's, who advocated a 2C response with S-73 H-64 D-AQJ1062 C-K98) can make no such inference, despite the required Alert of the 3NT bid. I have to Alert my penalty doubles of overcalls, and my strong jump overcalls. It feels weird that I should have to Alert natural calls that I have used for what is now the seventh decade. But I comply. Next we'll have to Alert a possible bluff 4NT bid, I suppose. Isn't it "standard" to have a strong hand? I don't think BLMLers are interested in this digression from the main subject. 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 Feb 2 18:34:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f127Xbr28717 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:33:37 +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 f127XLt28646 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:33:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-58-253.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.58.253] (may be forged)) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA16403; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:32:53 GMT Message-ID: <001001c08cea$afb0a840$fd3a7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 07:33:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:33 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way . So doesn't it just come down to a choice of > *which* field one chooses to "protect"? > +=+ No. The law makes that decision for you, and it is proper for the law to do so. The law makes a provision that will have a consequence for other contestants. The objection is to the perversion of that consequence (which is no less desirable in its effects than the effects of the same player carelessly discarding a winner). People gain or lose by other people's mistakes. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 19:10:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f128A7029482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:10:07 +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 f128A0t29478 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:10:01 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA01834; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:09:57 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 02 09:12:44 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 <01JZMO2Q37O0002UWT@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:09:27 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1CR9J5G4>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:04:49 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 09:09:25 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Can I see that one again? To: "'Anne Jones'" , BLML Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A6@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 > > > > A simple situation > > > > Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick > > 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > > > > all 4 players quit their cards > > > > Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > > > > "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well > trained > > TD at the table :) ) > > > > "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that > I've > > revoked" > > > > How should the TD proceed in this situation? > > > I'm not sure what it is you are in doubt about Mike, or is there > something I have not understood. I'm about to learn I feel :-) > Law 66C allows for the TD to instruct the facing of a quitted trick, > specific example cited, "to verify the claim of a revoke". The quote is O.K. But where is the claim of a revoke (What about: I might make 12 tricks?) So my solution is that the TD asks RHO to alter his statement, making it a claim, warning him that if his intention appears to be different, for example just seeing the trick, this is a serieus infraction. Solutions where the TD just asks to see declarer's last card after which he might need to see all RHO cards and thereby starts playing that hand are out of the question, don't you think? We also could try to have declarer solving the problem by asking him whether there is still a club or two outside. Should he cooperate? Simple case!! 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 Feb 2 21:49:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12AmBd01574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:48:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12Am3t01570 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:48:04 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA25192; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:48:01 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 02 11:50:26 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 <01JZMTKCSGSO002URR@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:47:14 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1CR9KDC1>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:42:33 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:47:08 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A8@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: Herman De Wael [mailto:hermandw@village.uunet.be] > Verzonden: donderdag 1 februari 2001 10:38 > Aan: Bridge Laws > Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not > > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > > Herman wrote: > > > > > I know, this seems strange, but there is no such law as > > > "thou shalt not MI", > > > > I haven't been participating in this debate before, so > maybe this has > > already been addressed---but why isn't "thou shalt not MI" > a necessary > > consequence of L40B, L75A, L75C, and L75D1? I think it is. ton > > > > Of course there is a Law, or rather a set of them, that says > "if you give MI, your opponents are entitled to redress". > > But there is no actual overriding eleventh commandment that > says "thou shalt not MI". > There is a Law (L75D2) that says "Thou shalt not give UI". Dear Herman, could you give me the line in 75D2 saying this? There is such a thing as MI, regardless the listeners, but UI depends on who is receiving it. You are obliged to inform your opponents about your agreements and by doing so you might create UI for partner. Are you saying that this being possible a player should not explain his agreements to his opponents anymore? ton > I happen to believe this law is more important, but I am > alone. > But don't say I don't have a point. > > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 2 21:56:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12Au9101587 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:56:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12Au2t01583 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:56:03 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA30736; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:55:59 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Fri Feb 02 11:58:42 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 <01JZMTUMCB7E002V6J@AGRO.NL>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:55:30 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <1CR9KDQV>; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:50:51 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:55:28 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not To: "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A9@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 > Do you see where this is leading ? > > First you try and force a player to give UI (by alerting > 4H). > Then you go and see whether or not partner, when in the > possession of UI, would have LA to an action which he now > took, without UI ! > Then you are forcing on him an action that he would only > have taken because it was not the one suggested by UI that > he never got in the first place. > > Actually, I prefer a Burnian approach : forgetting an alert > = immediate bottom on the deal. > Or minus 24 imps, which is from the same school as giving an adjusted score of 7Sxx - 7 (varying the suit to be caught in) 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 Feb 2 22:22:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12BMXj09377 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:22:33 +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.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12BMBt09281 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:22:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d497.iae.nl [212.61.5.243]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AB2520F6A for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:22:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003101c08d0a$492dc6a0$f3053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <006101c08734$5fbc50c0$d6e57ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:20:13 +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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:07 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > ============================================================== > 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 > In the Netherlands a TD is obliged to use the Lawbook, but he got the advice to use his own words. He is e.g. allowed to speak in a simple own language (sentences) with "you" instead of. RHO, etc. The Lawbook is needed in order not to forget any option. 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 Fri Feb 2 22:22:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12BMPG09347 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:22:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.iae.nl (postfix@mail.iae.nl [194.151.64.19]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12BMAt09277 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 22:22:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d497.iae.nl [212.61.5.243]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id E6FEF20F24 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:22:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <003001c08d0a$487cc620$f3053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200101222054.MAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> <00cf01c08629$ce86dd60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3A7020AA.98F5E840@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:33:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > > > "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 You know that fortune knocks at every door. But when he came to my house, I was not at home. And after that he sent his daughter. Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 01:27:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12EQRI02608 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:26:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12EQIt02603 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:26:20 +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 OAA27496; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:23:41 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA01214; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:26:11 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202142803.0085e830@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:28:03 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? In-Reply-To: <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$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 20:28 1/02/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >I think there is a general principle that a TD should avoid [...] looking at a player's hand. See the footnote to L67B2, for instance. AG : he will often have to do, eg to check whether the play of some specific card was a revoke. And this will usually happen before the hand is over (because of L9B1a). The footnote you mention only says the TD shouldn't let *other* persons see the cards. 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 Feb 3 01:27:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12EQVl02612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:26:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12EQOt02607 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:26:25 +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 NAA14740; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:58:48 +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 OAA14202; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:01:18 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202140310.00851d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:03:10 +0100 To: "Craig Senior" , "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <005701c08c78$990acd40$5713f7a5@james> References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:58 1/02/01 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >I do hope you have not been eating caramel, as it would be most >awkward to have your tongue stuck in your cheek. The Laws of >course mean what they say. It is just that to some they say >strange things. We need not change the Laws...just education >people to understand that when it walks, looks and quacks like a >duck and the Laws say unequivocally "It is a duck" that this IS >a duck, however much your might like a fowl of some other >plumage. I dearly hope that none of the "it isn't a claim >because I didn't mean it as one" folks never attend an auction, >command a firing squad, or push buttons in a missile silo. > AG : we are stuck once again with the famous 'a game is totally defined by its set of rules'. If the Laws say it is a claim, then it is. But ... the laws provide the TDs with some leeway in deciding the limits. If we consider that 'partner, your bidding is lemmingish. We have a cold slam !' is *not* a claim, and that 'I've got 12 tricks. See them' *is* one, there must be some limit between the two, some point where a non-claim becomes a claim. This limit isn't stated anywhere in the Laws. By the way, is the teal a duck ? Scientists disagree on that one. Why should TDs know better ? 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 Feb 3 01:30:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12EULK02630 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:30:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12ETxt02626 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:30:07 +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 OAA24255; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:08:38 +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 OAA21691; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:12:28 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202141414.00844bf0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:14:14 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200102020315.TAA14503@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 19:15 1/02/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: e the footnote to L16A2. > >Why not? L16A2 tells you that "should" summon the TD immediately when >you have reason to believe that an illegal LA was chosen. But where >in the Laws does it say you "are not to" call the TD except at those >points when the Laws specifically say you "must" or "may" or "should" >do so? I don't think there is one, and in fact I thought it was the >rule that players should call the TD whenever they're in doubt about >something. In fact, once I called the TD because, when I was trying >to concentrate on the play, the hotel staff picked that moment to open >a door leading from the tournament room to the hallway, where they >were making a very loud racket carting their dishes and utensils >around. I don't see anywhere in the Laws where it says I can call the >TD for this reason; so was I therefore in violation some Law? AG : no, you just call him as responsible of the pursuit of the game, as defined by L81C.3-4. You may also call when an opponent feels faint. Of course, the hotel staff won't get a PP for making too much noise, but the TD is the one to tell them they should stop. 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 Feb 3 01:46:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12Ekbe02878 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:46:37 +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 f12EkSt02871 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:46:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id NAA18116; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:45:33 +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 NAA06438; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:49:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202135116.00849100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:51:16 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <3A792E6E.D60A3D3B@village.uunet.be> References: <200101312310.PAA05413@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 10:37 1/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >But there is no actual overriding eleventh commandment that >says "thou shalt not MI". >There is a Law (L75D2) that says "Thou shalt not give UI". >I happen to believe this law is more important, but I am >alone. AG : well, I am not far from agreeing. But there are a pair of laws that clearly disallow you to give MI, thus giving the majority of contributors solid ground on which to base their argumentation. These are 75C and 72B2, which, when put together, yield 'you have to disclose everything about your partner's bids, and you may not decide not to do so even if you accept to pay the price - which you do. Okay, I suppose that, when the choice is between two evils, the Laws do not say which to choose, and this is where the HDWS cranes its neck. 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 Feb 3 02:21:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12FLCr03178 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:21:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk (cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk [195.147.248.165]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12FL4t03174 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:21:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from p43s08a08.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.88.68] helo=pacific) by cobalt5-ps.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Ohzq-0004EX-00; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:19:35 +0000 Message-ID: <001201c08d2b$a9ad7040$445893c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Herman De Wael'" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:05:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 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: 'Herman De Wael' ; Bridge Laws Sent: 02 February 2001 10:47 Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not > > Of course there is a Law, or rather a set of them, that says > > "if you give MI, your opponents are entitled to redress". > > > > But there is no actual overriding eleventh commandment that > > says "thou shalt not MI". > > There is a Law (L75D2) that says "Thou shalt not give UI". > > Dear Herman, could you give me the line in 75D2 saying this? > > There is such a thing as MI, regardless the listeners, but UI depends on who > is receiving it. > You are obliged to inform your opponents about your agreements and by doing > so you might create UI for partner. Are you saying that this being possible > a player should not explain his agreements to his opponents anymore? > > ton > +=+ The law is against using UI when you have it. There is nothing that says you must not give UI, unless (73B1) you do it with intent. ~ 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 Feb 3 03:08:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12G8Hb03721 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:08:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12G8At03717 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:08:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d347.iae.nl [212.61.5.93]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 09C8220FA4 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:08:05 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <00f201c08d32$3e364880$5d053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <005c01c087cf$347c1120$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 15:05:45 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I always use my Lawbook and it is about 20 years ago that it was the only time I did not. I was summoned to the table of Rixi Markus and Jeremy Flint. When I knew the deviation I started reading my Lawbook loudly. Rixi smiled and said: "He knows the rules." Back to the case (claim?) If there is an OLOOT I always start with 2 questions: To the defender: Who adviced you to face your lead? In case he answers that it is his own initiative or partner's initiative then I turn myself to declarer. To declarer: Have you already seen one of dummy"s cards? If the answer is no I continue with the options. Ben ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 5:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim? > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 03:14:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12GEOV03756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:14:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12GEHt03752 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:14:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA04203 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:14:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA08381 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:14:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:14:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102021614.LAA08381@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Linda Trent" > (sorry if it is a mess.. did it in a hurry... leaving for 3 weeks in New > Zealand in an hour! Thanks, Linda. I hope you have a good trip. > >While I wish... I take it the unattributed commentary is Rich Colker or maybe Linda. Can anyone confirm? (It sure reads like something Rich would write.) > >Stevenson: ... But I have absolutely no sympathy for declarer > >whatever. If she really remembered, then failing to mention the trump was > >criminally careless and she fully deserved the result. I think this is exactly right. If we can't draw a bright line in "approved jurisprudence" saying that claimer has to mention outstanding trumps, where can we draw it? My only complaint is that the AC shouldn't have bothered investigating declarer's ability. The ruling should be the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and for Gunnar Hallberg. I am quite happy to grant his "double squeeze" claim, but if he were ever to be so careless as to claim at duplicate with no "drawing trump" or similar statement, I would have no sympathy. (I don't know Mr. Hallberg, to my regret, nor do I know how he would claim in his usual rubber game. It may well be that rubber and duplicate practices differ. I'm using him only as a convenient example of a recognized expert who had a claim adjudicated in the recent past: http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/maastrict.htm , appeal 16. Substitute Wolff or Zia or any other expert's name if you like.) I would apply the same principle in the claim Laval told us about in the "Claim when outstanding trump" thread. Bright line or no, I'd still grant a claim where declarer, with several trumps out, wins trick one, draws a trump at trick two and sees everyone follow, and then claims with no statement (assuming the claim is valid except for trumps, of course). It isn't "at all likely" that declarer is ignoring several trumps. Even in this case I'd warn declarer to make a statement, and if he started with _ten_ trumps, so just one is missing, I'd be awfully tempted to rule against him. Another exception, of course, is when none of claimer's side winners can be ruffed. Maybe the bright line I'm trying to draw is between a possibly incomplete claim statement and no statement at all. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 03:21:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12GLN803861 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:21:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12GLGt03854 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:21:17 +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 KAA11968 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 10:22:37 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:20:22 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: [BLML] A Legal Drama In-Reply-To: <005701c08c78$990acd40$5713f7a5@james> References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I want to make it clear that this is a joke--Craig has just said some nice things about me, and I have no wish to insult either him or David Burn. At 12:58 PM 2/1/2001 -0500, Craig Senior wrote: >I do hope you have not been eating caramel, as it would be most >awkward to have your tongue stuck in your cheek. The Laws of >course mean what they say. It is just that to some they say >strange things. We need not change the Laws...just education >people to understand that when it walks, looks and quacks like a >duck and the Laws say unequivocally "It is a duck" that this IS >a duck, however much your might like a fowl of some other >plumage. I dearly hope that none of the "it isn't a claim >because I didn't mean it as one" folks never attend an auction, >command a firing squad, or push buttons in a missile silo. > >Craig Craig Senior commands a firing squad: A Play in One Act The offender is tied to a post, blindfolded. Craig and the firing squad await the order to commence the execution. David Burn, Craig's commander, approaches the condemned man, stands before him, and asks if he has any last request. "I want a cigarette", says Sterling. "Sorry, Grant, but I've got nothing to use for _fire_." says DB. Those are his last words. 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 Feb 3 03:41:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12Gef104234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:40:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12GeXt04228 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:40:34 +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 RAA03658; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:36:27 +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 RAA08687; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:40:17 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202174210.00831850@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:42:10 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A9@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 11:55 2/02/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> >> Actually, I prefer a Burnian approach : forgetting an alert >> = immediate bottom on the deal. >> > > >Or minus 24 imps, which is from the same school as giving an adjusted score >of 7Sxx - 7 (varying the suit to be caught in) > >ton AG : I'll give my exegesis of what Ton meant. There are very few infractions which will create an automatic bottom : repeated use of frivolous psyches or illegal conventions, voluntary and occult exchange of information, perhaps extreme disbevavior. Classifying non-alert with those is incredibly excessive, if only because the infraction is often involuntary. The fact that it gives TDs headaches is not enough. Consider the following facts : - the local laws about what should be alerted are often intricate, and often not well known, so it is possible not to have alerted in all good faith ; - many non-alerts do not harm opponents ; - precautions are taken to make TDs realise that partners may have different ideas about alerting without it being constitutive of any infraction (see regulations about screens). Which means it isn't *that obvious* after all. Contrast with the much more obvious fact that one may not LOOT (everybody knows that), that a LOOT often harms, and that what constitutes a LOOT is IOTTMCO. All this means that the infraction of non alerting is a mild one. To punish it beyond all normal frontiers would be absurd. We should be severe to three kinds of infractions : a - intentional infringements, eg occult communication b - gross misbehaviors, groos enough to spoil other players' game c - infractions that, while being (most probably) unintentional and 'soft', have greatly harmful effects to the opponents' score. And this category is more concerned with equity than with ethics. Some non-alerts should enter cat c, but only when it matters And perhaps repeated non-alerts would enter cat b But clearly a substantial part of non-alerts (as well as of UI) are outside this classification. regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 03:47:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12GlRj05225 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:47:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12GlJt05181 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 03:47:20 +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 RAA24818; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:44:33 +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 RAA11671; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:47:02 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202174855.00830d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:48:55 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Herman De Wael'" , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Alert or Not In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A8@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 11:47 2/02/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >There is such a thing as MI, regardless the listeners, but UI depends on who >is receiving it. >You are obliged to inform your opponents about your agreements and by doing >so you might create UI for partner. Are you saying that this being possible >a player should not explain his agreements to his opponents anymore? AG : I am. Alerting too much will occasionally create UI. For example, if you alert a 2NT opening, only to say upon request 'could contain a 5-card major' (which is more or less standard, and surely non-alertable) will remember partner that he is expected to answer to a Puppet-Stayman, not to a simple Stayman. I don't know the official position on that one, but I would intuitively consider this as sharp. After all, that's the basis of the 'no more alerts beyond the 4-level' regulations, isn't it ? A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 04:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12H1eY08548 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12H1Rt08534 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.241]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f12H1NS04174 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:01:23 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7AE4B8.AD85A961@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:47:52 +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] MI, UI, or what? References: <200102011946.OAA21321@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > > I had an interesting situation happen at the GNT qualifiers this > weekend. I wasn't going to start another dWS discussion (I note that HdW > tried very hard not to restart it, either - just posted an URI to > his position and ducked, until it had started. Thanks, Herman), but > now that it's in full swing... > I don't see what the case has to do with the DwS. > All vul, teams. Opps are competent. Dlr N. > > N E S W > 2S X 3S 4H > p 5H! p 6H > AP > > After the auction (I guess more pedantically, after the third pass and > before the lead), 5H is alerted (correct timing in ACBL) and explained, > when asked, as "Asking about trump quality." N then asks me (E) if > that's our agreement. > Correct timing in ACBL prevented the problem. In the rest of the world, there might be a problem. But even there, there is nothing you can do after partner has (mis?-)explained your bidding and raised to slam. > Well, when I bid 5H, I meant it as "asking about trump quality". > Between that time and the question being asked, I reviewed our > agreements, and realized that it probably asks for a spade stopper, > instead ("One suit = that suit; zero or two suits = trump quality"). > > My response? "Um, our agreements are a bit hazy here, but I was asking > about trump quality. Sorry." I believe that this told the opponents > what they wanted to know (that no matter what our agreements are, I was > asking for trump quality), perhaps even more than was required, and > definately illegal. > It is never illegal to tell the opponents everything they might be interested in, especially when becoming declarer or dummy. More than was required ? Yes, perhaps, but I don't believe so. Your agreements are hazy, and so a more complete answer, containing both possibilities, is necessary. > I also believe that (like the famous Kaplan(?) case) telling them that > our agreements were that it asked for a spade stopper, and then putting > dummy down (I forget the minors, but the majors were AJ KJ9) would have > definately been a problem. > Yes, since then you would have needed to prove your statement. Far better to tell them your hand. > The result? No matter the lead (it was a spade, the worst for our > side), pard's job was to make the two-way guess for the CQ. He did. > > Submitted simply as evidence. > Michael. > -- > -- 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 Feb 3 04:03:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12H1cj08546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12H1Ot08530 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.241]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f12H1KS04150 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:01:20 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7AE2E6.179D08DC@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:40:06 +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] Alert or Not References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A8@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > > > > But there is no actual overriding eleventh commandment that > > says "thou shalt not MI". > > There is a Law (L75D2) that says "Thou shalt not give UI". > > Dear Herman, could you give me the line in 75D2 saying this? > .. nor may he indicate in any manner that a mistake has been made .. I certainly consider alerting a call that was, by partner, intended as natural, as an indication that a mistake has been made. > There is such a thing as MI, regardless the listeners, but UI depends on who > is receiving it. > You are obliged to inform your opponents about your agreements and by doing > so you might create UI for partner. Are you saying that this being possible > a player should not explain his agreements to his opponents anymore? > Well, actually, what harm is being done to those opponents. They receive the correct information regarding the meaning of the call. Perhaps (perhaps !) not the actual agreement, but certainly the meaning of the call. Look at it this way. A player makes a call, intending it to mean system A. His partner explains it as system B. The player should now interpret partner's call under system A, and bid accordingly. That much is clear. And for all that, there is actually no importance as to the "real" agreement. Now how to explain partner's call ? If he axplains it as B, there is no UI to partner, and the opponents have been told what partner intended. If he explains it as A, there is UI to partner (about 3 calls !), and the opponents don't even know what partner intended. If it turns out after the facts (which player is ever certain of the system ?) that the agreement was in fact B, then the player has done nothing additionally wrong in the first case. Only if it turns out to be A, has there been some additional MI to opponents, and that one very slight, since they knew what the bidder intended, which is far more useful than what it actually meant. And what should the player do who really has no clue any more if it is A or B ? How are opponents damaged when a player decides to follow the De Wael School ? In the sense of MI, that is ... > ton > > > I happen to believe this law is more important, but I am > > alone. > > But don't say I don't have a point. > > > > > > > -- > > Herman DE WAEL > > Antwerpen Belgium > > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > > -- > > ============================================================== > > ========== > > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Feb 3 04:03:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12H1bU08545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12H1Ot08529 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:01:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-241.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.241]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f12H1HS04115 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:01:19 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7ADF09.FD1085B5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:23:37 +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: <200102011652.QAA01259@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: > > > But don't say I don't have a point. > > You don't have a point. :-) > > L75D1 says you must correct your own incorrect explanations. > So if you deliberately give UI you must immediately call the > TD and correct it. > > Thats pretty close to saying you must not MI. > I have never said there is no law that tells you to not give MI. I have merely said there is no Law that says this in a very forceful "thou shalt not" style of way. While there IS a law that says that a player "may (not) indicate in any manner". We can argue about this till hell freezes over, but I do believe there is something to be said for my points. -- 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 Feb 3 04:28:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12HReT08751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:27:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12HRYt08746 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:27:34 +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 LAA08923 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:29:01 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202112646.007976f0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:26:46 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:16 AM 2/2/2001 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > >Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: > >107542 >87 >Q103 >K108 > >The bidding: > >LHO Pard RHO You >Pass Pass 1H Pass >2D Pass 2S Pass >4H Pass 4NT Pass >5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass > >(1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs > >What lead do you make? My partner and I play the same lead system as Adam B., so I'd have to see the whole hand to know what I'd lead. :) Seriously, though, I lead a diamond. >Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? Heavens, no--anything could be right. >Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs >for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest >a particular one of those suits? I don't think so. It does depend on partner. My particular partner would be more likely to be making a "you guys can't make this slam" double than a Lightner. Other people never business-double freely bid slams. If I'm sure it's a near-Lightner pause, then it suggests diamonds or spades, depending on the flavor of your Lightners. >Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for >the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not >suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* >lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged >to lead a trump? Given those assumptions, yes. If trumps are a LA, and each and every non-trump suit is suggested over trumps, then I must lead trumps. I don't think that in this case a non-trump lead is suggested, but if it were, I'd lead a trump. >Best wishes > >R Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 04:59:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12HxeT09234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12HxYt09230 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 04:59:35 +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, 2 Feb 2001 09:56:16 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c08d41$da219b00$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 00:24:23 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Gordon Bower" > > > If I may be excused for extracting one sentence from the writeup that > caught my attention: > > Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > > > >Recently the claim laws > > >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing > > declarer > > >to repeat a successful finesse). > > Would anyone care to present an example of a case in which he feels the > new "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" clause > of L70E comes into effect? I can believe (just barely) that there are such > cases. Not easy to come up with a case for finessing, but maybe I can for dropping. The new Law means that you can't require a player to finesse into a danger hand if playing high cards in the suit is the only rational line (redoubled contract, making by cashing). If cashing drops an honor offside for one or more overtrick(s), the success of that line depends on finding that hand, not the finessable hand, with the dropped honor. The old language wouldn't allow that, if taken literally. > I feel however that it would be a disaster for an official ACBL > publication to give the impression that we *routinely* allow declarers to > repeat previously successful finesses. > Comments of TDs, ACs, or casebook commentators, even NABC Appeals Administrator Rich Colker's, are personal opinions only, not "official." The only official ACBL policies are those that are directly traceable back to the BoD (for regulations) or to the ACBLLC (for 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 Sat Feb 3 05:24:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12IO7p09338 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:07 +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-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 f12INtt09322 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:23:57 +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 14Oks5-000HkQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:23:48 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:27:00 +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]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A77D1A1.133AED92@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: >> >> >> 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". L75A. Note the word 'must'. -- 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 Feb 3 05:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12IO8I09339 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:08 +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-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 f12INtt09321 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:23:57 +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 14Oks5-000HkR-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:23:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 15:28:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A1@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7A1@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 >> 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. The Law 75A contains the word 'must'. Are you saying we are not required to fully inform our opponents? -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 05:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12IOHC09346 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12IO1t09333 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14OksE-000HkQ-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:23:56 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:58:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Quango Reply-To: Nanki Poo Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: Cats! References: <7AEOXgA13B34EwXz@blakjak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk List of cats Mark Abraham Kittini Michael Albert Bob, Icky Picky RB Karen Allison Stella, Blanche, Stanley Dave Armstrong Cookie Louis Arnon Dorus, Edna, Frits, Gussy Brian Baresch Lao, Gaea Olivier Beauvillain * Dode Adam Beneschan Mango MIA David Blizzard Herbie, Mittens Mike Bolster Jess Vitold Brushtunov Chia Everett Boyer Amber Art Brodsky * Ralph Pur Byantara Begung Wayne Burrows Fritzi, Nico Konrad Ciborowski Kocurzak Miauczurny Mary Crenshaw Dickens Claude Dadoun Moustique Hirsch Davis Shadow, Smokey RB, Loki, Snaggs, Rufus Mike Dennis Casino Laval Du Breuil Picatou Simon Edler Incy Michael Farebrother * Shadow EL, Tipsy EL Wally Farley Andrew RB, Templeton, Scratcher, Joy, Panda RB, Shaure, Edmund Eric Favager Poppy, Daisy, Smiffie, Ollie, Monty, Fluffy Walt Flory * Punkin Marv French Mozart Dany Haimovici * Shobo, Rosario, Shemaya, Hershey, Spotty, Shuri, Dossie, Kippy, Pushpush, Hershon RB Paul & Pat Harrington Dopi, Bridget, Depo RB Robert Harris Bobbsie RB, Caruso Damian Hassan * Bast, Katie, Tepsi, Baroo, Scrap, +1 Craig Hemphill Spook, Snuffy, Snuggles, Squeak, Cub Scout Richard Hull Endora, Putty Tat, Bill Bailey Sergey Kapustin Liza Laurie Kelso Bugs, Sheba MIA Jack Kryst Bentley, Ava John Kuchenbrod * RaRe, Leo Irv Kostal * Albert, Cleo EL, Sabrina, Bill RB Patrick Laborde Romeo Eric Landau Glorianna, Wesley, Shadow, Query Paul Lippens Rakker, Tijger, Sloeber Albert Lochli Killer Demeter Manning Nikolai, Zonker Rui Marques Bibi, Kenji, Satann John McIlrath Garfield, Mischief Brian Meadows Katy Bruce Moore Sabrena Tony Musgrove Mitzi, Muffin Sue O'Donnell Yazzer-Cat, Casey RB Rand Pinsky Vino, Axel Rose, Talia, Keiko John Probst Gnipper, Figaro Ed Reppert Ayesha, Gracie, The Sarge, Buzz Jack Rhind TC (the cat) Norman Scorbie * Starsky RB, Hutch Bob Scruton * Squeeky Craig Senior Streak, Shaney, Rascal, Stubby, Precious, Smoke, Scamp, Bandit, Shadow, Smokey Flemming B-Soerensen Rose Grant Sterling Big Mac David Stevenson Quango, Nanki Poo, Ting RB, Pish RB, Tush RB, Tao MIA, Suk RB Helen Thompson Tom, Tabby, Bubba Les West T.C., Trudy Anton Witzen Beer, Miepje Tom Wood * Nikolai, Zonker plus, of course Selassie RB is a cat waiting at Rainbow Bridge, MIA is a cat missing in action and EL is a cat on extended leave [ie staying with someone else known]. Anyone who wishes to see the story of Rainbow Bridge can ask David for a copy, or look at the article on his Catpage at http://blakjak.com/rbridge.htm The story and a picture of Selassie is at http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/slssie.htm Additions and amendments to this list should be sent to Nanki Poo at . Amended entries are marked *. Schroeder's cat does not appear! Miiiiiiiaaaaaoouuuuwwwwww !!!!!!!!! Mrow *QU* -- Purrs and headbutts from: /\_/\ /\ /\ Quango =( ^*^ )= @ @ Nanki Poo ( | | ) =( + )= Pictures at http://blakjak.com/qu_npoo.htm (_~^ ^~ ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 05:24:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12IOGg09345 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12IO3t09336 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 05:24:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14OksE-000HkO-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:23:58 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 16:22:34 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Usenet Bridge Abbreviations MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Usenet Bridge Abbreviations ABF Australian Bridge Federation AC Appeals committee ACBL American Contract Bridge League AI Authorised information ArtAS Artificial adjusted score AssAS Assigned adjusted score ATF Across-the-field [matchpointing] ATTNA Appeal to the National Authority BBL British Bridge League BLML Bridge-laws mailing list BoD Board of directors [ACBL] BoG Board of governors [ACBL] BOOT Bid-Out-Of-Turn BTW By the way C&E Conduct and ethics [often hearings] CC Convention card CoC Conditions of contest COOT Call-Out-Of-Turn CoP Code of practice CPU Concealed partnership understanding CTD Chief Tournament director DBF Danish Bridge Federation DIC Director in charge DP Disciplinary penalty EBL European Bridge League EBU English Bridge Union F2F Face-to-face [to distinguish from Online bridge] FAQ Frequently asked questions [often produced as a document] GCC General Convention Chart [ACBL] HTH Hope this helps HUM Highly Unusual Method IIRC If I remember correctly IMHO In my humble opinion [included under protest] IMO In my opinion LA Logical alternative L&EC Laws & Ethics Committee [English, Welsh or Scottish] Lnn Law number nn LOL Little old lady [may be of either sex] LOOT Lead-Out-Of-Turn ME Misexplanation MI Misinformation MPC Major penalty card mPC Minor penalty card MSC Master Solvers' Club [The Bridge World] NA National Authority NABC ACBL North American Bridge Championships NBB Nederlandse Bridge Bond [Dutch Bridge League] NBO National Bridge organisation NCBO National Contract Bridge organisation NG Newsgroup NIBU Northern Ireland Bridge Union NO Non-offender NOs Non-offenders NOS Non-offending side NP No problem OBM Old Black Magic OBOOT Opening-Bid-Out-Of-Turn OKB OKBridge OLB Online bridge [to distinguish from Face-to-face bridge] OLOOT Opening-Lead-Out-Of-Turn OOT Out-Of-Turn Os Offenders OS Offending side OTOH On the other hand POOT Pass-Out-Of-Turn [or] POOT Play-Out-Of-Turn PP Procedural penalty RA Regulating Authority RGB rec.games.bridge [newsgroup] RGBO rec.games.bridge.okbridge [newsgroup] RLB Real Life Bridge [to distinguish from Online bridge] RoC Rule of coincidence RotG Rub-of-the-green RoW Rest of World [apart from North America] RTFLB Read the [fabulous] Law book! SBU Scottish Bridge Union SO Sponsoring organisation TBW The Bridge World [magazine] TD Tournament director TDic Tournament director in charge TFLB The [fabulous] Law book! UI Unauthorised information WBF World Bridge Federation WBFLC WBF Laws Committee WBU Welsh Bridge Union WTP What's the problem? YC Young Chelsea ZO Zonal organisation ZT Zero Tolerance [for unacceptable behaviour] Hand diagrams: ..3H 3H after a hesitation 3Ha 3H alerted Emails only: FFTQFTE Feel free to quote from this email The above may also be found on my Bridgepage at http://blakjak.com/usenet_br.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 Sat Feb 3 06:07:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12J6I609831 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:06:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f164.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.164]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12J6Ct09827 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:06:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:06:04 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 19:06:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 11:06:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Feb 2001 19:06:04.0713 (UTC) FILETIME=[30CC4190:01C08D4B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Marvin French wrote: > > > > Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable > > > call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the > > > Director, do I? I have a choice... > > > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible >UI > > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not >enough. > > See the footnote to L16A2. I thought this was the spirit of the ACBL election on L16A1 -- to delay calling the director until you think your opponents are already knee-deep. -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 Sat Feb 3 06:37:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12JbDU10328 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:37:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12Jb6t10323 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 06:37:07 +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 OAA14956 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:37:00 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA08627 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:37:00 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 14:37:00 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102021937.OAA08627@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Marvin French wrote: > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible UI > > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not enough. > > See the footnote to L16A2. > From: Adam Beneschan > Why not? L16A2 tells you that "should" summon the TD immediately when > you have reason to believe that an illegal LA was chosen. But where > in the Laws does it say you "are not to" call the TD except at those > points when the Laws specifically say you "must" or "may" or "should" > do so? L74B5. I think it is discourteous to suggest, without seeing the hand in question, that someone has "used UI." Not everyone agrees. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 07:12:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12KBhZ10511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 07:11:43 +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 f12KBbt10506 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 07:11:37 +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, 2 Feb 2001 12:08:19 -0800 Message-ID: <007501c08d54$4c152f80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010202174855.00830d50@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 12:04:59 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "alain gottcheiner" > ... Alerting too much will occasionally create UI. For example, if > you alert a 2NT opening, only to say upon request 'could contain a 5-card > major' (which is more or less standard, and surely non-alertable) will > remember partner that he is expected to answer to a Puppet-Stayman, not to > a simple Stayman. > I don't know the official position on that one, but I would intuitively > consider this as sharp. > Not Alertable in ACBL-Land. Even "Five-card major common" is not Alertable (black check box on the CC), perhaps for the reason you suggest. My practice is to omit details when (1) I know that the opponents cannot make use of them during the auction and (2) I am sure that we will be the declaring side. Then, before the opening lead is made, I provide details. This would be difficult to make the subject of a regulation, but perhaps players should be encouraged to follow this policy. 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 Feb 3 08:03:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12L2Xw10905 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:02:33 +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 f12L2Qt10901 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:02:27 +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 NAA02181; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:02:22 -0800 Message-Id: <200102022102.NAA02181@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:37:00 EST." <200102021937.OAA08627@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 13:02:21 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > Marvin French wrote: > > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible UI > > > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not enough. > > > See the footnote to L16A2. > > > From: Adam Beneschan > > Why not? L16A2 tells you that "should" summon the TD immediately when > > you have reason to believe that an illegal LA was chosen. But where > > in the Laws does it say you "are not to" call the TD except at those > > points when the Laws specifically say you "must" or "may" or "should" > > do so? > > L74B5. I think it is discourteous to suggest, without seeing the hand > in question, that someone has "used UI." Not everyone agrees. It probably depends on the wording you use. Of course one cannot assume that UI *was* used illegally without seeing one's hand. Several months ago, I had this auction against me: LHO RHO 1H 2NT(1) 3C(2) ...4H(3) 4NT(4) (1) Game-forcing raise. (2) Club singleton or void, says nothing about strength. (3) Fast arrival, showing a minimum or perhaps wasted values in clubs. I think this is a dumb treatment opposite an unlimited partner, but this post isn't about bidding theory. (4) RKCB. There was a marked hesitation before the 4H bid (maybe 30-45 seconds, I don't remember). Now, this is the kind of auction that could easily be fishy. Responder has hesitated before showing a minimum; the hesitation clearly suggests "extra playing strength", a hand that is borderline between signing off and making a move toward slam. Opener then, after the hesitation, continues the bidding. I called the Director and, when he came, I said I wanted to protect our rights, and then explained what happened. The Director took note of it and said to call him back at the end of the hand if there was a problem. I thanked him. I didn't say anything other than that. The opponents were miffed that I called the Director; to them, it sounded like I was accusing them of wrongdoing. I don't believe I was doing so, however, and I don't believe I was being discourteous. I didn't say anything to suggest that my opponents *had* used UI, despite the fact that the opponents took it badly and thought I was. Rather, I was doing what the ACBL said I should do. So I don't think you can find a violation of any Law in anything I did. RHO, by the way, had a pretty big hand, so 4NT was entirely justified. The Director came back after the hand (on his own initiative) and said he had looked over the hand record along with other directors, and they all agreed that there was no infraction. I agreed with them. Now that I've read the responses, and reread the ACBL policy on this (www.acbl.org/info/laws97/elections.html), I'm not sure just why ACBL is suggesting that we should call right away in a situation like this, instead of waiting until the end of the hand. My guess is that (1) by the end of the hand, we may not remember the opponent's entire hand, and in some cases may not have even seen the whole thing, after a concession or acquiescence to a claim; (2) there's nothing in the Laws that gives us a right to look at an opponent's hand after the board is over; (3) if we don't remember the whole hand and an opponent refuses our request to look at it, we'll have to call the Director anyway without knowing for sure whether UI was used illegally or not. In fact, now that I think of it, I'm not sure the wording in L16A2 is adequate protection for non-offenders. It says "When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has [not 'may have' or 'could have'--ajb] chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the Director forthwith." So suppose you have this auction: You LHO Partner RHO 3C ...pass pass 3S pass 4S 5C dbl all pass LHO paused a long time before passing. Against 5C, the opponents take the first three tricks; now you face your hand and claim. The opponents agree to the claim and put their hands back in the board. You have only seen 3 of RHO's cards. When you ask to see RHO's hand, he refuses, on the grounds that no Law requires him to show it to you. Now, do you have "substantial reason to believe" that UI was used illegally, as L16A2 says? I'd maintain that you don't, having seen less than one quarter of RHO's hand. So, if you believe that you must have "substantial reason to believe" before you call the TD, what do you do now? -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 08:05:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12L5qt10969 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:05:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12L5it10962 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:05:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive44a.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.138]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA21959; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:05:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00e801c08d5b$ea94e220$8a10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ron Johnson" , References: <200102012110.f11LA2006132@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:05:46 -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 Probably more than 50 though less than 100. Perhaps one every fourth session...either Lightner or failure to do so with the negative inferences attached thereto would have a much higher number. (just as failing to double a balckwood response suggests that p does not have strong desire for you to lead that suit). I would expect any non-novice to know this. It ranks close to knowing that there are thirteen cards in each suit and that you should keep track of them in the play. I agree, many play without this caveat. THEY are not playing bridge. You either develop your game to a minimal level, or do not hold yourself out to be a bridge player. Lightner should be no more (or less) alertable than unusual 2N or Stayman(Rapee), or weak two bids showing the long named suit and a less than opening hand. Some things are just part of bridge. Craig Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Johnson" To: Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 4:10 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner > Craig Senior writes: > > > > What do they play? Surely not bridge. > > > > Craig > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ed Reppert" > > > > I know several players around here > > > who wouldn't know a Lightner double from their left elbow. :-) > > That's an unfortunate attitude Craig. Lead directing doubles > are common knowledge to be sure. But if you don't read much > about the game and never play in set partnerships when will > you pick up the knowledge. > > It's not something that comes up often after all. How many > Lightner doubles have come up at your table in your bridge > playing career? I've read about them, but I don't think I've > ever had one. > > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 08:13:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12LCRC11124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:12:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f12LCJt11117 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 08:12:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-85-65.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.85.65]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA03252; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 21:11:21 GMT Message-ID: <004d01c08d5d$06aab6a0$4155063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <000001c08d41$da219b00$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:23:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim > > > I feel however that it would be a disaster > > for an official ACBL publication to give > > the impression that we *routinely* allow > > declarers to repeat previously successful > > finesses. > > +=+ Or any publication; nor should the impression be given that claimer will automatically be allowed not to finesse if the finesse is wrong (and the trick ducked the first time). Clarification is an essential element of a claim in such circumstances. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 10:24:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f12NO6H27857 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:24:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f12NNxt27812 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 10:23:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldnod.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.223.13]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA16963 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:23:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A7B42E6.E1B31E72@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:29:42 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <200102021614.LAA08381@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: > [snip; Stevenson's quote is from the upcoming Anaheim casebook, courtesy Linda Trent] > > I take it the unattributed commentary is Rich Colker or maybe Linda. > Can anyone confirm? (It sure reads like something Rich would write.) > > > >Stevenson: ... But I have absolutely no sympathy for declarer > > >whatever. If she really remembered, then failing to mention the trump was > > >criminally careless and she fully deserved the result. > > I think this is exactly right. If we can't draw a bright line in > "approved jurisprudence" saying that claimer has to mention outstanding > trumps, where can we draw it? I don't have a problem with this as a proposed rule, but it isn't the current rule. L70C2, part of the law for claims with a trump out, starts "was probably unaware of trump" and continues "it is at all likely that at the time of his claim was unaware of the missing trump." Whether this requires a 51% standard for believing declarer lacked awareness (which I believe to be the most consistent reading) or a somewhat lower standard (which I believe barely defensible -- probably requires at least 50%, and "at all likely" seems to set a 50+ standard), there can clearly be significant doubt that declarer was aware of the missing trump and still allow the claim. Brief rant on legal construction: 70C is more specific than 70A, and therefore applies in the case of a missing trump. I consider the phraseology of the laws to be more generous to the case of a missing trump than to other incomplete or mis-claims. My only complaint is that the AC > shouldn't have bothered investigating declarer's ability. The AC is required to do this by the footnote which discusses "class of player involved." The ruling > should be the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and for Gunnar Hallberg. Again, maybe this *should* be the rule, but it isn't. --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 Sat Feb 3 11:14:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f130ERn05744 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:14:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f130EKt05740 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:14:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id TAA26474 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:14:16 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA09032 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:14:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:14:16 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102030014.TAA09032@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John R. Mayne" > L70C2, part of the law for claims with a trump out, starts > "was probably unaware of trump" and continues "it is at all likely that > at the time of his claim was unaware of the missing trump." > > Whether this requires a 51% standard for believing declarer lacked > awareness (which I believe to be the most consistent reading) The meaning of 'at all probable' in L12C2 is considerably under 50%. (It is one chance in six in the ACBL.) While 'at all likely' might not be identical to 'at all probable', it sounds pretty close to me. > > My only complaint is that the AC > > shouldn't have bothered investigating declarer's ability. > > The AC is required to do this by the footnote which discusses "class of > player involved." The footnote addresses lines of play, not awareness (70C3, not 70C2). While an expert is more likely than a poor player to be aware of an outstanding trump, it is also more likely (or should be!) that the expert will mention the trump in his claim statement. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 12:16:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f131G5p07192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:16:05 +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 f131Fxt07185 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 12:15:59 +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, 2 Feb 2001 17:12:40 -0800 Message-ID: <00c901c08d7e$d18c4340$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 17:14:06 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >Marvin French wrote: > > > > > > Another example - if an opponent makes a questionable > > > > call after his partner's hesitation, I don't have to call the > > > > Director, do I? I have a choice... > > > > > > Regardless of what the ACBL says, you are not to call about a possible > >UI > > > violation until you see some evidence of it. "Questionable" is not > >enough. > > > See the footnote to L16A2. > > I thought this was the spirit of the ACBL election on L16A1 -- to delay > calling the director until you think your opponents are already knee-deep. > "Think" is not enough either, unless you want to offend an opponent. It may be the "spirit," but it violates L16A2 and its clarifying footnote. You cannot have "substantial reason to believe" until you have seen the opponent's complete hand. 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 Feb 3 13:14:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f132EKi08552 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:14:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.89]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f132EEt08545 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 13:14:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14OsDG-0001ul-0V for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:14:06 +0000 Message-ID: <0bG86BARk2e6EwHa@probst.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 02:12:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] LAs? MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Game all, late round national KOs, you're a bit down, a swing would help ATx You're South 9xxxx Kxxx x W N E S 1D 2C x 1D better minor (Romex NT in use) 2S x P 3D x values for a Strong NT, say 15-16 P P 3S ? Rate your options; describe partner's hand >From the YC bar tonight. 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 Feb 3 15:56:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f134t7i17789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:55:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f134sxt17785 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:55:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (user-2ivf0m4.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.130.196]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA28707 for ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 23:54:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010202235719.00885460@sujja.com> X-Sender: dkent@sujja.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 23:57:19 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Kent Subject: Re: [BLML] LAs? In-Reply-To: <0bG86BARk2e6EwHa@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 02:12 3/2/01 +0000, you wrote: >Game all, late round national KOs, you're a bit down, a swing would help > >ATx You're South >9xxxx >Kxxx >x > >W N E S > 1D 2C x 1D better minor (Romex NT in use) >2S x P 3D x values for a Strong NT, say 15-16 >P P 3S ? > >Rate your options; describe partner's hand > OK. I have 7 HCP, my partner has 15 - that makes 22. My RHO (red vs red) has a 2 level overcall - let's call it close to an opening bid (~11 HCP). My LHO has a free bid of 2S over my negative double. He has about 7 HCP. My guess is that he has a reasonable suit - looking at my hand I expect him to have KQJxxx with probably a bit of shape - let's say 6-3-1-3. RHO has as good C suit with probably 3 card support for S, although he may have only 2. Partner does not have 4H. I expect the hands to look somewhat similar to: S - x H - AQx D - AQxxx C - Kxxx S - KQJxxx S - xxx H - Jxx H - KT D - x D - JTx C - Txx C - AQJxx S - ATx H - 9xxxx D - Kxxx C - x If I double, I guess we could get 3 aces plus 2 club ruffs and beat it one - but partner had better lead a club. If my estimate of this hand is off by even a little bit, we are not beating it. So how about if we play the hand? With this construction, we can make game. If I bid 4C partner should treat this as a hand with 5H + 4D with about the values that I have. He may have a difficult time deciding between 4D, 4H and 5D, but whatever he bids, it must be better than letting them play in 3S, probably making, doubled or not. 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 Sat Feb 3 15:57:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f134vnU17801 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:57:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f134vht17797 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 15:57:44 +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; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:58:37 -0800 Message-ID: <003301c08d9d$cb1f9380$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: , , Subject: [BLML] 10-12 HCP 1NT Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 20:54:06 -0800 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've forgotten whether this thread was on rgb or blml, so this is going to both. Finally have an answer on to the ACBL attitude toward opening 10-12 HCP 1NT with only 9 HCP. This is how ACBL TDs are being instructed: First, deviations from 10-12 HCP are to be handled more strictly than deviations from strong notrump ranges. And what is the policy for strong notrumps? Strong notrump deviations are to be noted on the CC. E.g., if occasional 14 HCP hands are opened because of fillers, good five-card suit, etc., a 15-17 range should be shown as 14+ to 17. However, a pair playing a 10-12 NT has no such latitude. If their agreement includes hands of 9 HCP, whether because of long suits or a lot of intermediate combinations, that agreement (while legal) means they can play no conventions after opening 1NT. There is, however, no automatic penalty for opening a 9 HCP hand with 1NT and using conventions. If it happens just once in a long while, indicating that there is no explicit agreement about opening such hands, you can get away with it. If it happens twice in a session, or twice at one tournament, that would be evidence of an illegal agreement. ############################## That's it, a trifle vague, as is the case for psyching. There is no mention of what a penalty might be, perhaps only an instruction not to use conventions after opening 1NT in the future, nor is there a method for recording and tracking observed deviations. I would have preferred that TDs be allowed to judge that a 9 HCP hand such as S-Jxx H-10xx D-Ax C-KJ109x or S-Axx H-Axx D-10xx C-Jxxx is a valid opening when playing a nominal 10-12 range, while opening 1NT with S-Kxx H-Qxx D-Jxx C-Kxxx would be *prima facie* evidence that the range is really 9-12, illegal when conventions are used. At least we know now that there is no automatic penalty for a 9 HCP 1NT opening, as has been assumed by some TDs. ACBLers should write their district Directors if they disagree with this policy. -- 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 Feb 3 21:25:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13AP7O14108 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:25:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13AP0t14072 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:25:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.15.75] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Ogkr-0000hI-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 02 Feb 2001 14:00:01 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c08d20$6f3ccf60$4b0f7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202140310.00851d10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 13:59:55 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: > AG : we are stuck once again with the famous 'a game is totally defined by > its set of rules'. "Stuck"? Is there some other way in which a game is defined? More to the point, is there some other way in which a game is defined so that it can be consistently and fairly administered? > If the Laws say it is a claim, then it is. But ... the > laws provide the TDs with some leeway in deciding the limits. > If we consider that 'partner, your bidding is lemmingish. We have a cold > slam !' is *not* a claim, and that 'I've got 12 tricks. See them' *is* one, > there must be some limit between the two, some point where a non-claim > becomes a claim. This limit isn't stated anywhere in the Laws. Yes, it is. There is not some kind of continuum involved here, and there is no "leeway" (nor should there be). There are statements to the effect that a player will win a specific number of tricks in the current denomination from the point which play has presently reached. Those statements are claims. Other statements are not. It is not at all difficult to decide in which category any statement actually falls. Exactly insofar as people try to introduce "leeway", or "common sense", or the "spirit of the Laws", they make the game more difficult than it ought to be, less fair than it ought to be, and harder to run than it ought to be. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 3 22:15:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13BCv601286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:12:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13BCpt01255 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:12:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.30.25] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14P0cY-0003Hv-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:12:47 +0000 Message-ID: <002501c08dd2$3ca70040$191e073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:12:39 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant wrote: > I want to make it clear that this is a joke--Craig has just said > some nice things about me, and I have no wish to insult either him or David > Burn. You are in a minority. But it was a good joke. > Craig Senior commands a firing squad: A Play in One Act > > The offender is tied to a post, blindfolded. Craig and the firing > squad await the order to commence the execution. David Burn, Craig's > commander, approaches the condemned man, stands before him, and asks if he > has any last request. > > "I want a cigarette", says Sterling. > "Sorry, Grant, but I've got nothing to use for _fire_." says DB. > > Those are his last words. And so they should be. A man who uses the word "fire" while standing in front of a firing squad deserves to be shot, just as a man who says "we will make twelve tricks" deserves to have it treated as a claim. Otherwise, of course, the scene will play as follows: CRAIG: "Fire!" FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, we need to be clear that when you say "Fire", you actually intend us to discharge our weapons, and are not merely intending to draw our attention to an imminent conflagration." CRAIG: "No, no, fire!" FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, your last utterance is capable of the following interpretations: (a) you wish to emphasise, by use of a repeated negative, that there is no fire; (b) your first word was the imperative of the verb "to know" and you merely wish us to be aware that there is no fire; (c) you wish to negate our previous hypothesis that you were trying to alert us to a fire, and to instruct us to shoot the condemned man. Until we are clear as to your intentions, we regret that we are unable to proceed." CRAIG: "For the last time, fire!" FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, you are not empowered to instruct us to fire for the last time. To do so would be tantamount to terminating our contracts as a firing squad, and only our Chief Firing Squad Director can do that. Moreover, it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that, if we were indeed to fire for the last time at this poor wretch, we might miss. He would then have to wait for another firing squad to be convened before sentence could be carried out." MEN IN WHITE COATS enter and bear Craig to a lunatic asylum. UNDERTAKERS enter and remove the body of the condemned man, who has died of boredom. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 06:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8Y725268 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:34 +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-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 f13J8Ft25186 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:16 +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 14P82X-000NGU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:08:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:33:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$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 >There can hardly be "substantial reason to believe" until one has been >able to see the opponent's complete hand. I thought that was the reason >for the footnote, to clarify what can constitute sufficient evidence for >reaching such a conclusion. > >In my mind the implication that someone may have made illegal use of UI, >without seeing evidence that this is so, ought to be a Zero Tolerance >offense. Most people find the calling of the TD on mere suspicion to be >rather offensive. Count me as one of them. It can hardly be offensive, or at least you should not take it that way, if that is the method suggested by your SO. Many SOs consider that it is reasonable to call the TD, or reserve rights where that is allowed, once there has been a call that could be suggested by the UI. Put it another way, if the bidding goes 1S P 4S ..X P 5H to call the TD is merely establishing the facts in a position where UI could very well have been used. I can see no reason why this should be considered offensive. It seems an unnecessary denigration of the game to assume offence where none is intended, and there seems no reason to presume it in this case. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 06:10:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8Xi25264 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13J8Ct25175 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:13 +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 14P82X-000NGV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:08:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:52:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$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: "Ed Reppert" >> >> >With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should >> >exercise this right even if allowed to do so. >> >> Law 62A requires a player to correct his revoke if he becomes aware >> of it before it has become established. The player in question is >> aware that he *may* have revoked - he needs only to know what suit >> was led to the quitted (but still current) trick in order to be sure. >> If I were in that situation, and a TD told me I'm not going to be >> allowed to know what suit was led, I'm not going to be happy. >> Granted, sometimes that's just too bad, but I don't think this should >> be one of those times. >> >I think there is a general principle that a TD should avoid exposing >quitted tricks, or looking at a player's hand. See the footnote to L67B2, >for instance. > >Let's see. > >We can't have everyone turning over their cards, obviously. This could be >a ruse to see a missed card. The TD would have to look at the card led, >without exposing it. If the doubtful one's card matches, no revoke, >nothing happens. > >If the TD sees that the doubtful one's card is of a different suit than >the one led, s/he has to look at the hand to see if there is a possible >revoke. If it is, the s/he has to tell the player which suit was led. > >I doubt that this is correct procedure, but stand ready to be corrected. I have said many times that a TD should not look at a player's hand during the play of the hand. There are two reasons for this: TDs should *never* make judgement rulings quickly, and TDs can easily give information about the hand away to the whole table. Now I am pleased that Mike has come up with an exception for me. In this case the TD should look at the player's hand. Why? Because none of my worries apply. The TD will find out for himself without exposing a card whether the card led is of the same suit as the possible revoker's card. He now looks at possible revoker's hand to see whether it is a revoke. Suppose a heart was led, and possible revoker has played a diamond. He looks at the player's hand: all he is looking is to see whether there is one or more hearts in it. So no judgement is involved. Aha, you say, but he will be giving information away as to whether this player has a heart. True, but it is information to which the table is entitled: they are all allowed to know whether the card constituted a revoke. So, if there is a heart in the hand the TD says "There is an unestablished revoke: you are required to correct the revoke card to one of the suit led." Of course now revoker asks to see the trick so he knows what to play! Is he allowed to? -- 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 Feb 4 06:10:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J89H25155 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13J7rt25070 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:07:54 +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 14P82B-000NGT-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:07:49 +0000 Message-ID: <3+tcuUATNwe6EwEZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:58:27 +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> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Eric Landau" >To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" >Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 8:33 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way > > >> I confess that I do not understand the notion of "protecting the >field" >> by refusing a waiver of a penalty. > >Think of it as ensuring that all entrants in the event are playing >under the same conditions of contest. Then there's no matter of >"choice" involved, either on the parts of the players or the TD. >Rather than thinking of it as "protecting the field", think of it as >protecting the integrity of the game, so that no contestant is at an >advantage, or disadvantage, because the Laws are being fully enforced >at some tables, but not others. Exactly. And that is why it *is* permissible to waive penalties in certain situations: because the Laws say so. The trouble with the whole protect-the-field idea is that the differences are usually trivial at any table except the one where something happens, and well within the normal luck of the game. However, it has been used by BLs as an excuse. If you do worry about "protecting the field". let me make up a story. Board one turns out to be a very simple affair. 26 HCP, no long suits, no two-way finesses, ten tricks completely routine. But at one table West revokes. South calls the TD and says "I want to waive the penalty" and gives an adequate reason. Now which do you want to do? Follow the Law as written, and finish with a flat board? Or refuse to follow the Law as written because of the protect-the-field thing [which I cannot find in my Law book] and give someone a bottom and someone a top, affecting every other table? -- 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 Feb 4 06:10:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8Dq25173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13J7wt25106 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:07:59 +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 14P82F-000NGV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:07:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:02:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump References: <3.0.6.32.20010131180904.008227b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010131180904.008227b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 f13J82t25125 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 10:12 31/01/01 -0500, Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: >> > >>Called to a table yesterday, I had to rule on such a claim by >>a declarer who can loose a trick by a "normal play" after >>simply facing his last 4 cards and saying "I have the rest". >>The only problem I had is that declarer said (when asked >>by me) and was ready to swear on the Bible that he was >>totally aware of the outstanding trump (he is a good player). >> >> >>Would you please tell me what is your approach in such >>a case. > >AG : the fact that the declarer didn't mention the outstanding trump is >strong evidence that he didn't know. Else it would be easy for him to say >'I draw the trump and have the rest'. >One possible exception is the case when declarer tables after testing >trumps and discovering they are well divided. In this case, the timing of >the claim (just after having learned the repartition) is evidence that he >knew what he was doing. But even so, why not state 'I end drawing, and >claim on double ruff with the other trumps' or whatever ? >Non, vraiment, le moindre atome de doute doit être utilisé contre le joueur >qui table. >And I could coldly swear on the Bible whatever you wish me to swear, >because I'm an Agnostic, so don't let yourself be impressed. Interesting. I am also agnostic, but swearing to a lie on the bible [or the Koran, or whatever] would feel very wrong to me. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 06:10:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8dI25288 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:39 +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 f13J8It25206 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:19 +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 14P82Y-000NGW-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:08:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:53:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003d01c08c81$950e8340$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> In-Reply-To: <003d01c08c81$950e8340$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones writes >From: "mike amos" >> A simple situation >> >> Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick >> 3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs >> >> all 4 players quit their cards >> >> Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" >> >> "Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well >trained >> TD at the table :) ) >> >> "We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that >I've >> revoked" >> >> How should the TD proceed in this situation? >I'm not sure what it is you are in doubt about Mike, or is there >something I have not understood. I'm about to learn I feel :-) >Law 66C allows for the TD to instruct the facing of a quitted trick, >specific example cited, "to verify the claim of a revoke". >I believe in this instance the director should only allow the facing of >the card led to the trick.The person who thinks he might have revoked is >pemitted to examine the face of his quit card, until a card is played to >the next trick - Law66B. >If he had revoked, and the revoke has not been established - he must >correct it Law62A.and the withdrawn card is faced as a major penalty >card to be disposed of according to Law 50. The presence of the penalty >card is authorised to all players, but the knowledge of it having been >in the offenders hand is not authorised to the offenders partner. Law >16C2. Why should the card led be faced? -- 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 Feb 4 06:10:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8ln25319 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-10.mail.demon.net (finch-post-10.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.38]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13J8Tt25255 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14P82o-000NGV-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:08:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 01:02:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam 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 > >Imps, only the opponents vul. You hold: > >107542 >87 >Q103 >K108 > >The bidding: > >LHO Pard RHO You >Pass Pass 1H Pass >2D Pass 2S Pass >4H Pass 4NT Pass >5NT(1) Pass 6H All pass > >(1) Two aces, either spades & diamonds, or hearts & clubs > >What lead do you make? C8. >Do you think that the lead you choose is the only logical one? No. I lead very aggressively against slams. Diamonds and hearts would definitely be led by some people. Actually, Terence Reese used to argue that leading up to suits tends to give away fewer tricks, so a spade lead might be considered passive. >Pard made a very slow final pass. If several suits are LAs >for your opening lead, does pard's UI demonstrably suggest >a particular one of those suits? Sure. Unless you have length to suggest a void opposite, there is always a presumption that he was thinking of doubling for dummy's first bid suit. In my view the UI suggests a diamond lead. >Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for >the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not >suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* >lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged >to lead a trump? I cannot possibly accept the assumptions as correct. If you are asking whether, on a different hand and different bidding sequence, pd's UI suggests a non-trump lead, are you obliged to lead a trump, I think we need to see the hand. -- 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 Feb 4 06:10:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8hK25302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13J8Nt25228 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14P82h-000Ay0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:08:20 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 00:55:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <3.0.6.32.20010201162753.0084c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010201162753.0084c100@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 11:35 1/02/01 -0000, mike amos wrote: >>A simple situation >> >>Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick >>3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs >> >>all 4 players quit their cards >> >>Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" >> >>"Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained >>TD at the table :) ) >> >>"We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've >>revoked" >> >>How should the TD proceed in this situation? > >AG : the TD asks who played the first card to that trick, and inspects the >cards played taking all possible steps so that the players don't see the >cards again. If RHO didn't revoke, that's that. If he did, his card is to >be put face up on the table and treated as MPC. No problem, really. That leaves a trick with three cards played to it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 06:10:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J7hX25008 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:07:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13J7at24970 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:07:37 +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 14P81v-000Ay0-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:07:33 +0000 Message-ID: <+O+eSQAcFwe6EwGi@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:50:04 +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> <0ke8Y8AQEad6Ewck@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <00f201c08d32$3e364880$5d053dd4@default> In-Reply-To: <00f201c08d32$3e364880$5d053dd4@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 >I always use my Lawbook and it is about 20 years ago that it was the only >time I did not. I was summoned to the table of Rixi Markus and Jeremy Flint. >When I knew the deviation I started reading my Lawbook loudly. Rixi smiled >and said: "He knows the rules." > >Back to the case (claim?) > >If there is an OLOOT I always start with 2 questions: >To the defender: Who adviced you to face your lead? >In case he answers that it is his own initiative or partner's initiative >then I turn myself to declarer. >To declarer: Have you already seen one of dummy"s cards? If the answer is no >I continue with the options. Good idea. Very sensible. -- 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 Feb 4 06:10:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13J8AX25157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:08:10 +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-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 f13J7ut25089 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:07:57 +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 14P82B-000NGU-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 19:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 19:01:36 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump 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 >Hi all, > >I usually have no problem applying Law 70C (Contested claim >when there is an outstanding trump). Do opponents can >win a trick by any "normal play" (as define in the foot note)? > >Called to a table yesterday, I had to rule on such a claim by >a declarer who can loose a trick by a "normal play" after >simply facing his last 4 cards and saying "I have the rest". >The only problem I had is that declarer said (when asked >by me) and was ready to swear on the Bible that he was >totally aware of the outstanding trump (he is a good player). > >After opening my lawbook (yes I do that sometimes...) I read >carefully law 70C2: "it is all likely that the claimer was >unaware that a trump remained in an opponent's hand". > >Not so easy : do I trust this declarer an allow the normal >result on this board or do I rule against the claimer and >give an extra trick to defenders? > >I finally choose the first option because declarer seems >so sure but do not fell very confortable with my decision. >I told declarer he should always mention an outstanding >trump when claiming and said to the opponents they >may contest my interpretation of facts. As they got the >normal score they dont. > >Would you please tell me what is your approach in such >a case. I find that if declarer is totally convincing that he knows about the outstanding trump then the defence are usually also convinced, so I take their reaction into account. -- 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 Feb 4 06:16:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13JEkL27131 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:14:46 +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 (f94.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13JEft27127 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 06:14:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 11:14:34 -0800 Received: from 172.138.120.78 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sat, 03 Feb 2001 19:14:33 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.120.78] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:14:33 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Feb 2001 19:14:34.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[8AD75880:01C08E15] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Alan wrote: > > AG : we are stuck once again with the famous 'a game is totally >defined by > > its set of rules'. > >"Stuck"? Is there some other way in which a game is defined? Yes. Like language, a game could be defined by the people that play it and the way they play it in their environment. This appears to be the current state of bridge. >More to the >point, is there some other way in which a game is defined so that it can >be consistently and fairly administered? No, but like the child no one wants to play with on the playground, you're not going to make many friends being a strict disciplinarian, grammar marm, or rules dick. The game is (and possibly rightly so) administered in a far more relaxed fashion at the lower levels, which is far more social. -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 Sun Feb 4 08:57:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13LuCY08782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (mta03-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.43]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13Lu6t08750 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:56:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.10.181]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010203215602.PIDN10171.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:56:02 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c08e2c$785c6440$b50aff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003d01c08c81$950e8340$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:58:40 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? > Anne Jones writes > >From: "mike amos" > > > Why should the card led be faced? > To enable the possible revoker to decide for himself, without allowing him the benefit of the sight of any other cards. I am not unhappy that the TD could, and maybe should, look and decide for himself. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 09:20:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13MKh117507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:20:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f13MKat17469 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:20:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp195-206.worldonline.nl [195.241.195.206]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CD5236B3C for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:20:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <002201c08e2f$d718aea0$cec3f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Too many spades ... Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 23:22:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional pairs event today. North: 2S (weak) East: pass South: 4S West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, East and mine have red ones ..." What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? Same question, but you now have the information that South is visually impaired (he is known to see about 15% of what other people would see). Does this influence your ruling ? 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 Sun Feb 4 09:30:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f13MULA20907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:30:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f13MUEt20870 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:30:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugn5.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.66.229]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA00495 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:30:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002801c08e4a$02dc73e0$b049fea9@hirschd> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002501c08dd2$3ca70040$191e073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 17:30:08 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 3:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama > > FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, you are not empowered to instruct us to fire for the > last time. To do so would be tantamount to terminating our contracts as > a firing squad, and only our Chief Firing Squad Director can do that. > Moreover, it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that, if we were > indeed to fire for the last time at this poor wretch, we might miss. He > would then have to wait for another firing squad to be convened before > sentence could be carried out." > > MEN IN WHITE COATS enter and bear Craig to a lunatic asylum. UNDERTAKERS > enter and remove the body of the condemned man, who has died of boredom. > > David Burn > London, England > Coda: The FIRING SQUAD immediately appeals the finding that the condemned man is dead, on the basis that since they did not fire their weapons, he cannot have died. An APPEALS COMMITTEE of expert marksmen debate the issue, and conclude that the argument has merit. They rule that the condemned man is indeed alive, despite the absence of a heart beat and respiration. The UNDERTAKERS depart, having no business with the living, and the condemned man is returned to his cell, where he remains to this day despite an unusual lack of mobility. The Chief Firing Squad Director reports this sequence of events to a mailing list on the internet, where over 500 posts are generated concerning the definition of "death", the manner in which a death certificate should be issued, and whether or not the AC exceeded its authority in revoking the certificate in question. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 16:26:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f145PQ213084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:25:26 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f145PLt13080 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:25:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:26:16 -0800 Message-ID: <001901c08e6a$d1604a00$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003d01c08c81$950e8340$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:22:09 -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: "David Stevenson" > > Why should the card led be faced? Because the possible revoker didn't notice the rank of the card,and wanted to know what it was. :) 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 Feb 4 16:45:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f145jUT13101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:45:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f145jPt13097 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:45:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:46:21 -0800 Message-ID: <002d01c08e6d$9f9e3920$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3+tcuUATNwe6EwEZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:35:31 -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" > Now which do you want to do? Follow the Law as written, and finish > with a flat board? Or refuse to follow the Law as written because of > the protect-the-field thing [which I cannot find in my Law book] and > give someone a bottom and someone a top, affecting every other table? > That is how some of us feel about the L12C3 goal of achieving "equity" for the non-offenders, lest they get a windfall if L12C2 is applied. That too smacks of "protect the field," besides requiring supernatural powers to divine the weight to be assigned to each possible result. If "equity" is to be a consideration for one Law, it should be applicable throughout the Laws, including the revoke Law. Either erase L12C3 or apply its principle to all infractions: revokes, LOOTs, whatever. The Laws should have a consistent philosophy. 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 Feb 4 17:05:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1465Z113122 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:05:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1465Tt13117 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:05:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:06:25 -0800 Message-ID: <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:57:32 -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: "David Stevenson" > Now I am pleased that Mike has come up with an exception for me. In > this case the TD should look at the player's hand. Why? Because none > of my worries apply. > > The TD will find out for himself without exposing a card whether the > card led is of the same suit as the possible revoker's card. He now > looks at possible revoker's hand to see whether it is a revoke. Suppose > a heart was led, and possible revoker has played a diamond. He looks at > the player's hand: all he is looking is to see whether there is one or > more hearts in it. So no judgement is involved. > > Aha, you say, but he will be giving information away as to whether > this player has a heart. True, but it is information to which the table > is entitled: they are all allowed to know whether the card constituted a > revoke. So, if there is a heart in the hand the TD says "There is an > unestablished revoke: you are required to correct the revoke card to one > of the suit led." > > Of course now revoker asks to see the trick so he knows what to play! > > Is he allowed to? > No. So he fails to follow suit again, guessing wrong. TD: "Keep trying!" I still find the procedure rather questionable, and wish David had not considered this an exception to his general rule that a TD should not look at hands. After all, the TD isn't "aware" (L81C6) that an irregularity has occurred, and I don't think it's appropriate to go poking into quitted tricks and players' hands in search of one during the play. Even though L66C permits the TD to do so in order to "verify a claim of revoke," it doesn't say it's mandatory to do this at the time of the claim. In a case like this, I think the TD should just say "Play on!" Marv San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 17:25:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f146Pfc13144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:25:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f146PXt13140 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:25:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:26:29 -0800 Message-ID: <005701c08e73$3afcc080$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 22:19:28 -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: "David Stevenson" > Marvin L. French writes > > >There can hardly be "substantial reason to believe" until one has been > >able to see the opponent's complete hand. I thought that was the reason > >for the footnote, to clarify what can constitute sufficient evidence for > >reaching such a conclusion. > > > >In my mind the implication that someone may have made illegal use of UI, > >without seeing evidence that this is so, ought to be a Zero Tolerance > >offense. Most people find the calling of the TD on mere suspicion to be > >rather offensive. Count me as one of them. > > It can hardly be offensive, or at least you should not take it that > way, if that is the method suggested by your SO. Many SOs consider that > it is reasonable to call the TD, or reserve rights where that is > allowed, once there has been a call that could be suggested by the UI. "Reserving rights," equivalent to getting agreement as to UI (since the TD must be called if no agreement is reached), must be done at the time UI seems to have been created, not when a later call seems suspicious. L16A2 clearly (I thought) says that the appropriate time to call the TD is as suggested in its footnote. > Put it another way, if the bidding goes 1S P 4S ..X P 5H to call > the TD is merely establishing the facts in a position where UI could > very well have been used. I can see no reason why this should be > considered offensive. It seems an unnecessary denigration of the game > to assume offence where none is intended, and there seems no reason to > presume it in this case. It seems an unnecessary denigration of the game to call the TD when there is no evidence of an infraction, in disregard of L16A2. Why do you suppose that footnote was added, if not to make this clear? What on earth can the TD do at an earlier time, other than stand around and wait to see the results? As to the ACBL option for L16A1, it has has gone beyond what is permitted SOs by 16A1, whioh is only that an SO may prohibit the "reserving the rights" announcement. There is no authority granted for negating L16A2 and its footnote. Grattan, Ton, where are you when I need you? 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 Feb 4 20:08:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14984O16099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:08:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tungsten.btinternet.com (tungsten.btinternet.com [194.73.73.81]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1497vt16057 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:07:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.234.227] (helo=pbncomputer) by tungsten.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14PL9E-00073g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 04 Feb 2001 09:07:52 +0000 Message-ID: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:07:44 -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 You are East: North 32 32 KQJ10643 32 East A854 Q976 2 109765 West North East South 2NT Pass 3NT Pass Pass Pass West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best from suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. Plan the defence. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 20:58:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f149wGp16211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f149w8t16206 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-87.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.87]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f149w2g06717 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:58:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7BE30A.AEA280A9@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:52:58 +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] Alert or Not References: <3.0.6.32.20010202174210.00831850@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 11:55 2/02/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: > >> > >> Actually, I prefer a Burnian approach : forgetting an alert > >> = immediate bottom on the deal. > >> > > > > > >Or minus 24 imps, which is from the same school as giving an adjusted score > >of 7Sxx - 7 (varying the suit to be caught in) > > > >ton > > AG : I'll give my exegesis of what Ton meant. > Alain, I was joking !! -- 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 Feb 4 20:58:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f149wCS16207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f149w4t16201 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:58:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-87.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.87]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f149vvg06710 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:58:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7BE215.77A25C69@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 11:48:53 +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> <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > > > >I 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". > > L75A. > > Note the word 'must'. > That one is easy to counter. I happen to believe that the emphasis in L75A is on "ALL" not on "MUST". But the discussion is moot anyway. We will not convince one another. After all, we agree (do we ?) on one thing : there are two laws at work here, and they tell a player to do exactly the opposite. We do agree on that one ? OK, then without going into the detail of which law is the strongest, what do we rule against a player who has chosen to break one law instead of another ? Of course we rule on the broken law, but do we really need to add anything, when player has a great excuse "I was merely following another law". Would you really, David, in a case such as this, give an additional PP to a player who said "I did not alert because I did not want to wake up partner" ? That is one of the fundamental issues here. Once you can acquiesce to that, you will see that the DwS is not going against the Lawbook. -- 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 Feb 4 21:17:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14AGvc16238 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:16:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14AGpt16234 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:16:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d276.iae.nl [212.61.5.22]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C21C20F5F for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 11:16:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <000101c08e93$7aed90a0$16053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Re:[BMLM] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:32:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Last night I dreamt I was playing in Cap Gemini. You can understand I was very nervous. On table1 I revoked but the nice opps waved it away and adviced me to concentrade myself. On table 2 I lost my concentration again and the opps showed to be nice as well. The diamonds in dummy were J, 9 and 7, whereas my holding was Q, 10 and 8. When declarer played the jack from dummy, I played the 10 and I immediately realized my mistake. I told the opps that I lost my concentration, excused myself and asked them to allow me the withdraw of the card. What do you think they answered me? Ben -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 4 21:33:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14AWmg16251 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:32:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14AWgt16247 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:32:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.44.129] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14PMTE-0001ZD-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 04 Feb 2001 10:32:39 +0000 Message-ID: <000e01c08e95$ca7c7800$812c073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:32:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sorry - version with removed 14th card from East hand. Too early in the morning. > You are East: > > North > 32 > 32 > KQJ10643 > 32 > East > A85 > Q976 > 2 > 109765 > > West North East South > 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best from > suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with > the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. > Plan the defence. > > 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 Feb 5 00:13:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14DCUo29099 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14DCEt29025 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-50.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.50]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA15467; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:11:45 GMT Message-ID: <004901c08eac$5dc84920$3240063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Hirsch Davis" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002501c08dd2$3ca70040$191e073e@pbncomputer> <002801c08e4a$02dc73e0$b049fea9@hirschd> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:44:09 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 1:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama > > Coda: > > The FIRING SQUAD immediately appeals the finding > that the condemned man is dead, on the basis that since > they did not fire their weapons, he cannot have died. An > APPEALS COMMITTEE of expert marksmen debate the > issue, and concludes that the argument has merit. They > rule that the condemned man is indeed alive, despite the > absence of a heart beat and respiration. The UNDERTAKERS > depart, having no business with the living, and the condemned > man is returned to his cell, where he remains to this day > despite an unusual lack of mobility. > > The Chief Firing Squad Director reports this sequence of > events to a mailing list on the internet, where over 500 posts > are generated concerning the definition of "death", the > manner in which a death certificate should be issued, and > whether or not the AC exceeded its authority in revoking the > certificate in question. > +=+ In the course of which one greybeard observes that the AC and list subscribers have overlooked a simple question of fact. The report of the case records that the condemned man did not die from a bullet but from boredom. ~ 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 Feb 5 00:13:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14DCUa29100 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14DCEt29029 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-50.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.50]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA15442 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:11:43 GMT Message-ID: <004801c08eac$5c3e9be0$3240063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <005701c08e73$3afcc080$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:20:32 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 6:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way ---------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > Grattan, Ton, where are you when I need you? > +=+ I am somewhat bemused by the debate. It seems to me that you and DWS are discussing different things. It is quite clear, is it not, that 16A1 refers to making UI available; 16A2 refers to using UI? 16A1 offers, in the discretion of the regulating authority, the possibility of reserving rights - establishing that a hesitation etc. has occurred that conveys some extraneous info. If there is no agreement this is the case, the Director is called at once. If the regulating authority exercises its option not to allow the procedure in 16A1, the law is read as if this clause were not present. When a player wishes to suggest that a player has *used* UI 16A2 applies. Under 16A2 the Director is called at the end of the play unless the evidence is in dummy, in which case the Director is called when dummy is exposed. The footnote to 16A2 was inserted in order to clarify that it is only in respect of use of UI by dummy that the Director is called before the end of the play; the Director is not to be called until the evidence is in the light (the evidence, that is, as distinct from the suspicion, which may be unjustified. It is not in the interests of the game that allegations should be made without knowing the hand.) ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 00:13:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14DCUb29105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14DCGt29037 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:12:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-50.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.50]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA15506; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 13:11:47 GMT Message-ID: <004a01c08eac$5f3064a0$3240063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> <3A7BE215.77A25C69@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:54:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Herman De Wael To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not > David Stevenson 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". > > > > L75A. > > +=+ What are we going on about here? Law 75A has nothing to do with UI. 75A is concerned with matters of agreement between partners. 73B1 establishes that a player may not make UI available to partner with the intention of doing so. It is not illegal to make UI available otherwise; it is illegal to use it. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 00:19:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14DJ3j01416 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:19:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.email.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14DIvt01387 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:18:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin9.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G88IJ501.O0O for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:23:29 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-194.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.194]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Volcanic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1227360); 04 Feb 2001 23:18:27 Message-ID: <00bb01c08eac$7dd05be0$c2d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re:[BMLM] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:15:05 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ben Schelen wrote: >Last night I dreamt I was playing in Cap Gemini. >You can understand I was very nervous. No need to be nervous. They're a friendly mob. >On table1 I revoked but the nice opps waved it away >and advised me to concentrate myself. Unlikely that they'd give gratuitous advice in reality. >On table 2 I lost my concentration again and the opps >showed to be nice as well. The diamonds in dummy were >J, 9 and 7, whereas my holding was Q, 10 and 8. >When declarer played the jack from dummy, I played the >10 and I immediately realized my mistake. I told the opps >that I lost my concentration, excused myself and asked them >to allow me the withdraw of the card. >What do you think they answered me? It's your dream, so only you know. I guess they allowed the change but that D10 had been the only card to defeat the contract. D10 was not a mistake. At this level, it is a clever falsecard that will convince declarer that your partner has DQ. Were you at Table 1 because you were seeded #1? Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 00:22:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14DMfD02655 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:22:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin7.email.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.95]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14DMat02636 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:22:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin7.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G88IP700.UZ1 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:27:07 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-004-p-214-194.tmns.net.au ([203.54.214.194]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Classic-MailRouter V2.9c 1/1228040); 04 Feb 2001 23:22:06 Message-ID: <00c001c08eac$ffe09000$c2d636cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 00:18:43 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >> You are East: >> >> North >> 32 >> 32 >> KQJ10643 >> 32 >> East >> A85 >> Q976 >> 2 >> 109765 >> >> West North East South >> 2NT >> Pass 3NT Pass Pass >> Pass >> >> West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and >> fifth best from suits headed by an honour). You play the >> queen, and declarer wins with the king. He leads the >> eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. >> Plan the defence. I play D2 in tempo and await partner's play. A slow D2 or a deliberate revoke are not in my repertoire. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 05:00:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14Hx5i03445 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 04:59:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14Hwxt03441 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 04:59:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:55:40 -0800 Message-ID: <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:49:00 -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 From: "David Burn" > You are East: > > North > 32 > 32 > KQJ10643 > 32 > East > A854 > Q976 > 2 > 109765 > > West North East South > 2NT > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > Pass > > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best from > suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with > the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. > Plan the defence. > "Inadvertently" drop the D2 and C5 on the table simultaneously? Not the S8, too much UI. Play the D2 in tempo from the far left of my hand with a sweeping motion? (Obvious singleton, not suit preference). I give 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 Mon Feb 5 05:29:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14ITBu13628 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:29:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14IT5t13596 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 05:29:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:25:46 -0800 Message-ID: <003701c08ed8$4eecdd40$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: , References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <005701c08e73$3afcc080$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004801c08eac$5c3e9be0$3240063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 10:19:42 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > Marvin L. French wrote: > > ---------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > > > Grattan, Ton, where are you when I need you? > > > +=+ I am somewhat bemused by the debate. It > seems to me that you and DWS are discussing > different things. It is quite clear, is it not, that > 16A1 refers to making UI available; 16A2 refers > to using UI? Yes. I thought that both have been under discussion. I have been pounding on both for so long that I forget who said what. > 16A1 offers, in the discretion of the > regulating authority, the possibility of reserving > rights - establishing that a hesitation etc. has > occurred that conveys some extraneous info. If > there is no agreement this is the case, the > Director is called at once. If the regulating > authority exercises its option not to allow the > procedure in 16A1, the law is read as if this > clause were not present. Exactly. But the ACBL went way beyond this option, choosing to ignore the no-option L16A2 in its "ELECTION" regarding L16A1. > When a player wishes to suggest that a > player has *used* UI 16A2 applies. Under 16A2 > the Director is called at the end of the play > unless the evidence is in dummy, in which case > the Director is called when dummy is exposed. > The footnote to 16A2 was inserted in order to > clarify that it is only in respect of use of UI > by dummy that the Director is called before > the end of the play; the Director is not to be > called until the evidence is in the light (the > evidence, that is, as distinct from the > suspicion, which may be unjustified. It is not > in the interests of the game that allegations > should be made without knowing the hand.) > Exactly. I still don't see why dummy's apparent infraction can't wait until play is over if attention has not been drawn to it. What's the hurry? If no damage results, the opponents may choose to save everyone's time by ignoring the matter. Thank you, Grattan. Marv Marvin L. French San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 08:02:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14L0wi13658 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:00:58 +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-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 f14L0mt13596 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:00:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PWH5-000Gou-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:00:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:59:35 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> In-Reply-To: <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos>, mike amos writes >A simple situation > >Declarer plays K Clubs to a trick >3 more cards are played to the trick - all non-clubs > >all 4 players quit their cards > >Declarer's RHO now asks "Can I see that one again?" > >"Nope" everyone agrees, you've quitted your card (There was a well trained >TD at the table :) ) > >"We'd better call the TD then. I'm not sure but it's possible that I've >revoked" > >How should the TD proceed in this situation? > >Mike > Until a side plays to the next trick he can examine (but not expose) the last card he played. Law 66A. More training for the TD :)) > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 5 08:04:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14L4F214817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:04:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14L47t14773 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:04:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PWKK-000GuN-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:04:04 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:02:28 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , David Stevenson writes >Marvin L. French writes >>From: "Ed Reppert" >>> >>> >With a possible revoke not yet established, I doubt that a TD should >>> >exercise this right even if allowed to do so. >>> >>> Law 62A requires a player to correct his revoke if he becomes aware >>> of it before it has become established. The player in question is >>> aware that he *may* have revoked - he needs only to know what suit >>> was led to the quitted (but still current) trick in order to be sure. >>> If I were in that situation, and a TD told me I'm not going to be >>> allowed to know what suit was led, I'm not going to be happy. >>> Granted, sometimes that's just too bad, but I don't think this should >>> be one of those times. >>> >>I think there is a general principle that a TD should avoid exposing >>quitted tricks, or looking at a player's hand. See the footnote to L67B2, >>for instance. >> >>Let's see. >> >>We can't have everyone turning over their cards, obviously. This could be >>a ruse to see a missed card. The TD would have to look at the card led, >>without exposing it. If the doubtful one's card matches, no revoke, >>nothing happens. >> >>If the TD sees that the doubtful one's card is of a different suit than >>the one led, s/he has to look at the hand to see if there is a possible >>revoke. If it is, the s/he has to tell the player which suit was led. >> >>I doubt that this is correct procedure, but stand ready to be corrected. > > I have said many times that a TD should not look at a player's hand >during the play of the hand. There are two reasons for this: TDs should >*never* make judgement rulings quickly, and TDs can easily give >information about the hand away to the whole table. > > Now I am pleased that Mike has come up with an exception for me. In >this case the TD should look at the player's hand. Why? Because none >of my worries apply. > > The TD will find out for himself without exposing a card whether the >card led is of the same suit as the possible revoker's card. He now >looks at possible revoker's hand to see whether it is a revoke. Suppose >a heart was led, and possible revoker has played a diamond. He looks at >the player's hand: all he is looking is to see whether there is one or >more hearts in it. So no judgement is involved. > > Aha, you say, but he will be giving information away as to whether >this player has a heart. True, but it is information to which the table >is entitled: they are all allowed to know whether the card constituted a >revoke. So, if there is a heart in the hand the TD says "There is an >unestablished revoke: you are required to correct the revoke card to one >of the suit led." > > Of course now revoker asks to see the trick so he knows what to play! > > Is he allowed to? > I believe so because once the card is withdrawn the trick is no longer complete, and thus the cards should be faced. 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 Mon Feb 5 08:15:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14LF1u18635 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14LEtt18604 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PWUh-000O7m-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:14:47 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:13:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner References: <00b901c08c88$ff623140$5713f7a5@james> <200102012110.f11LA2006132@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> In-Reply-To: <200102012110.f11LA2006132@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200102012110.f11LA2006132@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca>, Ron Johnson writes >Craig Senior writes: >> >> What do they play? Surely not bridge. >> >> Craig >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Ed Reppert" >> >> I know several players around here >> > who wouldn't know a Lightner double from their left elbow. :-) > >That's an unfortunate attitude Craig. Lead directing doubles >are common knowledge to be sure. But if you don't read much >about the game and never play in set partnerships when will >you pick up the knowledge. > >It's not something that comes up often after all. How many >Lightner doubles have come up at your table in your bridge >playing career? I've read about them, but I don't think I've >ever had one. > I made a psychic Lightner against Kitty (then Bethe) in a UK National many years ago. She pulled to the non-making slam. A high-spot in my rather wild bridge style. -- 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 Feb 5 08:24:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14LOkS22011 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:24:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14LOdt21964 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:24:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f14LFTm23175; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:15:40 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 16:15:51 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >In a case like this, I think the TD should just say "Play on!" In effect, isn't this the same as the TD saying to the player who may have revoked "your revoke, if you revoked, is not yet established, and under the laws you would be allowed to correct it, but I'm not going to let you do that - I'm going to require that the revoke, if it happened, become established, and then you may not correct it, but must suffer the penalty for an established revoke"? Seems a bit unfair, to me. Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOn3HVb2UW3au93vOEQJIgQCfaENLe7gB0tqHOCPRfcKFW4+hnkUAoMAC dMwrflGuDn/0v5BISycP3cW6 =YlAR -----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 Feb 5 08:33:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14LXFB24986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:33:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14LX0t24906 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:33:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=probst.demon.co.uk) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14PWmC-000C7O-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:32:52 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:31:44 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <200102021614.LAA08381@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102021614.LAA08381@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200102021614.LAA08381@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Linda Trent" >> (sorry if it is a mess.. did it in a hurry... leaving for 3 weeks in New >> Zealand in an hour! > >Thanks, Linda. I hope you have a good trip. > >> >While I wish... > >I take it the unattributed commentary is Rich Colker or maybe Linda. >Can anyone confirm? (It sure reads like something Rich would write.) > >> >Stevenson: ... But I have absolutely no sympathy for declarer >> >whatever. If she really remembered, then failing to mention the trump was >> >criminally careless and she fully deserved the result. > >I think this is exactly right. If we can't draw a bright line in >"approved jurisprudence" saying that claimer has to mention outstanding >trumps, where can we draw it? My only complaint is that the AC >shouldn't have bothered investigating declarer's ability. The ruling >should be the same for Mrs. Guggenheim and for Gunnar Hallberg. I am >quite happy to grant his "double squeeze" claim, but if he were ever to >be so careless as to claim at duplicate with no "drawing trump" or >similar statement, I would have no sympathy. There are lots of claims in rubber bridge, with less of a statement than is required at duplicate. They are generally conceded without argument. In other words there are some rubber bridge claims conceded (and as a host I would allow it) which would fail in a Tournament. > (I don't know Mr. >Hallberg, to my regret, nor do I know how he would claim in his usual >rubber game. It may well be that rubber and duplicate practices >differ. I'm using him only as a convenient example of a recognized >expert who had a claim adjudicated in the recent past: >http://home.worldcom.ch/~fsb/maastrict.htm , appeal 16. Substitute >Wolff or Zia or any other expert's name if you like.) > -- 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 Feb 5 09:52:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14Mple22716 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:51:47 +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 f14Mpdt22676 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:51:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f14Mm9b28628 for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:48:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: ereppert@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 17:51:23 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] multiple irregularities Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I posted this to rgb, and there was some discussion there, but a new thought has occurred to me, which might be of interest here (although I daresay some, at least, may consider it fairly routine. :) Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." South bid 2D (not alerted), West passed, Now North pulled the pass card out of the bidding box, moved it toward the table (a good six inches from the box), hesitated, and said "I think I have to alert that - it's both majors." Then she put the pass card back in the box, and started rooting around amongst the suit cards. West said "I don't think you can change your call now," and called the Director. He said "I'm gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if you'd like." She said no, and he allowed the auction to proceed from that point, so North bid 2H, which was passed out, and made three, iirc. Now it seems pretty clear to me that the ruling was wrong, but that's not the reason for this post. As it happened, I think that Director allowed West to change her call under Law 21B, given that West was misinformed by the failure to alert. I think that in the actual situation, since West did not change her call, the TD must now rule on North's desire to change her call under Law 25B. But the question is, what would be the impact if West *had* changed her call? Would 25B still apply? Does Law 21B2 now let North completely off the hook? Should (or must) the Director explain the ramifications of all this before West chooses which 21B option she will take? Generally speaking, when multiple irregularities are involved, should (or must) the TD explain all the possibilities up front? 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/AwUBOn3c9r2UW3au93vOEQJONgCg7Em9tymZYRZmV90tlbcqBAKbFQ4AoNAe ++g0yZx4c8e9i+n8wnvZZBiQ =duGj -----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 Feb 5 09:53:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14MrZp23344 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:53:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f14MrTt23318 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:53:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:54:24 -0800 Message-ID: <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 14:49:54 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > Marv wrote: > > >In a case like this, I think the TD should just say "Play on!" > > In effect, isn't this the same as the TD saying to the player who may > have revoked "your revoke, if you revoked, is not yet established, > and under the laws you would be allowed to correct it, but I'm not > going to let you do that - I'm going to require that the revoke, if > it happened, become established, and then you may not correct it, but > must suffer the penalty for an established revoke"? > > Seems a bit unfair, to me. Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the partnership. One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would have no pity. I assume we are talking about players who are not new to the game. 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 Mon Feb 5 10:21:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f14NKWQ02908 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:20:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tele-post-20.mail.demon.net (tele-post-20.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f14NKQt02873 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:20:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14PYSE-000Gda-0K for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:20:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:18:58 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] change of name MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am now my own domain: asimere.com There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out why this name has been chosen. (Hint: you have sufficient information) Hopefully this email will have been sent from asimere.com rather than probst.demon.co.uk (which will continue pro tem) In any event I will have it working very shortly. I apologise in advance for any stray messages that may get out whilst I'm testing. There will be a website at www.asimere.com (at the moment it's just a Linux test page). Now that I've got everything in-house (and a permanent connection) I shall be developing the website substantially. I have significant Gigabytes that can be used, if anyone has serious suggestions. My bandwidth is not huge but would take the hit levels of blml Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 5 12:44:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f151gUE23590 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:42:30 +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 f151gOt23564 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:42:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id MAA29986 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:45:19 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:35:54 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:40:25 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 05/02/2001 12:40:51 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk One wrote: >>Hypothetical question: Assume that all four suits are LAs for >>the opening lead. Further assume that pard's UI does not >>suggest a *particular* suit, but does suggest a *non-trump* >>lead. Given these assumptions, are you therefore obliged >>to lead a trump? David Stevenson begged the question: > I cannot possibly accept the assumptions as correct. > > If you are asking whether, on a different hand and different bidding >sequence, pd's UI suggests a non-trump lead, are you obliged to lead a >trump, I think we need to see the hand. Let us perform two thought experiments, a la Einstein. Experiment One: a) All four suits are prima facie LAs; b) Pard provides UI; c) The UI says that a lead of a trump will fail; d) The UI says that *any* lead of a non-trump will succeed. In Experiment One, it is obvious that a trump is the only remaining legal lead. Experiment Two: a) All four suits are prima facie LAs; b) Pard provides UI; c) The UI says that a lead of a trump will fail; d) The UI says that *only one* lead of a non-trump suit will succeed. e) The UI does not say *which* non-trump suit will succeed. In Experiment Two, no *specific* killing lead is demonstrably suggested by the UI. Therefore, it is arguable whether a trump lead is required, or whether all four suits remain LAs. 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 Feb 5 13:03:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1521n800526 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:01:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1521gt00495 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:01:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.4]) by mta02-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010205020135.TUHQ23225.mta02-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: <005501c08f17$f70084c0$0404ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 02:04:24 -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 It might be meaningful to you, but I think it's 'orrid. Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 11:18 PM Subject: [BLML] change of name > I am now my own domain: asimere.com > > There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out > why this name has been chosen. (Hint: you have sufficient information) > > Hopefully this email will have been sent from asimere.com > rather than probst.demon.co.uk (which will continue pro tem) > > In any event I will have it working very shortly. > > I apologise in advance for any stray messages that may get out whilst > I'm testing. There will be a website at www.asimere.com (at the moment > it's just a Linux test page). Now that I've got everything in-house > (and a permanent connection) I shall be developing the website > substantially. I have significant Gigabytes that can be used, if anyone > has serious suggestions. My bandwidth is not huge but would take the > hit levels of blml > > Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john > -- > John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 > 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou > London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 14:07:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1535EJ23436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe27.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15358t23410 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:05:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:05:01 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.134.109] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:07:41 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 03:05:01.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E0A2D20:01C08F20] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:18 PM Subject: [BLML] change of name | I am now my own domain: asimere.com | | There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out | why this name has been chosen. | John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 I have constructed an anagram for asimere in hopes that it may lead me to the prize: ser·i·e·ma n. Either of two cranelike birds (Cariama cristata or Chunga burmeisteri) of southern South America, having a tuftlike crest at the base of the bill and living mostly on land (Hint: you have sufficient information) Not much here that fulfills the hint. But wait, there is more: ' ...where they feed on snakes, worms, and insects. ' Is that the real you John? regards 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 Mon Feb 5 14:31:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f153SJl01616 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:28:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f153SCt01582 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:28:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f153OZb21594; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:24:35 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 22:25:30 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the partnership. >One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the >other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would have >no pity. No pity, indeed. You would turn permission to ask a question of partner into a requirement that the question be asked. >I assume we are talking about players who are not new to the game. "Not new" is not the same as "familiar with the Laws." Regards, Ed mailto:ereppert@rochester.rr.com pgp public key available at ldap://certserver.pgp.com or http://pgpkeys.mit.edu:11371 pgp fingerprint: 91BE CB97 E4AE D411 6C73 30E7 BD94 5B76 AEF7 7BCE -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOn4dwb2UW3au93vOEQJWpwCgsRL049BZhqGKi8FlpqwYgJnBvcwAn39p Zd1Vp6QH7NxgQCpqjsb7sQZK =py2b -----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 Feb 5 14:38:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f153ae304598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:36:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe37.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.94]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f153aTt04542 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:36:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 19:36:21 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.134.105] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 21:39:36 -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: 05 Feb 2001 03:36:21.0763 (UTC) FILETIME=[CECED530:01C08F24] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? | Ed Reppert wrote: | | > Marv wrote: | | > | > >In a case like this, I think the TD should just say "Play on!" | > | > In effect, isn't this the same as the TD saying to the player who may | > have revoked "your revoke, if you revoked, is not yet established, | > and under the laws you would be allowed to correct it, but I'm not | > going to let you do that - I'm going to require that the revoke, if | > it happened, become established, and then you may not correct it, but | > must suffer the penalty for an established revoke"? | > | > Seems a bit unfair, to me. | | Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the partnership. | One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the | other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would have | no pity. | | I assume we are talking about players who are not new to the game. | | Marv It has occurred to me that L66 gives the director cause to inspect quitted cards when a player suspects he has revoked. It seems here is an issue where a player could draw attention to the card he has played or could have his memory refreshed as to what card or cards were contributed to the trick. Anyway, there exists elsewhere a bit to create confusion: L40 has something to say about aids to memory, as they are not permitted. Well, it seems to me there are at least two compelling reasons to quit cards. [1] it is a practical thing to do, it makes for good organization. Also [2] it is a mechanism to put away as finished what we are done with. If the outcome of the hand is to be based upon what players do during the hand, and if they quit their cards saying they are done with the trick it makes good sense that they are done. So a player quits his card and later thinks he may have revoked, yes he is permitted to review his card without revealing it to other players and he is not permitted to refresh his memory- but he is permitted to correct his play without refreshing his memory. Of course there is danger if he has to guess the suit led, but remember, he has quitted his card. What justification is there for such an approach? It makes mute the questions raised above if quitted cards are exposed for all to see. 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 Mon Feb 5 18:16:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f157Elp23962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:14:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f157Egt23958 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:14:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:11:22 -0800 Message-ID: <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 23:04:33 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > Marv wrote: > > >Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the partnership. > >One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the > >other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would have > >no pity. > > No pity, indeed. You would turn permission to ask a question of > partner into a requirement that the question be asked. *Non sequitur* If the option isn't exercised, that's fine, but don't expect a lot of pity if failing to exercise it results in partner's established revoke. > > >I assume we are talking about players who are not new to the game. > > "Not new" is not the same as "familiar with the Laws." > "Not new to the game" = "not novices," that's all. I would show some pity to novices. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 5 19:55:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f158tPm09986 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:55:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f158tHt09949 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:55:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-5-199.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.5.199]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f158tBS16609 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:55:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A7D2D78.EE0BC3FF@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 11:22:48 +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] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <000701c0893f$9136b340$d7bb7ad5@pbncomputer> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3+tcuUATNwe6EwEZ@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: > > > If you do worry about "protecting the field". let me make up a story. > > Board one turns out to be a very simple affair. 26 HCP, no long suits, > no two-way finesses, ten tricks completely routine. > > But at one table West revokes. South calls the TD and says "I want to > waive the penalty" and gives an adequate reason. > > Now which do you want to do? Follow the Law as written, and finish > with a flat board? Or refuse to follow the Law as written because of > the protect-the-field thing [which I cannot find in my Law book] and > give someone a bottom and someone a top, affecting every other table? > I cannot really see which side David is on this issue, but I'l give my answer. By making this change, you are effectively distributing all revokers points (half the available matchpoints) to every other (let's say) east-west, one point each. Consider that a reward for not having revoked. On the other side you are taking one point from every north-south, and give them to this one north-south. Call that a reward for causing just enough problems for opponent to make him revoke. I don't mind giving someone a point because he was lucky enough for a pair to misdefend against him, why should I then worry for them revoking. Next time they'll do it against me, and I'll happily take my top then. It should all even out in the end. Absolutely no reason to "protect the field". -- 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 Feb 5 21:13:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15AChs07663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:12:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15ACZt07621 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 21:12:36 +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 LAA09026; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:09:49 +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 LAA12011; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:12:19 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205111414.0084dbc0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:14:14 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama In-Reply-To: <002501c08dd2$3ca70040$191e073e@pbncomputer> References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:12 3/02/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: >CRAIG: "No, no, fire!" > >FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, your last utterance is capable of the following >interpretations: (a) you wish to emphasise, by use of a repeated >negative, that there is no fire; (b) your first word was the imperative >of the verb "to know" and you merely wish us to be aware that there is >no fire; (c) you wish to negate our previous hypothesis that you were >trying to alert us to a fire, and to instruct us to shoot the condemned >man. Until we are clear as to your intentions, we regret that we are >unable to proceed." AG : to the mathematician, the above utterance unmistakably asks for immediate fire ; a double negation being logically equivalent to a positive utterance. 'I didn't say you shouldn't fire'. Or is it too striaghtforward for the standard TD ? By the way, your text is wonderful. Believe it or not, I intend to use it in my courses ... 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 Feb 5 23:05:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15C4X611706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:04:33 +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 (f93.law7.hotmail.com [216.33.237.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15C4Rt11679 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:04:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 04:04:19 -0800 Received: from 192.160.109.219 by lw7fd.law7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:04:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [192.160.109.219] From: "Norman Scorbie" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:04:19 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 12:04:19.0616 (UTC) FILETIME=[C5062200:01C08F6B] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > You are East: > > > > North > > 32 > > 32 > > KQJ10643 > > 32 > > East > > A85 > > Q976 > > 2 > > 109765 > > > > West North East South > > 2NT > > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > > Pass > > > > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best >from > > suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with > > the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. > > Plan the defence. > > > > David Burn > > London, England There isn't one yet. I'll just follow and see what he leads next. If, before he turns his Ace over he asks to see the trick again and stares intently at my D2, the dust will, I imagine, be well and truly bitten as far as this hand goes.... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 00:05:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15D5H400179 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:05:17 +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 f15D56t00120 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:05:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PlKJ-000HOL-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:05:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:03:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Roger Pewick writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: John (MadDog) Probst >To: >Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:18 PM >Subject: [BLML] change of name > > >| I am now my own domain: asimere.com >| >| There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out >| why this name has been chosen. > >| John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 > >I have constructed an anagram for asimere in hopes that it may lead me to >the prize: > > ser·i·e·ma n. Either of two cranelike birds (Cariama cristata or Chunga >burmeisteri) of southern South America, having a tuftlike crest at the base >of the bill and living mostly on land Nope: but you still have enough information -- 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 Feb 6 00:21:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15DLUX01237 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:21:31 +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 f15DLNt01198 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:21:24 +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 OAA17643; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:18:37 +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 OAA05158; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:21:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205142304.0083a470@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:23:04 +0100 To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re:[BMLM] Cap Gemini shows the way In-Reply-To: <000101c08e93$7aed90a0$16053dd4@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:32 4/02/01 +0100, Ben Schelen wrote: >Last night I dreamt I was playing in Cap Gemini. >You can understand I was very nervous. >On table1 I revoked but the nice opps waved it away and adviced me to >concentrade myself. >On table 2 I lost my concentration again and the opps showed to be nice as >well. The diamonds in dummy were J, 9 and 7, whereas my holding was Q, 10 >and 8. >When declarer played the jack from dummy, I played the 10 and I immediately >realized my mistake. I told the opps that I lost my concentration, excused >myself and asked them to allow me the withdraw of the card. >What do you think they answered me? AG : they didn't allow you, and then you called the TD, and he called all four of you pains in the neck, because these were the last three cards and you still had the tenace over dummy's 97, for the same number of tricks in every case, so why did you call him etc. 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 Feb 6 00:34:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15DY3k05673 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:34:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front003.cluster1.charter.net (outbound.charter.net [24.216.159.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15DXut05629 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:33:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from [209.187.160.23] (HELO bickford1) by front003.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b8) with SMTP id 12961305 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 08:32:07 -0500 Message-ID: <003101c08f78$a8771d80$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:36:34 -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 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Of course its also an anagram of seamier!!!!! Cheers................/Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name > In article , Roger Pewick > writes > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: John (MadDog) Probst > >To: > >Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:18 PM > >Subject: [BLML] change of name > > > > > >| I am now my own domain: asimere.com > >| > >| There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out > >| why this name has been chosen. > > > >| John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 > > > >I have constructed an anagram for asimere in hopes that it may lead me to > >the prize: > > > > ser·i·e·ma n. Either of two cranelike birds (Cariama cristata or Chunga > >burmeisteri) of southern South America, having a tuftlike crest at the base > >of the bill and living mostly on land > > Nope: but you still have enough information > -- > 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 00:37:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15DbSG06810 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:37:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15DbLt06773 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:37:22 +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 OAA00472; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:33:17 +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 OAA17836; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:37:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205143901.00849510@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:39:01 +0100 To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... In-Reply-To: <002201c08e2f$d718aea0$cec3f1c3@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 23:22 3/02/01 +0100, Jac Fuchs wrote: >The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional >pairs event today. > >North: 2S (weak) >East: pass >South: 4S >West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, >East and mine have red ones ..." >What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, >which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at >this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East >and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. >L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the >correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the >bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding >the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. >But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply >that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an >adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and >play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? AG : the players are not allowed to relpace the TD in ruling, not even for the application of L12A2. Tell them firmly they have to play, and that there could be UI. Well, in a sense, the OS are lucky ; there are so many hands that wish to bid 2S-4S that the UI could be limited. If one pair (or both) refuse to play, give one pair (or both) 0 on the board. >Same question, but you now have the information that South is visually >impaired (he is known to see about 15% of what other people would >see). Does this influence your ruling ? AG : you could deem the board unplayable and award 50/60. This is probably milder to the NOS than having them play the board under UI constraints. Of course, if you didn't know about South's poor eyesight, the players could draw your attention to it, and you may then decide that the board will not be played. But they may do nothing more than suggest. It remembers me of a recent case. South alerted a bit late, West emphatically steted he didn't like it, North supported his elderly partner too vigorously, and now West had very rude words and left the table, refusing to play the board. The director, seeing that the board couldn't be played, ruled 50/50 because N/S weren't totally blameless. *East* lodged an appeal. The score was changed to 50 NS, 0 EW, which it should have been from the start, we felt (yes, I sat in the AC). Since then, West didn't speak to me again. I'm a lucky man. 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 Feb 6 00:54:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15DsPc12643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:54:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15DsIt12606 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:54:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f15Dlfw26449; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:47:41 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 08:49:46 -0500 To: "Marvin L. French" From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Cc: "Bridge Laws" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:04 PM -0800 2/4/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >*Non sequitur* I disagree. >If the option isn't exercised, that's fine, but don't expect a lot of pity >if failing to exercise it results in partner's established revoke. Partner's revoke hasn't been established yet. Law 66C *specifically* allows examination of quitted tricks at TD discretion "to verify a claim of revoke". Yet here we are, saying that the TD should *not* exercise that discretion. I hope you'll pardon me, but that seems preposterous. >"Not new to the game" = "not novices," that's all. I would show some pity >to novices. When does a player gain the rank of "not novice"? I have one partner with whom I've played for a year or two. She has now, I think, 12 master points. She has no clue, basically, beyond "follow suit" and "bid higher than the last bid", about the laws. Oh, that and "Ed is always going on and on about some silly law, and making my eyes glaze over". :-) 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/AwUBOn6v1b2UW3au93vOEQIGPQCfffxkmOPee0tuOcysSUJ/myNMYEAAn0E2 dIw/Axpuzs4vzVU3H6u5we9X =DqEl -----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 Feb 6 00:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15Dtha13083 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:55:44 +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 f15DtWt13026 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:55:33 +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 OAA03440; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:52:47 +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 OAA02342; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:55:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 14:57:12 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:51 4/02/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >I posted this to rgb, and there was some discussion there, but a new >thought has occurred to me, which might be of interest here (although >I daresay some, at least, may consider it fairly routine. :) > >Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this >was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the >pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." AG : does this have anything to do with the case ? Ah yes, the people who play different defences to weak and strong. But 14-16 isn't weak ... South >bid 2D (not alerted), West passed, Now North pulled the pass card out >of the bidding box, moved it toward the table (a good six inches from >the box), hesitated, and said "I think I have to alert that - it's >both majors." Then she put the pass card back in the box, and started >rooting around amongst the suit cards. West said "I don't think you >can change your call now," and called the Director. He said "I'm >gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if >you'd like." She said no, and he allowed the auction to proceed from >that point, so North bid 2H, which was passed out, and made three, >iirc. >Now it seems pretty clear to me that the ruling was wrong, but that's >not the reason for this post. As it happened, I think that Director >allowed West to change her call under Law 21B, given that West was >misinformed by the failure to alert. I think that in the actual >situation, since West did not change her call, the TD must now rule >on North's desire to change her call under Law 25B. AG : I agree. And if the facts are as stated, North is not allowed to change, because there is evidence that he remembered *after reflection*. But the question >is, what would be the impact if West *had* changed her call? Would >25B still apply? Does Law 21B2 now let North completely off the hook? AG : Not completely. There is UI from North's pass, but it's very tenuous - only that he'd have passed a natural 2D overcall. >Should (or must) the Director explain the ramifications of all this >before West chooses which 21B option she will take? Generally >speaking, when multiple irregularities are involved, should (or must) >the TD explain all the possibilities up front? AG : yes. West did the right thing, but the director should have said "I'm gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if you'd like. If you don't, North will be deemed to have passed over 2D, because he obviously thought before taking his bid back. If you do, auction proceeds normally." 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 Feb 6 01:21:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15ELJH21774 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:21:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15ELDt21743 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:21:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f15EHib12839 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:17:44 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:15:31 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 2:57 PM +0100 2/5/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : does this have anything to do with the case ? Ah yes, the people who >play different defences to weak and strong. But 14-16 isn't weak ... I don't think it has much to do with the case, but I figured if I left it out, and it later came out in discussion that East had made an announceable bid, the discussion would get off on an irrelevant tangent, and I wanted to avoid that. :-) >AG : I agree. And if the facts are as stated, North is not allowed to >change, because there is evidence that he remembered *after reflection*. They are. And that's what I thought. :-) > >But the question > >is, what would be the impact if West *had* changed her call? Would >>25B still apply? Does Law 21B2 now let North completely off the hook? > >AG : Not completely. There is UI from North's pass, but it's very tenuous - >only that he'd have passed a natural 2D overcall. Hm. Remind me not to change my call if I'm ever West in this situation. :-) >AG : yes. West did the right thing, but the director should have said >"I'm gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if >you'd like. If you don't, North will be deemed to have passed over 2D, >because he obviously thought before taking his bid back. If you do, auction >proceeds normally." "North will be deemed to have passed" seems to say that he can't change his call under 25B if West doesn't change *her* call. But he can, can't he? So shouldn't the TD say so? Not trying to pick nits here, just trying to make sure I understand what's supposed to happen. 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/AwUBOn62072UW3au93vOEQLzRgCgw3LeshQdgLJK566ckogJgd8hbs0An0FJ Yfe3HgP6c7iEv+9qZum2P+5L =V5TE -----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 Feb 6 02:57:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15FvEB05910 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:57:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe8.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.112]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15Fv9t05906 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:57:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 07:57:01 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.228.36] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.20010205143901.00849510@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:00:12 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 15:57:01.0804 (UTC) FILETIME=[4722F2C0:01C08F8C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: Jac Fuchs ; BLML Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 7:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... | At 23:22 3/02/01 +0100, Jac Fuchs wrote: | >The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional | >pairs event today. | > | >North: 2S (weak) | >East: pass | >South: 4S | >West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, | >East and mine have red ones ..." | >What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, | >which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at | >this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East | >and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. | >L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the | >correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the | >bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding | >the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. | >But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply | >that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an | >adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and | >play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? Let me see. S took cards from board 6 and bid them. Does this constitute play of board 6, albeit not complete play? A few minutes later S takes cards from board 6 [and bids them for the purpose of playing the hand out] Is this the second time S has played the board and does L15B apply? If so, does not play of board 6 in this instance become a mute point, as in it is pointless to play it at all for this round? I note that L15B does not make reference to a previous score for the board by S. Anyway, to my mind the information from 4S [a remark] is so substantial that it will interfere with normal play so the only viable alternative is L16B3. roger pewick | 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 Feb 6 03:13:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15GDIs05961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:13:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15GDBt05957 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:13:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id w.65.f74e737 (4426); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:12:54 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:12:54 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities -- When is a NT weak? To: agot@ulb.ac.be, ereppert@rochester.rr.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_65.f74e737.27b02b06_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_65.f74e737.27b02b06_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/01 9:35:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes: > >Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this > >was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the > >pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." > > AG : does this have anything to do with the case ? Ah yes, the people who > play different defences to weak and strong. But 14-16 isn't weak ... > > I'm surprised and curious that you are so certain that 14-16 is not weak. Where do YOU draw the line between weak and strong? As a side comment, an established (at least they had a convention card) pair sat down to play with us one day and had no idea whether our 13-16 NT was weak or strong. I usually consider a NT that "cannot be as high as 17" to be weak. Very few NT ranges include both 15 and 16 hcp but there certainly needs to be an agreement as to what is weak and what is strong when playing different defenses. The old saw applies here: A bad agreement is better than no agreement. I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the dividing line between weak and strong NT. I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that 12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include both 15 and 16 to be considered. Walt Flory --part1_65.f74e737.27b02b06_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/5/01 9:35:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be
writes:


>Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this
>was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the
>pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP."

AG : does this have anything to do with the case ? Ah yes, the people who
play different defences to weak and strong. But 14-16 isn't weak ...



I'm surprised and curious that you are so certain that 14-16 is not weak.
Where do YOU draw the line between weak and strong?

As a side comment, an established (at least they had a convention card) pair
sat down to play with us one day and had no idea whether our 13-16 NT was
weak or strong. I usually consider a NT that "cannot be as high as 17" to be
weak. Very few NT ranges include both 15 and 16 hcp but there certainly needs
to be an agreement as to what is weak and what is strong when playing
different defenses.

The old saw applies here: A bad agreement is better than no agreement.

I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the
dividing line between weak and strong NT.

I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that
12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include both
15 and 16 to be considered.

Walt Flory --part1_65.f74e737.27b02b06_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 03:18:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15GIKn05973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:18:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15GIDt05969 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:18:14 +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 RAA15198; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:15:28 +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 RAA26046; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:17:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205171955.0083ad10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:19:55 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@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 09:15 5/02/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >> >is, what would be the impact if West *had* changed her call? Would >>>25B still apply? Does Law 21B2 now let North completely off the hook? >> >>AG : Not completely. There is UI from North's pass, but it's very tenuous - >>only that he'd have passed a natural 2D overcall. > >Hm. Remind me not to change my call if I'm ever West in this situation. :-) AG : Please don't. And L72A4 agrees with me. The price for North will usually be higher if you don't. So this is not the same case as with POOTs. So what ? >>AG : yes. West did the right thing, but the director should have said >>"I'm gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if >>you'd like. If you don't, North will be deemed to have passed over 2D, >>because he obviously thought before taking his bid back. If you do, auction >>proceeds normally." > >"North will be deemed to have passed" seems to say that he can't >change his call under 25B if West doesn't change *her* call. But he >can, can't he? So shouldn't the TD say so? Not trying to pick nits >here, just trying to make sure I understand what's supposed to happen. No, ha can't. He passed, then realized it was not optimal (for any reason, here because he lately remembered his system). He may not change his bid, and is subject to severe penalties if he does (L25B). 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 Feb 6 03:48:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15GmcL15723 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:48:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15GmRt15672 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:48:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f15Gium19554; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:44:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010205171955.0083ad10@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010205145712.008436c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010205171955.0083ad10@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:45:36 -0500 To: alain gottcheiner From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 5:19 PM +0100 2/5/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >No, ha can't. He passed, then realized it was not optimal (for any reason, >here because he lately remembered his system). He may not change his bid, >and is subject to severe penalties if he does (L25B). 25B doesn't say he can't change his call, it just says (as you say above:) "he's subject to severe penalties if he does", *and* his LHO doesn't condone the change. That's his lookout. :-) 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/AwUBOn7ZVb2UW3au93vOEQIJAQCgndxAQDQUODKyrtTXqB8QlBkUe3QAoNm6 188QJDlA+g6i87TSRLSTJRSp =rjjj -----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 Feb 6 03:48:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15GmTg15680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:48:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15GmLt15637 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:48:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f15Gimm19514; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:44:49 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> References: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:41:04 -0500 To: WSFlory@aol.com From: Ed Reppert Subject: [BLML] When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] Cc: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote: >I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the >dividing line between weak and strong NT. I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-) >I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that >12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include both >15 and 16 to be considered. Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as "intermediate". "Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here. Ranges I've seen, or read about, and my take on them: 10-12: mini 11-14: weak 11-15: weak 12-14: weak 13-15: intermediate 14-16: intermediate, though I wouldn't balk at strong 15-17: strong 15-18: strong 16-18: strong 17-20: strong No doubt there are others - both ranges and opinions on what to call 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/AwUBOn7ZT72UW3au93vOEQLxdACfe23V6Xd70slfTR/s6eVjYgL/8wUAoMAR HDkrnRfh7KG3uOuYtV2m9sfe =NSlc -----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 Feb 6 03:59:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15GwjU19143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:58:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-d02.mx.aol.com (imo-d02.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.34]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15Gwct19107 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 03:58:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id x.97.10c9b476 (4426); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:58:27 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: <97.10c9b476.27b035b2@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:58:26 EST Subject: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] To: ereppert@rochester.rr.com, WSFlory@aol.com CC: agot@ulb.ac.be, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_97.10c9b476.27b035b2_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_97.10c9b476.27b035b2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Ed. I'm afraid my mind disconnected for a moment. It is precisely the NT ranges including 14-16 that I usually find to be undefined as weak (I had forgotten that C.C. considered them intermediate). Walt Flory ________ In a message dated 2/5/01 11:48:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes: > > At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote: > >I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the > >dividing line between weak and strong NT. > > I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll > just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-) > > >I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that > >12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include > both > >15 and 16 to be considered. > > Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as > "intermediate". > > "Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here. > > Ranges I've seen, or read about, and my take on them: > > 10-12: mini > 11-14: weak > 11-15: weak > 12-14: weak > 13-15: intermediate > 14-16: intermediate, though I wouldn't balk at strong > 15-17: strong > 15-18: strong > 16-18: strong > 17-20: strong > > No doubt there are others - both ranges and opinions on what to call them. > :-) > > Regards, > > Ed > > --part1_97.10c9b476.27b035b2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks, Ed.

I'm afraid my mind disconnected for a moment.

It is precisely the NT ranges including 14-16 that I usually find to be
undefined as weak (I had forgotten that C.C. considered them intermediate).

Walt Flory
________


In a message dated 2/5/01 11:48:37 AM Eastern Standard Time,
ereppert@rochester.rr.com writes:



At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote:
>I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the
>dividing line between weak and strong NT.

I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll
just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-)

>I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that
>12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include
both
>15 and 16 to be considered.

Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as
"intermediate".

"Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here.

Ranges I've seen, or read about, and my take on them:

10-12: mini
11-14: weak
11-15: weak
12-14: weak
13-15: intermediate
14-16: intermediate, though I wouldn't balk at strong
15-17: strong
15-18: strong
16-18: strong
17-20: strong

No doubt there are others - both ranges and opinions on what to call them.
:-)

Regards,

Ed



--part1_97.10c9b476.27b035b2_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 04:01:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15H1GB19842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:01:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15H19t19838 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:01:10 +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 RAA02632; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:58:24 +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 SAA21397; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 18:00:54 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:02:51 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , WSFlory@aol.com From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:41 5/02/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote: >>I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the >>dividing line between weak and strong NT. > >I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll >just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-) > >>I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that >>12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include both >>15 and 16 to be considered. > >Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as >"intermediate". > >"Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here. AG : the classical rule is as follows : If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening 1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak. Which means that 14-16 is considered strong. 12-15 is most probably weak. The Prescision 13-15 is then borderline ; what is, for Precisioneers, 1D-1H-1NT ? I play it as 5C/4D, in which case 1NT is weak, but if 1D-1M-1NT is 11-12, then 1NT is strong. Which means that the shmoint range is not everything. 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 Feb 6 04:11:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15HBKH19859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:11:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15HBEt19855 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:11:15 +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 MAA11765 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA13637 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:11:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:11:11 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102051711.MAA13637@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au > Experiment One: > a) All four suits are prima facie LAs; > b) Pard provides UI; > c) The UI says that a lead of a trump will fail; > d) The UI says that *any* lead of a non-trump will succeed. > > In Experiment One, it is obvious that a trump is the only > remaining legal lead. Yes. > Experiment Two: > a) All four suits are prima facie LAs; > b) Pard provides UI; > c) The UI says that a lead of a trump will fail; > d) The UI says that *only one* lead of a non-trump suit > will succeed. > e) The UI does not say *which* non-trump suit will > succeed. > > In Experiment Two, no *specific* killing lead is > demonstrably suggested by the UI. Therefore, it is > arguable whether a trump lead is required, or whether > all four suits remain LAs. Sorry, but I don't think there is anything to argue about here. Let's say spades are trumps. Is a heart lead suggested over a spade lead? Yes, of course it is. The UI says a heart has a 1/3 chance of working, while a spade has zero chance of working. Therefore a heart lead is suggested over a spade, and therefore a heart lead is illegal. The same holds for each plain suit. I am astonished that there could be any question about this. L16A requires a pairwise comparison of the action selected against each other LA. It does not require any comparison of a LA not selected with a different LA not selected. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 04:26:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15HQHp19872 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:26:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f184.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.184]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15HQBt19868 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:26:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 09:26:04 -0800 Received: from 172.138.59.158 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 17:26:03 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.138.59.158] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 09:26:03 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 17:26:04.0176 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7703900:01C08F98] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" > >| I am now my own domain: asimere.com > >Nope: but you still have enough information I still don't have it, but just adding to the list of wild guesses... Drawkcab, it's eremasi, a new political party based on the poetry of Keats? -Todd (Keats once wrote about an eremite, for the curious) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 04:32:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15HW1f20184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:32:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blueyonder.co.uk (pcow034o.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.53.122]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15HVst20179 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:31:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from default ([195.188.204.26]) by blueyonder.co.uk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:33:21 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Mandi Turnidge" To: "Bridge-Laws@Rgb. Anu. Edu. Au" Subject: [BLML] asimere Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:40:57 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello John. Hows about "As I,m 'ere"? i.e. because I am in this place. Gimme a medal lnb -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 04:50:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15HoXs20203 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:50:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15HoKt20198 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:50:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PpmK-000LBx-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:50:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:48:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name 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 >>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >> >| I am now my own domain: asimere.com >> >>Nope: but you still have enough information > > I still don't have it, but just adding to the list of wild guesses... >Drawkcab, it's eremasi, a new political party based on the poetry of Keats? nope not backslang. > ok, nothing to do with bridge You *still* have enough information John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 6 04:51:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15HpnZ20216 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:51:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-12.mail.demon.net (finch-post-12.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15Hpdt20212 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:51:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Ppnc-000LNg-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:51:36 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:50:26 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere 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 , Mandi Turnidge writes >Hello John. > asimere.com >Hows about "As I,m 'ere"? Good try. nope nothing to do with bridge You STILL have enough information -- 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 Feb 6 05:41:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15Iek323286 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:40:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15Ieet23282 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:40:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:37:21 -0800 Message-ID: <004701c08fa3$17710d20$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:38:04 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert wrote: > > When does a player gain the rank of "not novice"? I have one partner > with whom I've played for a year or two. She has now, I think, 12 > master points. She has no clue, basically, beyond "follow suit" and > "bid higher than the last bid", about the laws. Oh, that and "Ed is > always going on and on about some silly law, and making my eyes glaze > over". :-) > I don't know how to define "novice," but I know one when I see one. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 05:42:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15Igjh23302 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:42:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15Igdt23298 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:42:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP016.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.24]) by snipe.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA29030 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:42:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 12:43:52 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this >was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the >pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." South >bid 2D (not alerted), West passed, Now North pulled the pass card out >of the bidding box, moved it toward the table (a good six inches from >the box), hesitated, and said "I think I have to alert that - it's >both majors." Then she put the pass card back in the box, and started >rooting around amongst the suit cards. West said "I don't think you >can change your call now," and called the Director. He said "I'm >gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if >you'd like." She said no, and he allowed the auction to proceed from >that point, so North bid 2H, which was passed out, and made three, >iirc. > >Now it seems pretty clear to me that the ruling was wrong ... Under current ACBL regs I don't think it's wrong. the regulation effective this year reads: "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly touching the table or maintained in such a position to indicate that the call has been made." That change is in the Birmingham minutes and in the ACBL Bulletin sometime recently. North has not made a call, so L25B doesn't come under consideration. 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 Feb 6 05:48:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15ImG223315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:48:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f151.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.151]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15ImBt23311 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:48:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:48:04 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 18:48:04 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:48:04 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Feb 2001 18:48:04.0245 (UTC) FILETIME=[2C072C50:01C08FA4] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >[asimere] > > ok, nothing to do with bridge > >You *still* have enough information Will there be a time when we don't have enough information? -Todd _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 05:51:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15Iovs24038 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:50:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f15Iopt24005 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 05:50:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:47:32 -0800 Message-ID: <005901c08fa4$83af82e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 10:46:47 -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: "Ed Reppert" > > At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote: > >I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the > >dividing line between weak and strong NT. > > I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll > just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-) > > >I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that > >12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include both > >15 and 16 to be considered. > > Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as > "intermediate". > > "Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here. > > Ranges I've seen, or read about, and my take on them: > > 10-12: mini > 11-14: weak > 11-15: weak > 12-14: weak > 13-15: intermediate > 14-16: intermediate, though I wouldn't balk at strong > 15-17: strong > 15-18: strong > 16-18: strong > 17-20: strong > > No doubt there are others - both ranges and opinions on what to call them. :-) > One pair with a wide range from weak to strong, I think it was 12-16, advised me not to use a defense designed for weak notrumps, because the lighter openings are rather infrequent in their system. That is the sort of disclosure I appreciate. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 06:13:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15JC5G01330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.173]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15JBvt01286 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:11:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from modem-229.anthias-fish.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.224.229] helo=default) by cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14Pr3J-0000Ou-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 05 Feb 2001 19:11:54 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "Bridge-Laws@Rgb. Anu. Edu. Au" Subject: [BLML] asimere Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:06:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C08FA6.AE0CEE40" 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_0005_01C08FA6.AE0CEE40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Let's try anti-social itinerant megalomanic expecting riotous explanations : ) lnb ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C08FA6.AE0CEE40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Let's try
 
anti-social itinerant megalomanic = expecting riotous=20 explanations  : )
 
lnb
 
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C08FA6.AE0CEE40-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 06:27:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15JRN303063 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:27:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe52.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15JRIt03059 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 06:27:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 11:27:11 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.127.52] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:26:46 -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: 05 Feb 2001 19:27:11.0057 (UTC) FILETIME=[A2D64410:01C08FA9] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Baresch To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities | >Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this | >was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the | >pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." South | >bid 2D (not alerted), West passed, Now North pulled the pass card out | >of the bidding box, moved it toward the table (a good six inches from | >the box), hesitated, and said "I think I have to alert that - it's | >both majors." Then she put the pass card back in the box, and started | >rooting around amongst the suit cards. West said "I don't think you | >can change your call now," and called the Director. He said "I'm | >gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if | >you'd like." She said no, and he allowed the auction to proceed from | >that point, so North bid 2H, which was passed out, and made three, | >iirc. | > | >Now it seems pretty clear to me that the ruling was wrong ... | | Under current ACBL regs I don't think it's wrong. the regulation effective | this year reads: | | "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the | box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is | removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly | touching the table or maintained in such a position to | indicate that the call has been made." THis sounds vaguely familiar except 'it' is not spelled 't-h-e c-a-l-l' and 'played' is not spelled 'm-a-d-e'. roger pewick | That change is in the Birmingham minutes and in the ACBL Bulletin sometime | recently. | | North has not made a call, so L25B doesn't come under consideration. | | | Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.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 Tue Feb 6 07:04:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15K3oA03088 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:03:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15K3it03084 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:03:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail1.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 343F1488F0; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:03:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:47:24 -0500 To: alain gottcheiner From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] 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 6:02 PM +0100 2/5/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >AG : the classical rule is as follows : > >If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is >strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening >1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak. An operational rule - I like that! In fact I prefer it to mine, though mine is simpler and so perhaps more appropriate for a pair game. Since my partnerships often use different defenses vs. strong and weak NTs I make sure we have a definition. Mine has been "It's strong if and only if its range includes 16". I define it that way in part because I want to make sure we consider a Blue Team 1NT to be Strong. Whether that's wise is another matter. 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 Feb 6 07:06:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15K6Y403101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:06:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r07.mx.aol.com (imo-r07.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.7]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15K6St03097 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:06:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id w.d7.1f148fe (4426); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:05:52 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:05:52 EST Subject: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] To: agot@ulb.ac.be, ereppert@rochester.rr.com, WSFlory@aol.com CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_d7.1f148fe.27b061a0_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_d7.1f148fe.27b061a0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have always seen 1D-1M-1N described as an 11-12 pt NT hand (when used with the Precision 13-15 pt opening NT). Your treatment of it as showing 4D and 5C is interesting and I think worth thinking about. Certainly the Precision 1D opening leads to the tougher part score auctions than any other Precision opening and this treatment would help to define the hand. Of course there are tradeoffs ... Walt Flory ________ In a message dated 2/5/01 12:01:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be writes: > >At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote: > >>I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the > >>dividing line between weak and strong NT. > > > >I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll > >just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-) > > > >>I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that > >>12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include > both > >>15 and 16 to be considered. > > > >Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as > >"intermediate". > > > >"Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here. > > AG : the classical rule is as follows : > > If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is > strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening > 1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak. > Which means that 14-16 is considered strong. 12-15 is most probably weak. > The Prescision 13-15 is then borderline ; what is, for Precisioneers, > 1D-1H-1NT ? I play it as 5C/4D, in which case 1NT is weak, but if 1D-1M-1NT > is 11-12, then 1NT is strong. > > Which means that the shmoint range is not everything. > > A. > > > --part1_d7.1f148fe.27b061a0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have always seen 1D-1M-1N described as an 11-12 pt NT hand (when used with
the Precision 13-15 pt opening NT).

Your treatment of it as showing 4D and 5C is interesting and I think worth
thinking about. Certainly the Precision 1D opening leads to the tougher part
score auctions than any other Precision opening and this treatment would help
to define the hand.

Of course there are tradeoffs ...

Walt Flory
________


In a message dated 2/5/01 12:01:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, agot@ulb.ac.be
writes:


>At 11:12 AM -0500 2/5/01, WSFlory@aol.com wrote:
>>I am curious, though, what the consensus of the group might be on the
>>dividing line between weak and strong NT.
>
>I was hoping to avoid just this kind of topic drift. No matter. I'll
>just change your change to my subject line around a little bit. :-)
>
>>I assume "everyone" will agree that 15-17 and 16-18 are strong, and that
>>12-14 and 13-15 are weak. This leaves the very rare ranges that include
both
>>15 and 16 to be considered.
>
>Well, 12-14 is weak, yeah. I believe C.C. Wei referred to 13-15 as
>"intermediate".
>
>"Very rare"? 15-18 or so seems to be not unusual around here.

AG : the classical rule is as follows :

If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is
strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening
1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak.
Which means that 14-16 is considered strong. 12-15 is most probably weak.
The Prescision 13-15 is then borderline ; what is, for Precisioneers,
1D-1H-1NT ? I play it as 5C/4D, in which case 1NT is weak, but if 1D-1M-1NT
is 11-12, then 1NT is strong.

Which means that the shmoint range is not everything.

       A.




--part1_d7.1f148fe.27b061a0_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 07:42:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15KfiM10725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:41:44 +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 f15Kfct10693 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 07:41:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:38:18 -0800 Message-ID: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> From: "Marvin L. French" To: Subject: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:37:46 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I don't think Gary Blaiss, ACBL CTD, would object to my quoting what he has told me today: ######## My understanding is that the ACBL maintains that there are basically two "best times" to call when there has been an unmistakable hesitation. 1. As stated in 16 A 2 (although you may on rare occasion have substantial reason on some auctions during the auction but the footnote gives the Laws interpretation, I suppose). [which is either at the sight of dummy, or at conclusion of play--mlf] or 2. At the time of the unmistakable hesitation. This time has nothing to do with whether the person has any reason to believe that there has been any use (obviously) -- the player is only calling to establish the fact that there has been an unmistakable hesitation or that UI may have been made available (perhaps this is the same as the laws "conveyed"). [This is in accordance with L16A1, an optional Law for sponsoring organizations--mlf] One reason to call when dummy appears is to enable a person's objection to be raised prior to a good or bad result encouraging a player to place the damage done to him on other than chance, a good decision by opponents or a poor one by him or his partner. As you know bridge players frequently look for legal redress to their difficulties. In actuality, players usually call after the hand and this causes little problem. Sometimes they call at the time of the hesitation and the director takes this opportunity to make sure everyone knows their responsibility as a good bridge citizen as well as verifying that an unmistakable hesitation has occurred. ####### This is in substantial agreement with Grattan Endicott's statements on the subject. Note that the ACBL "Election" to L16A1 is ignored, as it should be. Gary subsequently agreed with me that if agreement on the existence of unauthorized information (UI) can be amicably established with the opponents, there is no need to call the TD at that time. I think he would also agree that when playing against C players, it might be a good idea to call the TD in any case. The opponents may need to have their ethical obligations explained to them, and that is a TD's job, not the opponents'. I disagree mildly with the necessity to call the TD when dummy's hand reveals a possible infraction. I prefer to wait until I see that I have been damaged. Why bother the TD if there is no damage to be redressed? Also don't like this idea that if I make a small mistake and let a UI contract make, then calling the TD is "trying to gain with the Laws what I could not gain at the table," making redress debatable. If I don't make the mistake, I don't call. If I do err, and misuse of UI is what got them to game, I am certainly due full redress. I wonder if everyone realizes that it is not the dummy's UI that is the infraction, but a call by dummy that seems to have been influenced by *declarer's* UI. That is, if it was the dummy player who hesitated (e.g., before passing with a good hand) you don't know if there was an infraction until you see declarer's hand at the end of play. Therefore you do not call the TD when dummy comes down. -- Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 09:34:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15MUwc05603 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:30:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15MUqt05599 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:30:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4bj.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.17.115]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA32506; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:30:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008101c08fc3$54946560$7311f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws" References: <01C08B89.769AA2C0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> <002401c08be8$ccdd42a0$0ef57ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010202102022.007dc100@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002501c08dd2$3ca70040$191e073e@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:31:04 -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 Got me fired up. :-)) Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 6:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] A Legal Drama > Grant wrote: > > > I want to make it clear that this is a joke--Craig has just said > > some nice things about me, and I have no wish to insult either him or > David > > Burn. > > You are in a minority. But it was a good joke. > > > Craig Senior commands a firing squad: A Play in One Act > > > > The offender is tied to a post, blindfolded. Craig and the firing > > squad await the order to commence the execution. David Burn, Craig's > > commander, approaches the condemned man, stands before him, and asks > if he > > has any last request. > > > > "I want a cigarette", says Sterling. > > "Sorry, Grant, but I've got nothing to use for _fire_." says DB. > > > > Those are his last words. > > And so they should be. A man who uses the word "fire" while standing in > front of a firing squad deserves to be shot, just as a man who says "we > will make twelve tricks" deserves to have it treated as a claim. > Otherwise, of course, the scene will play as follows: > > CRAIG: "Fire!" > > FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, we need to be clear that when you say "Fire", you > actually intend us to discharge our weapons, and are not merely > intending to draw our attention to an imminent conflagration." > > CRAIG: "No, no, fire!" > > FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, your last utterance is capable of the following > interpretations: (a) you wish to emphasise, by use of a repeated > negative, that there is no fire; (b) your first word was the imperative > of the verb "to know" and you merely wish us to be aware that there is > no fire; (c) you wish to negate our previous hypothesis that you were > trying to alert us to a fire, and to instruct us to shoot the condemned > man. Until we are clear as to your intentions, we regret that we are > unable to proceed." > > CRAIG: "For the last time, fire!" > > FIRING SQUAD: "Sir, you are not empowered to instruct us to fire for the > last time. To do so would be tantamount to terminating our contracts as > a firing squad, and only our Chief Firing Squad Director can do that. > Moreover, it would be unwise to ignore the possibility that, if we were > indeed to fire for the last time at this poor wretch, we might miss. He > would then have to wait for another firing squad to be convened before > sentence could be carried out." > > MEN IN WHITE COATS enter and bear Craig to a lunatic asylum. UNDERTAKERS > enter and remove the body of the condemned man, who has died of boredom. > > 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 Tue Feb 6 10:54:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15Nr5921622 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:53:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15Nqwt21581 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:52:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp245-160.worldonline.nl [195.241.245.160]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 875A936B37; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:52:53 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001001c08fcf$12069f40$a0f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "Roger Pewick" Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:54:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger wrote : > >| At 23:22 3/02/01 +0100, Jac Fuchs wrote: >| >The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional >| >pairs event today. >| > >| >North: 2S (weak) >| >East: pass >| >South: 4S >| >West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, >| >East and mine have red ones ..." >| >What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, >| >which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at >| >this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East >| >and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. >| >L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the >| >correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the >| >bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding >| >the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. >| >But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply >| >that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an >| >adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and >| >play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? > >Let me see. S took cards from board 6 and bid them. Does this constitute >play of board 6, albeit not complete play? > >A few minutes later S takes cards from board 6 [and bids them for the >purpose of playing the hand out] Is this the second time S has played the >board and does L15B apply? If so, does not play of board 6 in this instance >become a mute point, as in it is pointless to play it at all for this round? >I note that L15B does not make reference to a previous score for the board >by S. Nice point. I only consulted L17 and L16 for this case. Of course, I do not have definte replies to these questions. IMHO I would not consider the bidding of the hand belonging to board 6 while board 5 was on to be "play of hand 6", but I eagerly await the judgment of BLML authorities. > >Anyway, to my mind the information from 4S [a remark] is so substantial that >it will interfere with normal play so the only viable alternative is L16B3. > The problem is that the 4S bid cannot really be described as "extraneous information from other sources", and therefore L16B does not seem to be applicable. I am afraid this looks more like a L16A case. Jac ================================================ >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 10:57:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15NvPI23163 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:57:25 +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-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 f15NvIt23133 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:57:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PvVS-0005Ov-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:57:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:55:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name 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 >>From: "John (MadDog) Probst" >>[asimere] >> >> ok, nothing to do with bridge >> >>You *still* have enough information > > Will there be a time when we don't have enough information? > >-Todd Nope, whenever you receive an email from me you will have enough information :)) -- 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 Feb 6 10:59:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f15NwiT23598 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:58:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f15Nwbt23568 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:58:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PvWk-0005tM-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:58:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:57:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> In-Reply-To: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default>, larry bennett writes > Let's try asimere >   > anti-social itinerant megalomanic expecting riotous explanations  : > ) >   > lnb >   hehe, nope. I'll let it run a day or so before posting the spoiler -- 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 Feb 6 11:29:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f160TA002817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:29:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f160T4t02813 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:29:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp245-160.worldonline.nl [195.241.245.160]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id B841036B46; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:29:00 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 01:31:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi John, does m-e-r in asimere stand for Mile End Road ? and does, perhaps the s-i stand for sufficient information ?? :-) Jac -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- Van: John (MadDog) Probst Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Datum: maandag 5 februari 2001 0:51 Onderwerp: [BLML] change of name >I am now my own domain: asimere.com > >There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out >why this name has been chosen. (Hint: you have sufficient information) > >Hopefully this email will have been sent from asimere.com >rather than probst.demon.co.uk (which will continue pro tem) > >In any event I will have it working very shortly. > >I apologise in advance for any stray messages that may get out whilst >I'm testing. There will be a website at www.asimere.com (at the moment >it's just a Linux test page). Now that I've got everything in-house >(and a permanent connection) I shall be developing the website >substantially. I have significant Gigabytes that can be used, if anyone >has serious suggestions. My bandwidth is not huge but would take the >hit levels of blml > >Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john >-- >John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 >451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou >London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com >+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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 11:41:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f160fLS02834 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:41:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f160fAt02830 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:41:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PwBv-000LpV-0Y; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:41:07 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:39:29 +0000 To: Jac Fuchs Cc: BLML From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name References: <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In message <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs writes >Hi John, > >does m-e-r in asimere stand for Mile End Road ? >and does, perhaps the s-i stand for sufficient information ?? :-) > Jac is close to winning. >Jac > -- 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 Feb 6 12:24:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f161OIM02860 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:24:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f161OCt02856 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:24:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp216-60.worldonline.nl [195.241.216.60]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 662C336B11; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:24:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <007401c08fdb$d1013160$a0f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "John Probst" , "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:26:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >In message <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default>, Jac Fuchs > writes >>Hi John, >> >>does m-e-r in asimere stand for Mile End Road ? >>and does, perhaps the s-i stand for sufficient information ?? :-) >> > >Jac is close to winning. > the final "e" for East London ?? Jac >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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 12:38:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f161bsU06923 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:37:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhea.worldonline.nl (rhea.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.139]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f161blt06890 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:37:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp216-60.worldonline.nl [195.241.216.60]) by rhea.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F68736B6A; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:37:43 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <008b01c08fdd$b78eb020$a0f5f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Cc: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 02:39:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>does m-e-r in asimere stand for Mile End Road ? >>and does, perhaps the s-i stand for sufficient information ?? :-) >> > >Jac is close to winning. > a-s-i for "a superb intellect" ? Or rather for "a surly individual" ? :-)) Jac -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 12:54:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f161sWx12782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:54:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from morte.ussat.wni (IDENT:root@c1250536-a.smateo1.sfba.home.com [24.19.156.221]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f161sOt12735 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:54:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (willwats@localhost) by morte.ussat.wni (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f161s4T05565 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:54:04 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: morte.ussat.wni: willwats owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 17:54:04 -0800 (PST) From: William Watson X-Sender: willwats@morte.ussat.wni To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name In-Reply-To: <004501c08fd4$1ddf8340$a0f5f1c3@default> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello John, All I will posit that 4=A 5=S 1=I, and that the final E is for whatever the E in E3 stands for. William Watson On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Jac Fuchs wrote: > Hi John, > > does m-e-r in asimere stand for Mile End Road ? > and does, perhaps the s-i stand for sufficient information ?? :-) > > Jac > > > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: John (MadDog) Probst > Aan: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au > Datum: maandag 5 februari 2001 0:51 > Onderwerp: [BLML] change of name > > > >I am now my own domain: asimere.com > > > >There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works > out > >why this name has been chosen. (Hint: you have sufficient > information) > > > >Hopefully this email will have been sent from asimere.com > >rather than probst.demon.co.uk (which will continue pro tem) > > > >In any event I will have it working very shortly. > > > >I apologise in advance for any stray messages that may get out whilst > >I'm testing. There will be a website at www.asimere.com (at the > moment > >it's just a Linux test page). Now that I've got everything in-house > >(and a permanent connection) I shall be developing the website > >substantially. I have significant Gigabytes that can be used, if > anyone > >has serious suggestions. My bandwidth is not huge but would take the > >hit levels of blml > > > >Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john > >-- > >John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax :20 8980 4947 > >451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 OKb ChienFou > >London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > >+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/ > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 6 14:05:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16354l23613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:05:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1634vt23565 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 14:04:58 +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 <20010206030645.NKCC4656.amsmta05-svc@witz> for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:06:45 +0100 Message-Id: <3.0.2.32.20010206040452.0101a378@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, 06 Feb 2001 04:04:52 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Anton Witzen Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities In-Reply-To: References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:26 PM 05-02-01 -0600, you wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Brian Baresch >To: >Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 12:43 PM >Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities > > >| >Situation: Local club game, ACBL regs. EW are playing Precision (this >| >was pre-announced - NS engaged in no discussion after the >| >pre-announcement.) East opened 1NT, announced as "14-16 HCP." South >| >bid 2D (not alerted), West passed, Now North pulled the pass card out >| >of the bidding box, moved it toward the table (a good six inches from >| >the box), hesitated, and said "I think I have to alert that - it's >| >both majors." Then she put the pass card back in the box, and started >| >rooting around amongst the suit cards. West said "I don't think you >| >can change your call now," and called the Director. He said "I'm >| >gonna roll back the auction to you, West. You can change your call if >| >you'd like." She said no, and he allowed the auction to proceed from >| >that point, so North bid 2H, which was passed out, and made three, >| >iirc. >| > >| >Now it seems pretty clear to me that the ruling was wrong ... >| >| Under current ACBL regs I don't think it's wrong. the regulation effective >| this year reads: >| >| "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the >| box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is >| removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly >| touching the table or maintained in such a position to >| indicate that the call has been made." > >THis sounds vaguely familiar except 'it' is not spelled 't-h-e c-a-l-l' and >'played' is not spelled 'm-a-d-e'. > the dutch regulation is: (translated) a call is made if the bidding cards are removed from the box with the knowing intend of making a bid (but l25 can be applied) regards, anton >roger pewick > >| That change is in the Birmingham minutes and in the ACBL Bulletin sometime >| recently. >| >| North has not made a call, so L25B doesn't come under consideration. >| >| >| Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.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/ > > 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 Feb 6 15:33:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f164X8E25537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:33:08 +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.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f164Wwt25491 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:32:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com1-218.connectnc.net [12.20.159.220]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA12940 for ; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:32:55 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <002801c08ff5$d83b5360$dc9f140c@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:32:41 -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 > How about "Always Sufficient Information Mile End Road East" Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 6:57 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere > In article <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default>, larry bennett > writes > > Let's try > > asimere > > > > anti-social itinerant megalomanic expecting riotous explanations : > > ) > > > > lnb > > > hehe, nope. I'll let it run a day or so before posting the spoiler > -- > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 18:47:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f167krX07627 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:46:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin2.email.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f167kmt07594 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:46:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.50]) by mailin2.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G8BSHH00.7JA for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:51:17 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-012-p-227-124.tmns.net.au ([203.54.227.124]) by mail8.bigpond.com (Claudes-Magnifico-MailRouter V2.9c 17/6514958); 06 Feb 2001 17:46:39 Message-ID: <008001c09010$67cdf040$7ce336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:42:46 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Based on Mr Watson's deductions, my first guess is A = 4 HCP S looks like 5 I looks like 1 Mile End Road England England, because David Stevenson has often pointed out that on the Web it's a good idea to specify one's country. However John has stated that it has nothing to do with bridge, totally ruling out the "A" above, and has emphasised the word *still*. This leads to something like: Am Still In Mile End Road England Peter Gill. William Watson wrote: >I will posit that 4=A 5=S 1=I, and that the final E is for >whatever the E in E3 stands for. John Probst had written: >>>Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john >>>-- >>>John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax : >>>451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 >>>London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |demonpuzzles -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 19:05:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1685gd14438 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:05:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1685Xt14389 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:05:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from eitan (gcon1-p104.nt.netvision.net.il [62.0.170.104]) by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id KAA16426 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:05:27 +0200 (IST) Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il> X-Sender: moranl@mail.netvision.net.il (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.5 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 10:04:16 +0200 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Eitan Levy Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere In-Reply-To: References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> 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 f1685bt14415 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk asimere = A(=4) S(=5) I(=1) M(ile) E(nd) R(oad) (London)E(3) The figure 4 resembles the letter A, 5 looks like an S, and I looks like a 1 WHEN DO 1 5T4RT DR1NK1NG MY PR1ZE? Eitan > >asimere >>   >> anti-social itinerant megalomanic expecting riotous explanations  : >> ) >>   >> lnb >>   >hehe, nope. I'll let it run a day or so before posting the spoiler >-- >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/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 20:55:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f169scD23358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f169sSt23311 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:54:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-31-97.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.31.97]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA03019; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:53:57 GMT Message-ID: <000e01c09023$126a8600$611f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:50:08 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:03 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name > >| There will be another of my much sought after > > prizes if anyone works out why this name has > > been chosen. > > > John (MadDog) Probst . > 451 Mile End Road ASI M E R > London E3 4PA E ?? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 6 20:55:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f169sbi23354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:54:37 +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 f169sPt23288 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 20:54:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-31-97.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.31.97]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02757; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:53:37 GMT Message-ID: <000d01c09023$1134c520$611f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Paul Endicott" , "Patricia Davidson" , "lynn hunt" , "Kojak" , "Grattan Endicott" , "Cathrina Endicott" , "cathie ritchie" , , "Anna Gudge" Cc: , "Anna Gudge" , "Linda Trent" , "David Stevenson (E-mail)" , "David Burn" , "David Martin" , "Max Bavin" , "William Schoder" , "ton kooijman" , "Nick Doe" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: [BLML] Early warning Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:03:03 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> +=+ I refer to the 'gester' address. My contract with globalnet expires towards the end of February. I do not intend to renew. I shall transfer the service to LineOne (await further news), since I am well pleased with the cyaxares service, and the latter is 'free' (of subscriptions) whilst I have been paying globalnet and, in practice, not making full use of the facilities. ~ 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 Feb 6 21:02:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16A1t725882 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:01:55 +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 f16A1mt25841 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:01:48 +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 KAA11739; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:57:43 +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 LAA04514; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:01:30 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010206110327.00839a10@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:03:27 +0100 To: Adam Wildavsky From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 14:47 5/02/01 -0500, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 6:02 PM +0100 2/5/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >>AG : the classical rule is as follows : >> >>If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is >>strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening >>1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak. > >An operational rule - I like that! In fact I prefer it to mine, >though mine is simpler and so perhaps more appropriate for a pair >game. > >Since my partnerships often use different defenses vs. strong and >weak NTs I make sure we have a definition. Mine has been "It's strong >if and only if its range includes 16". AG : although your point about the Blue Club 1NT opening (which goes seldom under 15) is quite on target, I don't like this definition, because you would have to consider the Roman 1NT opening (showing 17-20) as weak ... 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 Feb 6 21:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16ANGI03360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:23:16 +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 f16AN9t03320 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 21:23:09 +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 LAA23167; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:20:21 +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 LAA21502; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:22:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:24:48 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation In-Reply-To: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:37 5/02/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: >My understanding is that the ACBL maintains that there are basically two >"best times" to call when there has been an unmistakable hesitation. >1. As stated in 16 A 2 (although you may on rare occasion have substantial >reason on some auctions during the auction but the footnote gives the Laws >interpretation, I suppose). > >[which is either at the sight of dummy, or at conclusion of play--mlf] > >or > >2. At the time of the unmistakable hesitation. This time has nothing to do >with whether the person has any reason to believe that there has been any >use (obviously) -- the player is only calling to establish the fact that >there has been an unmistakable hesitation or that UI may have been made >available (perhaps this is the same as the laws "conveyed"). AG :I understand it, but don't like it. True, the TD should be called as soon as an irregularity occurs, but UI is not an irregularity per se. To do so would have two harmful effects : - create more pointless TD calls - add to the common -and wrong- belief that after an hesitation the partner may not do what he would have done, that he is virtually compelled to pass. >One reason to call when dummy appears is to enable a person's objection to >be raised prior to a good or bad result encouraging a player to place the >damage done to him on other than chance, a good decision by opponents or a >poor one by him or his partner. As you know bridge players frequently look >for legal redress to their difficulties. AG : I agree emphatically with the whole paragraph. > >I wonder if everyone realizes that it is not the dummy's UI that is the >infraction, but a call by dummy that seems to have been influenced by >*declarer's* UI. AG : no they don't. And that's one more reason why I don't like the idea of calling immediately after the tempo. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 01:59:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16EweC19468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:58:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16EwXt19439 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:58:33 +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 PAA07546; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:55:46 +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 PAA06267; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:58:15 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010206160013.0083f100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:00:13 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam In-Reply-To: <200102051711.MAA13637@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 12:11 5/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> In Experiment Two, no *specific* killing lead is >> demonstrably suggested by the UI. Therefore, it is >> arguable whether a trump lead is required, or whether >> all four suits remain LAs. > >Sorry, but I don't think there is anything to argue about here. > >Let's say spades are trumps. Is a heart lead suggested over a spade >lead? Yes, of course it is. The UI says a heart has a 1/3 chance of >working, while a spade has zero chance of working. Therefore a heart >lead is suggested over a spade, and therefore a heart lead is illegal. >The same holds for each plain suit. AG : of course, but a lightnerish hesitation suggests that not only a trump, but the unbid suit and our suit(s) be excluded. Between those, none is more excluded than any pther ; thus I feel I'm allowed to choose between all apples that appear to be rotten. >I am astonished that there could be any question about this. L16A >requires a pairwise comparison of the action selected against each >other LA. It does not require any comparison of a LA not selected >with a different LA not selected. AG : if two LA are suggested, and two are not, then none of the last two is more suggested than the other. Is this wrong ? Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 02:07:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16F73Y20228 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:07:03 +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 f16F6ut20224 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:06:57 +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 QAA17608; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:02:53 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id QAA12748; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:06:39 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010206160838.00845100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) X-Priority: 2 (High) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:08:38 +0100 To: Anton Witzen , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010206040452.0101a378@pop3.norton.antivirus> References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 04:04 6/02/01 +0100, Anton Witzen wrote: >> >the dutch regulation is: (translated) >a call is made if the bidding cards are removed from the box with the >knowing intend of making a bid (but l25 can be applied) AG : I didn't beleive it, but the French version says the cards must have been put on the table ! This needs to be fixed. We Belgians need this as a hole in the head. TDs may be asked to rule in English, Dutch or French. That the ruling may be different in each case could be enough to make the Federation explode (no smilie here, I'm frightfully serious) 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 Feb 7 02:26:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16FQaE20246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:26:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16FQUt20242 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:26:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA14834 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:26:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21833 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:26:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:26:23 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102061526.KAA21833@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > AG : of course, but a lightnerish hesitation.... My comments were about "Experiment Two;" nothing to do with Lightner. In general, "hesitation Lightner" may suggest one or more leads, and there may be one or more LA's. Each case has to be decided on the specific situation. > AG : if two LA are suggested, and two are not, then none of the last two is > more suggested than the other. I agree. Whichever option the player picks, do a pairwise comparison of that with each of the other three LA's. If he picked one of the first two, it will be suggested over both of the last two, therefore illegal. If he picks one of the second two, it won't be suggested over any of the three, therefore legal. What's the difficulty? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 02:37:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16FbFr20260 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:37:15 +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 f16Fb9t20256 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:37:09 +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 KAA15421 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:37:06 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA21849 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:37:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 10:37:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102061537.KAA21849@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In discussing 'at all likely' in L70C2, I wrote: > The meaning of 'at all probable' in L12C2 is considerably under 50%. > (It is one chance in six in the ACBL.) While 'at all likely' might not > be identical to 'at all probable', it sounds pretty close to me. A correspondent points out that the heading of L70C2 reads "Was Probably Unaware of Trump." We all know that the headings are not part of the Laws, but the inconsistency between the heading and the text here could be misleading. I gather that the LC is considering L70 in general, but even if nothing else changes, this heading should. The simplest change might be to replace 'was probably' with 'was possibly' or with 'may have been', but of course there are many other options, especially depending on whether the intent of the law changes. Grattan: any space left in your notebook? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 02:50:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16Fnm920279 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:49:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16Fnft20275 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:49:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from p9ds12a01.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.140.158] helo=pacific) by cobalt11-he.global.net.uk.noc.gxn.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14PlJN-0008RF-00; Mon, 5 Feb 2001 13:04:05 +0000 Message-ID: <001b01c09054$516b1a00$9e8c93c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Marvin L. French" Cc: "bridge-laws" References: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 12:25:07 -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: 05 February 2001 20:37 Subject: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > I disagree mildly with the necessity to call > the TD when dummy's hand reveals a possible > infraction. I prefer to wait until I see that I have > been damaged. Why bother the TD if there is > no damage to be redressed? > +=+ Well now, Marv, being as how you are a great one for quoting the law, I am sure you are well aware that Law 16A2 contains for the player no mention of damage. It says call the Director when you have "substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such (extraneous) information (from partner)". If you believe dummy has done this you have the evidence when dummy is seen and, regardless of any issue of damage, the law tells you to call the Director at that point. 16A2 then puts the question of damage in the hands of the Director. I appreciate your distaste for calling the Director before you feel that you are damaged, but that is the law and it was made so for reasons that the WBF considered good and proper (to which someone has already alluded). ~ 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 Feb 7 04:10:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HAU720358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:10:30 +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 f16HANt20354 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:10:24 +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 SAA11038; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:07:37 +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 SAA07531; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:10:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010206181206.008415b0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:12:06 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim In-Reply-To: <200102061537.KAA21849@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 10:37 6/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >In discussing 'at all likely' in L70C2, I wrote: >> The meaning of 'at all probable' in L12C2 is considerably under 50%. >> (It is one chance in six in the ACBL.) While 'at all likely' might not >> be identical to 'at all probable', it sounds pretty close to me. > >A correspondent points out that the heading of L70C2 reads "Was >Probably Unaware of Trump." We all know that the headings are not part >of the Laws, but the inconsistency between the heading and the text >here could be misleading. I gather that the LC is considering L70 in >general, but even if nothing else changes, this heading should. The >simplest change might be to replace 'was probably' with 'was possibly' >or with 'may have been', but of course there are many other options, >especially depending on whether the intent of the law changes. AG : we are speaking about subtle linguistic nuances here ; the French issue says 'fort probable'. I think there exists, between the two languages, some gradient of probability : French 'fort probable' = English 'probable' (ie, I would be surprised if it were not the case) French 'probable' = English 'possible' (ie, about fifty-fifty) French 'possible' = Engilsh paraphrase using 'could' (ie, I expect it is not the case, but who knows ?) The Laws use the 1st degree above, while it would be better to use one of the others. Comments appreciated. 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 Feb 7 04:10:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HA4E20352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:10:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta00-app.talk21.com (mta00.talk21.com [62.172.192.40]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16H9wt20348 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:09:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([213.122.210.207]) by t21mta00-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010206170824.TGQN15069.t21mta00-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:08:24 +0000 Message-ID: <000201c0905f$aaaaff80$cfd27ad5@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] David Stevenson (DWS) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:00:13 -0000 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I have been asked to let members of the list know that DWS is currently in hospital with a minor ailment and will be out of action for a couple of days. He sends his apologies to anyone who is waiting for a reply and he will respond as soon as he is able to. Regards David -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 04:11:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HBU220380 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:11:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (mta@smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16HBOt20376 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:11:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:12:21 -0800 Message-ID: <002001c0905f$c93bb480$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200102061537.KAA21849@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:07:34 -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: "Steve Willner > In discussing 'at all likely' in L70C2, I wrote: > > The meaning of 'at all probable' in L12C2 is considerably under 50%. > > (It is one chance in six in the ACBL.) While 'at all likely' might not > > be identical to 'at all probable', it sounds pretty close to me. > > A correspondent points out that the heading of L70C2 reads "Was > Probably Unaware of Trump." We all know that the headings are not part > of the Laws, but the inconsistency between the heading and the text > here could be misleading. I gather that the LC is considering L70 in > general, but even if nothing else changes, this heading should. The > simplest change might be to replace 'was probably' with 'was possibly' > or with 'may have been', but of course there are many other options, > especially depending on whether the intent of the law changes. > > Grattan: any space left in your notebook? Good suggestion. While titles are not Laws, it would be better if all titles were examined to see that they accord with the text following. For instance, L20 should be "Review and Explanation of Auction" (not "Calls"). L20F should be "Explanation of Auction" (not "Calls"). What sometimes happens is that a Law is revised but its title is not changed appropriately, as seems to have been the case with L20, which was changed in 1987 to permit a request for "a full explanation of the opponents' auction" rather than the questioning of individual calls. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 04:33:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HXPv20395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:33:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16HXJt20389 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:33:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:32:44 -0800 Message-ID: <003501c09062$a292d360$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "bridge-laws" References: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> <001b01c09054$516b1a00$9e8c93c3@pacific> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:21:26 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > From: Marvin L. French > > > ------------------ \x/ ----------------- > > > > I disagree mildly with the necessity to call > > the TD when dummy's hand reveals a possible > > infraction. I prefer to wait until I see that I have > > been damaged. Why bother the TD if there is > > no damage to be redressed? > > > +=+ Well now, Marv, being as how you are a > great one for quoting the law, I am sure you are > well aware that Law 16A2 contains for the > player no mention of damage. It says call the > Director when you have "substantial reason to > believe that an opponent who had a logical > alternative has chosen an action that could have > been suggested by such (extraneous) information > (from partner)". If you believe dummy has done > this you have the evidence when dummy is seen > and, regardless of any issue of damage, the law > tells you to call the Director at that point. 16A2 > then puts the question of damage in the hands > of the Director. > I appreciate your distaste for calling the > Director before you feel that you are damaged, > but that is the law and it was made so for reasons > that the WBF considered good and proper (to > which someone has already alluded). Well okay, I suppose the stronger "should" in (the specific) L16A2 dominates the "may" in (the general) L9A2(a). It is not a "must," however, so failure to call at that time merely "jeopardizes" my rights, it doesn't forfeit them. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 04:33:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HXVB20399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:33:32 +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 f16HXOt20394 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:33:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:32:49 -0800 Message-ID: <003a01c09062$a56c3220$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:29:54 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "alain gottcheiner" wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: Gary Blaiss wrote: > > >My understanding is that the ACBL maintains that there are basically two > >"best times" to call when there has been an unmistakable hesitation. > >1. As stated in 16 A 2 (although you may on rare occasion have substantial > >reason on some auctions during the auction but the footnote gives the Laws > >interpretation, I suppose). > > > >[which is either at the sight of dummy, or at conclusion of play--mlf] > > > >or > > > >2. At the time of the unmistakable hesitation. This time has nothing to do > >with whether the person has any reason to believe that there has been any > >use (obviously) -- the player is only calling to establish the fact that > >there has been an unmistakable hesitation or that UI may have been made > >available (perhaps this is the same as the laws "conveyed"). > > AG :I understand it, but don't like it. True, the TD should be called as > soon as an irregularity occurs, but UI is not an irregularity per se. To do > so would have two harmful effects : > - create more pointless TD calls > - add to the common -and wrong- belief that after an hesitation the partner > may not do what he would have done, that he is virtually compelled to pass. The TD is not being called because there has been an irregularity. S/he is being called to assist in the determination of whether UI has been made available, perfectly appropriate, and required by L16A1. > > >One reason to call when dummy appears is to enable a person's objection to > >be raised prior to a good or bad result encouraging a player to place the > >damage done to him on other than chance, a good decision by opponents or a > >poor one by him or his partner. As you know bridge players frequently look > >for legal redress to their difficulties. > > AG : I agree emphatically with the whole paragraph. I disagree, mildly. Will discuss separately. > > > > >I wonder if everyone realizes that it is not the dummy's UI that is the > >infraction, but a call by dummy that seems to have been influenced by > >*declarer's* UI. > > AG : no they don't. And that's one more reason why I don't like the idea of > calling immediately after the tempo. > No one is calling that an infraction. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 04:56:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16HuGd25189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:56:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe63.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.198]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16HuAt25155 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 04:56:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 09:56:02 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.128.10] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <000201c0905f$aaaaff80$cfd27ad5@davicaltd> Subject: Re: [BLML] David Stevenson (DWS) Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:55:40 -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: 06 Feb 2001 17:56:02.0884 (UTC) FILETIME=[11F70840:01C09066] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Thank you for the news. My prayers are with him. roger pewick ----- Original Message ----- From: David Martin To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:00 AM Subject: [BLML] David Stevenson (DWS) | I have been asked to let members of the list know that DWS is currently in | hospital with a minor ailment and will be out of action for a couple of | days. He sends his apologies to anyone who is waiting for a reply and he | will respond as soon as he is able to. | | Regards | | David -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 05:03:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16I3GM27459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:03:16 +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-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 f16I39t27455 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:03:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14QCSH-000ES1-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:03:05 +0000 Message-ID: <2OhsPkA3vDg6EwHv@asimere.com> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:01:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name References: <008001c09010$67cdf040$7ce336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> In-Reply-To: <008001c09010$67cdf040$7ce336cb@gillp.bigpond.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <008001c09010$67cdf040$7ce336cb@gillp.bigpond.com>, Peter Gill writes >Based on Mr Watson's deductions, my first guess is > >A = 4 HCP The A looks like a badly drawn 4, rather than Ace value >S looks like 5 >I looks like 1 >Mile >End >Road >England originally it was the post code E3, but I like England > >England, because David Stevenson has often pointed out >that on the Web it's a good idea to specify one's country. > >However John has stated that it has nothing to do >with bridge, totally ruling out the "A" above, and has >emphasised the word *still*. This leads to something like: > >Am >Still >In >Mile >End >Road >England > >Peter Gill. > >William Watson wrote: >>I will posit that 4=A 5=S 1=I, and that the final E is for >>whatever the E in E3 stands for. > >John Probst had written: >>>>Watch my sig for breaking news :)) cheers john >>>>-- >>>>John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |phone & fax : >>>>451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |icq 10810798 >>>>London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com > +44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |demonpuzzles > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 7 05:04:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16I4ZQ27471 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:04:35 +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 f16I4Tt27467 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 05:04:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14QCTZ-0009WK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:04:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:02:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il> In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il>, Eitan Levy writes >asimere = A(=4) S(=5) I(=1) M(ile) E(nd) R(oad) (London)E(3) >The figure 4 resembles the letter A, 5 looks like an S, and I looks like a 1 > >WHEN DO 1 5T4RT DR1NK1NG MY PR1ZE? > >Eitan I'll buy you a pint next Brighton (but the usual prize is *two* (2) games with me) :)) >> >>asimere >>>   >>> anti-social itinerant megalomanic expecting riotous explanations  : >>> ) >>>   >>> lnb >>>   >>hehe, nope. I'll let it run a day or so before posting the spoiler >>-- >>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/ >> >> >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 7 06:11:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16JAN311734 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16JAHt11697 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 06:10:17 +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 LAA01124; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 11:10:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200102061910.LAA01124@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 06 Feb 2001 18:02:47 GMT." Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 11:10:12 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John Probst wrote: > >WHEN DO 1 5T4RT DR1NK1NG MY PR1ZE? > > > >Eitan > > I'll buy you a pint next Brighton (but the usual prize is *two* (2) > games with me) :)) I thought that was your prize for second place? Didn't the contest rules say, "First prize is a game with John Probst. Second prize is two games with John Probst"? -- 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 Feb 7 08:03:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16L2DY22220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:02:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16L27t22216 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:02:08 +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 QAA18946 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:07:54 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102062107.QAA18946@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:07:54 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 February 2001 at 18:02, "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: >In article <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il>, >Eitan Levy writes >>asimere = A(=4) S(=5) I(=1) M(ile) E(nd) R(oad) (London)E(3) >>The figure 4 resembles the letter A, 5 looks like an S, and I looks like a 1 >> >>WHEN DO 1 5T4RT DR1NK1NG MY PR1ZE? >> U R S0 L337!!!1!! 1 B0!^! 1N UR PR3Z3NZ! > >I'll buy you a pint next Brighton (but the usual prize is *two* (2) >games with me) :)) What, he came in second? Who got first prize? Michael P.S. It looks like you are still posting from demon (though the mail message reference is asimere). I deliberately put in a From: line to stop that - maybe that would help; I don't know what mail client you use, and whether you can do that. 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 Feb 7 08:27:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16LQlA22244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:26:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16LQft22240 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:26:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA19438 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:32:29 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:32:28 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 February 2001 at 11:24, alain gottcheiner wrote: >At 12:37 5/02/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > [the >> is G. Blaiss, IIRC] >> >>2. At the time of the unmistakable hesitation. This time has nothing to do >>with whether the person has any reason to believe that there has been any >>use (obviously) -- the player is only calling to establish the fact that >>there has been an unmistakable hesitation or that UI may have been made >>available (perhaps this is the same as the laws "conveyed"). > >AG :I understand it, but don't like it. When I directed my games at the University (containing 4-week-in players right through to Junior Internationals), I made it quite clear to some of our better (and sharper) players that if they don't call at that point, I am going to rule "no UI, no damage, play on." They had been waiting until the time was right, then dropping the boom on novices who didn't know better. One told me "But that's not how they do it in the big games in Toronto." I said "Maybe true, but that's what the Law says, and that's how we do it here, where not everyone knows the Laws." >True, the TD should be called as >soon as an irregularity occurs, but UI is not an irregularity per se. True, but. People who don't know their rights and responsibilities when UI has been transmitted are allowed to know them so that they can play for their best score, same as if someone said to declarer after an OLOOT "You have five options. Do you know them? Which one do you want to take?" I used to do this, before having it clearly explained to me here that even if declarer does know them (and sometimes they think they do, but don't), you must still enumerate them so that defenders know what the options were, so they can plan their play based on the option taken. Same here - everybody needs to know what their responsibilities are after UI is transmitted to minimize the chances of causing an irregularity. If that requires the TD, then it requires the TD. >To do >so would have two harmful effects : >- create more pointless TD calls Not pointless. See above. True, many more TD calls in the land where you cannot reserve your rights. But OTOH, fewer arguments about "he hesitated!" "No, he didn't" at the time than there are 5 minutes later. >- add to the common -and wrong- belief that after an hesitation the partner >may not do what he would have done, that he is virtually compelled to pass. > Eh? And who does the TD'ing in your neighbourhood? The whole point of calling the TD here is so that he can make clear to the partner what she may and may not do (and the first part is right, she often may not do what she would have done absent the UI). The TD will not say "you must pass", nor will he even hint this. The TD will say "you must not take an action suggested by the UI unless there is not another action that is even reasonable, no matter how inferior." or something to that like. Having said all that, and knowing the Laws and Regs of the ACBL, I still will ask "Do you acknowledge the hesitation?" But if the answer is anything but an immediate "yep" (including a "what?" or other expression of lack of comprehension) I call in the TD. Yes, it's wrong, I know. But I do it. >>I wonder if everyone realizes that it is not the dummy's UI that is the >>infraction, but a call by dummy that seems to have been influenced by >>*declarer's* UI. > >AG : no they don't. And that's one more reason why I don't like the idea of >calling immediately after the tempo. > Again, who does the TDing in your world? I make clear to people who call me that this is the case (actually saying "passing UI is not an infraction, but it does put constraints on what your partner can do. I'm glad you called now so that I can explain them to him") and everyone who I've called to the table has made that clear. It also should make the opponents feel less offended - I'm not calling the TD because you cheated (used UI), I'm calling the TD because you did something that, while legal, has issues that the TD, and you, need to be aware of (transmitted UI). Of course, you wouldn't do this deliberately, nor will your partner infract deliberately, now that she knows what she has to do, right? :-) No, I *don't* say that at the table, either as a player or as a TD... Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 08:50:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16Lo2b22277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:50:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16Lnut22273 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:49:56 +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 QAA20183 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 16:55:44 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102062155.QAA20183@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When is a NT weak? [was multiple irregularities] Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <65.f74e737.27b02b06@aol.com> <3.0.6.32.20010205180251.00841690@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2001 16:55:44 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 5 February 2001 at 14:47, Adam Wildavsky wrote: >At 6:02 PM +0100 2/5/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >>AG : the classical rule is as follows : >> >>If 1 of either minor, followed by 1NT, is weaker than 1NT, then 1NT is >>strong; If both 1C...1NT and 1D...1NT are either stronger than an opening >>1NT, or something else than a NT pattern, the opening 1NT is weak. > >An operational rule - I like that! In fact I prefer it to mine, >though mine is simpler and so perhaps more appropriate for a pair >game. > Me too. "Hey Ian..." >Since my partnerships often use different defenses vs. strong and >weak NTs I make sure we have a definition. Mine has been "It's strong >if and only if its range includes 16". I define it that way in part >because I want to make sure we consider a Blue Team 1NT to be Strong. >Whether that's wise is another matter. > Actually, on several Precision players' (including mine) advice, I add "or 13-15 playing a Strong Club" to "could be at least 16". Although, I'm tempted to just drop our weak NT defence, and just use transfers (direct only) like our strong one. Actually, I just love Announcing my 1NT range when playing Club Club (18+-20). The looks I get :-). While I'm not in favour of expanding the Announcement repertoire (especially to "Flannery" or "could be short"), that particular one is the best thing to happen to the weak NT ever. The WEASEL players have lost one whole half of their arsenal :-). I am confused by the original problem (Ed's Precision 14-16 NT being done over) and with another thread either here or on rgb about Strong Club systems in the ACBL. The prealert regs in the ACBL ( http://www.acbl.org/info/charts/alertproc.htm#prealerts ) require three things to be pre-alerted: Two-System Methods (2/1 1st/2nd, KS 3rd/4th, for instance) Systems Based on Highly Aggressive Methods (routinely: open with <11 HCP, preempt with suits worse than Qxxxxx, or overcall with < 6HCP at the one level) Systems That Could Fundamentally Unfamiliar to the Opponents, The first paragraph of the "fundamentally unfamiliar" section states: Players are expected to be prepared for the vast majority of systems that they may encounter at the bridge table. Common methods include either strong or weak no trumps with or without five-[c]ard majors. The forcing opening bid will most often be either a natural, strong two bid or an artificial forcing opening *of 1C* or 2C. [Emphasis mine]. Therefore, players are expected to be able to be familiar with Strong Club systems, including the limited nature of the non-1C openings. And you don't have to prealert Precision (unless your club requires it, of course) - you just have to have it marked on the card (you did have a card, right?) Of course, in the auction 1H-p-4H, the 4H should be alerted, because the very wide range of the call is considered unexpected in the ACBL. Anybody who asks me for a judgment because the opponents didn't prealert Precision, or because they didn't Alert their limited openings, will be politely denied (well, maybe not in my novice game. Maybe) - that is, I will try very hard not to laugh at them out loud. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 10:01:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16N0Ot09388 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:00:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f16N0Ht09353 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:00:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive40e.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.14]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA27702; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:00:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002801c09090$9bd43540$0e10f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Jac Fuchs" , "BLML" References: <002201c08e2f$d718aea0$cec3f1c3@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:00:23 -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 say the players "flatly refuse" to play the hand in defiance of the director's instruction? How about A-/A- since they have all made the board unplayable, then a 40% PP for their arrogant stupidity. (Perhaps that is not strong enough, but I would not disqualify unless they protested further.) If their is director's error they are protected, if they just ask you to consult and be sure no PP, but if they flat out refuse to play you must come down hard on them. You are running this game...act like it. Craig (I have never had such a problem...perhaps becuase players in my game know that such behaviour would NOT be tolerated.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 5:22 PM Subject: [BLML] Too many spades ... > The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional > pairs event today. > > North: 2S (weak) > East: pass > South: 4S > West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, > East and mine have red ones ..." > What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, > which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at > this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East > and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. > L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the > correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the > bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding > the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. > But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply > that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an > adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and > play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? > > Same question, but you now have the information that South is visually > impaired (he is known to see about 15% of what other people would > see). Does this influence your ruling ? > > Jac > (Jac Fuchs) > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 10:19:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16NJDM16732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:19:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.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 f16NJ6t16690 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:19:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:18:17 -0800 Message-ID: <004101c09092$e91709c0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:14:09 -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 (Sorry about the length) From: "alain gottcheiner" > Marvin L. French wrote: (these are ACBL CTD Gary Blaiss's words, not mine) > > >One reason to call when dummy appears is to enable a person's > >objection to be raised prior to a good or bad result encouraging > >a player to place the damage done to him on other than chance, > >a good decision by opponents or a poor one by him or his partner. > >As you know bridge players frequently look for legal redress to > >their difficulties. > > AG : I agree emphatically with the whole paragraph. "Chance"? Two suits break 3-3, letting a UI contract make, and we don't deserve redress, success was due to mere chance? "Good decision by opponents"? Declarer makes a UI contract with a squeeze, and we don't deserve redress, success was due to skillful play by the declarer? "Poor one by him or his partner"? We don't play good defense against a UI contract, and that annuls redress, failure was due to imperfect play? Can't find such things in the Laws. Gary and Alain must be thinking of times when the UI was not agreed by both sides, or established by the TD, at the time it occurred. Of course failure to do that should usually annul redress if an infraction is not reported promptly. Assuming UI was established when it happened, I would like to know what difference there should legally be regarding redress if the TD is called at the end of play rather than when dummy comes down. Give me an example if you can. The TD can do nothing when called at the earlier time other than determine whether there was a UI infraction, and that can be done later. S/he cannot assess damage that may ensue until the play is over. If there is damage, it must be redressed. In fact, I cannot imagine a TD who ruled UI at the time it occurred saying, "If you later have reason to believe there has been an infraction, call me after the deal is over or when dummy's cards reveal the infraction, whichever comes first." Don't tell me that calling at the later time jeopardizes my rights, I know that. The Preface says so in regard to the word "should." But in a case like this the delayed TD call has no effect on the consequences of the infraction, so "jeopardy" becomes moot. See L11A, which explains what is meant by "jeopardy." If I play on without calling the TD at sight of dummy, my side loses whatever gain we get out of declarer's ignorance of the potential penalty for hir side. I accept that, but will a TD possibly say, "Had you called me earlier, in my opinion the damage would not have been the same, or would not have occurred. Since you have jeopardized your rights, I am ruling no redress"? If so, fine, I surrender my right to redress. I just don't see how failure to call earlier could possibly affect the play. Note that if the TD rules before dummy's first play that an infraction has occurred, the defenders can go for a risky line of defense (but not "wild, irrational, or gambling"), knowing that if it doesn't work there will be redress. In the absence of a ruling, they may not take that risk. Of course the TD will not rule infraction at that time, I hope, although many will prematurely reveal their opinion in some way. At least, I consider it premature, even though there seems to be no Law against it. In my experience a TD will say something like, "Call me when the deal is over if you feel you have been damaged, and I will rule then whether there was an infraction and, if so, whether I believe there was damage." If the TD subsequently rules no infraction, or sees an infraction but obviously (to everyone) no damage, five people's time will have been wasted, especially if the TD "stands ready," as L16A2 requires. It will often happen that an infraction by dummy doesn't get realized by opponents until the play is over, perhaps after a partnership conference that could not take place earlier. And why is it so bad to look for an infraction after obtaining a bad result? Isn't it natural that the notion of a possible infraction is awakened by that circumstance? TDs who say, "You should have called when you saw dummy, I can't do anything for you now" are creating Law, not following Law. I double 3NT, reached by dummy's obvious use of (earlier-acknowledged) UI, because I am on lead with AKQ109 of spades and an outside ace. I am quite happy until declarer shows up with Jxxx spades and suit lengths that bring in 9 tricks without letting me in. After play is over I call the TD and get denied redress because I didn't call when I saw dummy? Will the TD say, "Your double was 'a poor decision,' North would have run to four clubs without that jack-fourth in spades, and now you want the Laws to save you? I'm adjusting for North-South only, you keep your result"? So, I am to call the TD every time a dummy's hand shows evidence of having used UI, am I? Okay, better hire some more TDs. (Just noticed that when the footnote was added to L16A2 "auction and play" in the text should have been changed to "play." The auction is over.) Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 10:48:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f16NlxA27565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:47:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f16Nlrt27536 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:47:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:39:38 -0800 Message-ID: <007a01c09095$e46ab860$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 15:25:46 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" > > Having said all that, and knowing the Laws and Regs of the ACBL, I still > will ask "Do you acknowledge the hesitation?" But if the answer is > anything but an immediate "yep" (including a "what?" or other expression > of lack of comprehension) I call in the TD. Yes, it's wrong, I know. > But I do it. > Both Gary Blaiss of the ACBL and Grattan Endicott of the WBFLC say it's right, so it's right. If there is no agreement, the TD must be summoned immediately. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 11:13:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f170CdU06401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f170CWt06356 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:12:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1708tb25692 for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:08:55 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 19:11:55 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >When I directed my games at the University (containing 4-week-in >players right through to Junior Internationals), I made it quite clear >to some of our better (and sharper) players that if they don't call at >that point, I am going to rule "no UI, no damage, play on." They had >been waiting until the time was right, then dropping the boom on novices >who didn't know better. I'm getting confused. As I understand it, the ACBL election regarding Law 16A1 makes no logical sense. Therefore, the ACBL policy is either: (1) that a player should act as if the ACBL has stood mute regarding any election vis-a-vis Law 16A1 (which would seem to imply that one *may* "reserve one's rights") or, (2) that a player may not reserve his rights, but may not call the TD until he believes UI has been *used* (which is 16A2). In which case *some* TDs, at least, and Michael among them, will rule "sorry, you blew it, no redress" or, (3) that a player may not reserve his rights, but must call the TD *when he believes UI has been passed*. (Which is, I think, what the drafting committee, or whoever, intended when they put the election in Law 16A1. Or am I wrong?) Now I have two burning questions: 1. Which of the above is the real current ACBL policy, and where is it articulated? 2. What is my recourse if I attempt to comply with the policy, and the TD rules "too bad"? Does it matter whether it's a club game or 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/AwUBOoCS7b2UW3au93vOEQLCxQCfURs8sIxp1B6PVbCzb4tg+N8BUyoAnA1w xk+NTV3z+wkkz8Bo/UEKtuFo =9Ns/ -----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 Feb 7 11:15:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f170Fdj07428 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:15:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hood.tvd.be (hood.tvd.be [195.162.196.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f170FWt07382 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:15:32 +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 BAA14043; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:15:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <001801c09099$c4726040$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> From: "Gelders Hans" To: "Anton Witzen" , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> <3.0.6.32.20010206160838.00845100@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 01:06:05 +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 Alain, Did you take in consideration my heart-condition when you wrote these lines? Do you seriously mean that there are such differences between the Dutch and French translations of the laws? And can't we fix that asap? Most of us are fluent in Dutch, French and English, so comparing the different versions can not be such a problem. Hans Gelders P.S. I remember one case very much similar to the case described in this thread (in a pairs tournament in Flanders). The TD ruled according to the Dutch translation. ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "alain gottcheiner" Aan: "Anton Witzen" ; Verzonden: dinsdag 6 februari 2001 16:08 Onderwerp: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities > At 04:04 6/02/01 +0100, Anton Witzen wrote: > >> > >the dutch regulation is: (translated) > >a call is made if the bidding cards are removed from the box with the > >knowing intend of making a bid (but l25 can be applied) > > AG : I didn't beleive it, but the French version says the cards must have > been put on the table ! > This needs to be fixed. We Belgians need this as a hole in the head. TDs > may be asked to rule in English, Dutch or French. That the ruling may be > different in each case could be enough to make the Federation explode (no > smilie here, I'm frightfully serious) > > 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 Feb 7 17:50:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f176nU300751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:49:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f176nNt00713 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:49:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:50:19 -0800 Message-ID: <00ec01c090d2$0ff01ca0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 22:40:21 -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 Ed Reppert wrote: > 1. Which of the above is the real current ACBL policy, and where is > it articulated? I thought I provided it, quoting ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary Blaiss. Here is my understanding of the correct procedure in ACBL-land, going by what Gary and Grattan Endicott have written: (1) If an opponent seems to have created unauthorized information (UI), such as a break in tempo, try to amicably get agreement with the opponents that the UI was indeed created. If successful, continue on with no TD call. If unsuccessful, either drop it or call the TD immediately. The TD will then determine whether or not UI exists. If it does, nothing more will be done at this time. (L16A1) (2) Call the TD when you see evidence that UI has been used in violation of L16. Since you do not call on mere suspicion, this can only occur when dummy is exposed (if that is the player who committed the infraction) or when play is completed (for all others). (L16A2). > 2. What is my recourse if I attempt to comply with the policy, and > the TD rules "too bad"? Write to Gary Blaiss in Memphis, or e-mail gary.blaiss@acbl.org > Does it matter whether it's a club game or not? No. Not if ACBL masterpoints are awarded. While clubs have complete freedom in regard to convention control and leeway for some ACBL tournament regulations, the Laws must be followed in every respect. For instance, psychs can't be barred. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 18:34:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f177YBU16751 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:34:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (root@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca [129.97.134.11]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f177Y3t16709 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 18:34:04 +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 CAA00699 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 02:39:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102070739.CAA00699@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 02:39:52 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 6 February 2001 at 19:11, Ed Reppert wrote: >>When I directed my games at the University (containing 4-week-in >>players right through to Junior Internationals), I made it quite clear >>to some of our better (and sharper) players that if they don't call at >>that point, I am going to rule "no UI, no damage, play on." They had >>been waiting until the time was right, then dropping the boom on novices >>who didn't know better. > >(2) that a player may not reserve his rights, but may not call the TD >until he believes UI has been *used* (which is 16A2). In which case >*some* TDs, at least, and Michael among them, will rule "sorry, you >blew it, no redress" or, Note that I only did that at the University, where (as I said above), the level was such that some people could BL the newbies very well (and didn't need to), and did. I didn't rule like that until *after* I made it clear to those sharpies that attempting to win by the newbies' lack of understanding of the Laws was not appreciated, and definately did not train good behaviour in the novices, if it didn't turn them away from the game completely. I wouldn't do that at a tournament, again unless I firmly believed that players were trying to shark - and again I would warn before so ruling. I probably was doing something illegal with my statement. I believe that the Election means "call when UI is transmitted - you can't reserve rights." I don't understand the "resulting..." part of the Election - I would have expected it to read "that could result..." >(3) that a player may not reserve his rights, but must call the TD >*when he believes UI has been passed*. (Which is, I think, what the >drafting committee, or whoever, intended when they put the election >in Law 16A1. Or am I wrong?) > This is what I believe was meant. But what do I know - I'm just a lowly TD. What I do as a player, I enumerated later in that last message - I follow L16A1 as written, ignoring the Election; ensure that opponents and I agree on the UI passed, and call later if I believe that UI has been used (or immediately if I do not get agreement, or if the opponents seem confused by the question). When I get nailed by the TD, I'll let you all know, I'm sure :-). Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 19:49:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f178n1g04506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:49:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f178mst04471 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:48:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.123.14.23] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14QQHS-0006Xa-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 07 Feb 2001 08:48:50 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 23:54:40 -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: > From: "David Burn" > > > You are East: > > > > North > > 32 > > 32 > > KQJ10643 > > 32 > > East > > A854 > > Q976 > > 2 > > 109765 > > > > West North East South > > 2NT > > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > > Pass > > > > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best from > > suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with > > the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. > > Plan the defence. > > > "Inadvertently" drop the D2 and C5 on the table simultaneously? Not the > S8, too much UI. > > Play the D2 in tempo from the far left of my hand with a sweeping motion? > (Obvious singleton, not suit preference). > > I give up. Pretty close. Your problem is that, unless your partner began with HA10874, you (probably) will not defeat the contract. If, however, he did begin with that holding (and the odds are actually pretty good that this is so, for with J10874 he might have led the jack), he can either lay down HA or play a spade. But this will not be clear to him, and - perhaps reading some suit preference implication into your D2 - he may, left to his own devices, play a club. The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; he can forbid a spade lead, of course, but your partner will now have no logical alternative to laying down HA. At least, that is my understanding from the recent correspondence on the subject of Law 50D. I cannot help feeling, though, that there must be a flaw somewhere. 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 Feb 7 20:23:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f179Mj716207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:22:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f179Mbt16166 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:22:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-55-149.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.55.149]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA08734; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:21:50 GMT Message-ID: <002a01c090e7$c3499b40$95377bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Gelders Hans" , "Anton Witzen" , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> <3.0.6.32.20010206160838.00845100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001801c09099$c4726040$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:22:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. <=====> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gelders Hans To: Anton Witzen ; ; alain gottcheiner Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities > Hi Alain, > > Did you take in consideration my heart-condition > when you wrote these lines? Do you seriously mean > that there are such differences between the Dutch and French > translations of the laws? And can't we fix that asap? > Most of us are fluent in Dutch, French and English, so > comparing the different versions can not be such a problem. > > Hans Gelders > > P.S. > I remember one case very much similar to the case > described in this thread (in a pairs tournament > in Flanders). The TD ruled according to the Dutch > translation. > +=+ In matters of bridge law all Directors should be ruling in accordance with the law in English as promulgated by the WBF. Translations, if they contain errors, do not affect the true law. Which is so, but perhaps I had better add :-)) or ;-( Here we are discussing *regulations* made under Law 80E and the French are entitled to have a different regulation from the Dutch if this is what they decide. The law does not specify a requirement here. ACBL members will express their joy that they have only one set of regulations to grouse about - to which I add :-) ~ 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 Feb 7 20:47:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f179lTi24789 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:47:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin9.email.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f179lOt24765 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:47:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.53]) by mailin9.email.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G8DSQJ00.EZ9 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:51:55 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-010-p-223-75.tmns.net.au ([203.54.223.75]) by mail0.bigpond.com (Claudes-Splendid-MailRouter V2.9b 13/7035342); 07 Feb 2001 19:46:29 Message-ID: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:43:24 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >Marvin French wrote: >>David Burn wrote: >> > You are East: >> > >> > North >> > 32 >> > 32 >> > KQJ10643 >> > 32 >> > East >> > A854 >> > Q976 >> > 2 >> > 109765 >> > >> > West North East South >> > 2NT >> > Pass 3NT Pass Pass >> > Pass >> > >> > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and >> > fifth best from suits headed by an honour). You play the >> > queen, and declarer wins with the king. He leads the >> > eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. >> > Plan the defence. >> > >> "Inadvertently" drop the D2 and C5 on the table >> simultaneously? Not the S8, too much UI. >> >> Play the D2 in tempo from the far left of my hand with a >> sweeping motion? >> (Obvious singleton, not suit preference). >> >> I give up. > >Pretty close. Your problem is that, unless your partner began >with HA10874, you (probably) will not defeat the contract. If, >however, he did begin with that holding (and the odds are >actually pretty good that this is so, for with J10874 he might >have led the jack), he can either lay down HA or play a spade. >But this will not be clear to him, and - perhaps reading some >suit preference implication into your D2 - he may, left to his >own devices, play a club. > >The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping >SA on the table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; >he can forbid a spade lead, of course, but your partner will >now have no logical alternative to laying down HA. > >At least, that is my understanding from the recent >correspondence on the subject of Law 50D. I cannot help >feeling, though, that there must be a flaw somewhere. Very interesting. Does this mean that a paragraph like L64C (director responsible for equity after a revoke) should be added at the end of the Penalty Card law? In the 1992 Australian Winter Nationals I experienced a similar case when my RHO accidentally dropped a Penalty Card which forced his partner to choose one of the two winning plays instead of several losing options. I recall asking the Director whether the ruling "there's nothing the TD can do about this to restore equity" was really correct. Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 22:05:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17B5FH22218 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:05:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk (cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk [195.147.250.167]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f17B57t22177 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:05:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from pb4s09a10.client.global.net.uk ([195.147.121.181] helo=pacific) by cobalt7-fe.global.net.uk with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14QSMC-000479-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:01:52 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c090f5$baeaa120$b57993c3@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:03:30 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:32:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-138.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.138]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f17CWZ720076 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:32:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8128FC.87EE3F54@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:52:44 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> <3.0.6.32.20010206160838.00845100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <001801c09099$c4726040$33daa2c3@upc.chello.be> <002a01c090e7$c3499b40$95377bd5@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > Grattan Endicott <=> > "A man looking at a hippopotamus may sometimes > be tempted to regard a hippopotamus as an > enormous mistake: but he is also bound to confess > that a fortunate inferiority prevents him personally > from making such mistakes." ~ G K Chesterton. > <=====> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gelders Hans > To: Anton Witzen ; ; > alain gottcheiner > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 12:06 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities > > > Hi Alain, > > > > Did you take in consideration my heart-condition > > when you wrote these lines? Do you seriously mean > > that there are such differences between the Dutch and French > > translations of the laws? And can't we fix that asap? > > Most of us are fluent in Dutch, French and English, so > > comparing the different versions can not be such a problem. > > > > Hans Gelders > > > > P.S. > > I remember one case very much similar to the case > > described in this thread (in a pairs tournament > > in Flanders). The TD ruled according to the Dutch > > translation. > > > +=+ In matters of bridge law all Directors should > be ruling in accordance with the law in English as > promulgated by the WBF. Translations, if they > contain errors, do not affect the true law. Which > is so, but perhaps I had better add :-)) or ;-( > Here we are discussing *regulations* made > under Law 80E and the French are entitled to > have a different regulation from the Dutch if this > is what they decide. The law does not specify > a requirement here. It is worth noting here, Grattan, that when you write "Dutch" and "French", you are referring to the countries, not the languages. Similarly there is (or should be) a regulation that is "Belgian". And that regulation exists in dutch and french language versions, and those are quite well translated. Now please don't ask me to find the Belgian regulation quickly, but that is another matter. It is worth noting however, Hans, Alain, that this is not a matter of Law, but of Regulation. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 7 23:33:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17CWrs17188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:32:53 +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 f17CWgt17131 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:32:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-138.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.138]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f17CWc720101 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 13:32:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8129BC.1E8D6670@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:55:56 +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] David Stevenson (DWS) References: <000201c0905f$aaaaff80$cfd27ad5@davicaltd> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The phrase "While the cat's away ..." springs to mind. Anyone care for a discussion on the DwS ? ;-) Seriously, get well soon, David. David Martin wrote: > > I have been asked to let members of the list know that DWS is currently in > hospital with a minor ailment and will be out of action for a couple of > days. He sends his apologies to anyone who is waiting for a reply and he > will respond as soon as he is able to. > > Regards > > David > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- 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 Feb 8 00:39:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17DccA18613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:38:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f17DcVt18575 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 00:38:32 +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 f17DcRl72236 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 08:38:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010207083440.00b1ee90@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, 07 Feb 2001 08:37:33 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Fwd: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Darn! Tripped up by those hot keys again. Apologies to Marv, who will now see this message twice. >At 01:40 AM 2/7/01, Marvin wrote: > >>Ed Reppert wrote: >> >> > 1. Which of the above is the real current ACBL policy, and where is >> > it articulated? >> >>I thought I provided it, quoting ACBL Chief Tournament Director Gary >>Blaiss. Here is my understanding of the correct procedure in ACBL-land, >>going by what Gary and Grattan Endicott have written: >> >>(1) If an opponent seems to have created unauthorized information (UI), >>such as a break in tempo, try to amicably get agreement with the >>opponents >>that the UI was indeed created. If successful, continue on with no TD >>call. If unsuccessful, either drop it or call the TD immediately. The TD >>will then determine whether or not UI exists. If it does, nothing more >>will be done at this time. (L16A1) >> >>(2) Call the TD when you see evidence that UI has been used in violation >>of L16. Since you do not call on mere suspicion, this can only occur when >>dummy is exposed (if that is the player who committed the infraction) or >>when play is completed (for all others). (L16A2). > >That sounds like a perfectly straightforward interpretation of L16A1-2 >as written. If correct, it would seem as though the ACBL's alternate >"election" under L16A1 is intended to have no effect whatsoever. 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 Feb 8 02:44:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17Fhfs01112 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:43:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f17FhXt01067 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:43:34 +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 KAA10994 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:43:29 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA00453 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:43:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:43:29 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102071543.KAA00453@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Ed Reppert > the ACBL policy is either: > (1) that a player should act as if the ACBL has stood mute regarding > any election vis-a-vis Law 16A1 (which would seem to imply that one > *may* "reserve one's rights") or, > (2) that a player may not reserve his rights, but may not call the TD > until he believes UI has been *used* (which is 16A2). In which case > *some* TDs, at least, and Michael among them, will rule "sorry, you > blew it, no redress" or, > (3) that a player may not reserve his rights, but must call the TD > *when he believes UI has been passed*. (Which is, I think, what the > drafting committee, or whoever, intended when they put the election > in Law 16A1. Or am I wrong?) I believe the intention was 3, and the election was just badly worded. However, Gary Blaiss has now said that 1 is acceptable. There is also some confusion over where the election applies. L16A1 gives the option to the SO, so in theory clubs can have their own rules. However, the text of the election says that it applies in all ACBL-sanctioned games. In other words, as a condition of accepting an ACBL sanction, a club must conform to the ACBL election (whatever it means!) on L16A1. In practice, some clubs are quite accepting of 1, even though it appears contrary to the election. I suspect if the ominous "reserving rights" language were changed to something more innocuous along the lines of "agreeing the facts," the ACBL might accept L16A1 as written. The trend in practical play certainly seems to be in that direction. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 03:05:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17G5LW06210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:05:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f17G5Ft06206 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 03:05:15 +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 LAA12371 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:05:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA00485 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:05:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:05:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102071605.LAA00485@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the > table by "mistake". The Hideous Hog would have found the defense with no trouble, of course. If he tries it at Duplicate after 1997, I expect he will find out about L72B1. Before 1997, I don't think there's anything that could have been done unless you were willing to pursue C&E charges. Maybe the 2007 Laws should give South another option: East picks up the penalty card, and it is UI for all purposes to West. If the UI rules weren't so hard to administer, this could be made the only option. (Was West's D-A singleton? If he had held up a round, East could have given a legitimate signal.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 04:05:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17H4j706323 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 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 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 f17H4ct06283 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:04:39 +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 LAA03225 for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 11:05:59 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 11:03:29 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@pbncomputer> References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Once again, DB and I show our very different ways of looking at bridge and the laws of bridge. At 11:54 PM 2/6/2001 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Pretty close. Your problem is that, unless your partner began with >HA10874, you (probably) will not defeat the contract. If, however, he >did begin with that holding (and the odds are actually pretty good that >this is so, for with J10874 he might have led the jack), he can either >lay down HA or play a spade. But this will not be clear to him, and - >perhaps reading some suit preference implication into your D2 - he may, >left to his own devices, play a club. > >The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the >table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; he can forbid a Illegal, of course, under L72b2. >spade lead, of course, but your partner will now have no logical >alternative to laying down HA. By the same token, when responding to Blackwood with a void the best bid is to show the correct number of key cards while kicking your partner softly under the table once for a club void, twice for a diamond void, etc. This will allow you to glide into slams that others would miss with their normal bidding methods. I have also found that when playing against opponents with vision problems, you can discard a suit of the same color as the suit led by flashing it quickly and then concealing it behind your bidding box, and this will often conceal a badly breaking suit. Sometimes people can profit by deliberate illegalities. This doesn't worry me much--certainly not enough to write the laws in such a way that thousands of purely accidental errors are punished as if they were deliberate ones, in order to catch one deliberate one. >At least, that is my understanding from the recent correspondence on the >subject of Law 50D. I cannot help feeling, though, that there must be a >flaw somewhere. I don't see one. >David Burn 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 Feb 8 04:53:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17Hqp423069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:52:51 +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 f17Hqjt23043 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:52:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:49:24 -0800 Message-ID: <001001c0912e$b9ce44c0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010206112448.00852100@pop.ulb.ac.be> <200102062132.QAA19438@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <200102070739.CAA00699@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:44:55 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Michael Farebrother" (in regard to the ACBL's Election for 16A1) > > I believe that the Election means "call when UI is transmitted - you > can't reserve rights." I don't understand the "resulting..." part of > the Election - I would have expected it to read "that could result..." "Resulting" implies in the past. In that case we would have expected "which resulted" instead of "could result." This ambiguity has confused everyone. Since, as Grattan points out, the only option L16A1 offers to SOs is the option of ignoring it, not replacing it (i.e., nothing is said about UI until it is misused), the ambiguous Election should be ignored. > > >(3) that a player may not reserve his rights, but must call the TD > >*when he believes UI has been passed*. (Which is, I think, what the > >drafting committee, or whoever, intended when they put the election > >in Law 16A1. Or am I wrong?) > > > This is what I believe was meant. But what do I know - I'm just a lowly > TD. Quite likely what was meant. But if we are to call the TD for every case of UI, whether or not the opponents agree to it, we will have to hire many more TDs. I think the ACBL didn't like the idea of pairs arguing about UI, but L16A1 doesn't say pairs should argue. If there is no quick, friendly agreement and the subject is to be pursued, call the TD. Nothing wrong with that approach. Perhaps the ACBL read L16A1 as I did originally, which is that a player may blurt out, "I reserve the right to call the Director" when s/he perceives UI. Maybe L16A1 should be rewritten to describe a more friendly procedure. > > What I do as a player, I enumerated later in that last message - I > follow L16A1 as written, ignoring the Election; ensure that opponents > and I agree on the UI passed, and call later if I believe that UI has > been used (or immediately if I do not get agreement, or if the opponents > seem confused by the question). When I get nailed by the TD, I'll let > you all know, I'm sure :-). > You should not get nailed, you are following correct procedure. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 04:55:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17HtJU23928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:55:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f79.law11.hotmail.com [64.4.17.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f17HtDt23892 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 04:55:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:55:06 -0800 Received: from 199.33.217.57 by lw11fd.law11.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:55:05 GMT X-Originating-IP: [199.33.217.57] From: "Pamela L. Mayne" To: gester@globalnet.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 09:55:05 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2001 17:55:06.0207 (UTC) FILETIME=[1A988EF0:01C0912F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > -=- > >+=+ David Stevenson spoke to me from the >hospital this morning. He is scheduled to have >a 'trivial' operation this afternoon and is >expected to be on his feet again tomorrow. "A minor operation is an operation on someone else." >His problem is painful but not life threatening. >The doctors have told him he will be back to >normal in no time - "no better than that?", I >sympathised. I think I speak for all of us when saying that we all have hope of David improving. Precisely what improvements are warranted are debated. (Shall we?) You might want to let him know that by an overwhelming 12-7 vote, BLML hopes he gets well soon. (The dissenters also want him well, just hoping to prolong his break from this list.) --JRM, replies to hotmail address ignored; use jrmayne@mindspring.com _________________________________________________________________ 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 Feb 8 05:13:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17IDGF00233 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 05:13:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f17IDAt00194 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 05:13:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:09:50 -0800 Message-ID: <001301c09131$94c90180$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 10:11:25 -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: "David Burn" > > > > > You are East: > > > > > > North > > > 32 > > > 32 > > > KQJ10643 > > > 32 > > > East > > > A854 > > > Q976 > > > 2 > > > 109765 > > > > > > West North East South > > > 2NT > > > Pass 3NT Pass Pass > > > Pass > > > > > > West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best > from > > > suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins > with > > > the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the > ace. > > > Plan the defence. > > > > > "Inadvertently" drop the D2 and C5 on the table simultaneously? Not > the > > S8, too much UI. > > > > Play the D2 in tempo from the far left of my hand with a sweeping > motion? > > (Obvious singleton, not suit preference). > > > > I give up. > > The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the > table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; he can forbid a > spade lead, of course, but your partner will now have no logical > alternative to laying down HA. > > At least, that is my understanding from the recent correspondence on the > subject of Law 50D. I cannot help feeling, though, that there must be a > flaw somewhere. > Since "other information arising from facing of the penalty card" (LD1) is UI, and that includes the knowledge that partner cannot have the ace of clubs, out of which comes the necessity for laying down the high heart. L16A requires the logical actions to be considered. In this case there are three: lay down the high heart, lead a spade, lead a club. The spade lead is indicated by the UI, and barred anyway. It also demonstrably suggests that the high heart be laid down, since it reveals that partner cannot have the ace of clubs. That leaves a club lead as the only legal play. I once lost an appeal because the (unanimous) AC allowed a bid that was the only logical action for a player, since UI (no Alert) showed that partner had forgotten a convention, and ignoring that knowledge would be illogical. That was a misreading of L16A. One member of that AC is on the ACBL NABC Appeals Committee. I hope he knows better by now. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 06:52:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17Jq4F17206 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:52:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f17Jpvt17172 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 06:51:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.107]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA07318; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:51:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00fb01c0913f$75eb0e80$6b13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Gordon Bower" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Slim slam Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 14:52:07 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk What form of Standard American are you referring to? I would consider the sequence p/1h/2d to be a one round force and in no way denying 3 hearts. Craig Gordon wrote: 2D in > Standard American is nonforcing, 8-12, denies 3 hearts - so the jump to 4H > is a little puzzling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 07:37:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17KbDY03184 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:37:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f17Kb5t03143 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:37:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4rb.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.107]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA01730; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:36:56 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <011501c09145$c4ed7080$6b13f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "Ben Schelen" , "bridge-laws" References: <000101c08e93$7aed90a0$16053dd4@default> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re:[BMLM] Cap Gemini shows the way Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:37:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Get stuffed? Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ben Schelen" > Last night I dreamt I was playing in Cap Gemini. > You can understand I was very nervous. > On table1 I revoked but the nice opps waved it away and adviced me to > concentrade myself. > On table 2 I lost my concentration again and the opps showed to be nice as > well. The diamonds in dummy were J, 9 and 7, whereas my holding was Q, 10 > and 8. > When declarer played the jack from dummy, I played the 10 and I immediately > realized my mistake. I told the opps that I lost my concentration, excused > myself and asked them to allow me the withdraw of the card. > What do you think they answered me? > > 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 Thu Feb 8 10:24:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f17NN3C04495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:23:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f17NMst04438 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:22:55 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f17NMiY17099 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:22:44 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:22 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking 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: <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@pbncomputer> David burn wrote: > Pretty close. Your problem is that, unless your partner began with > HA10874, you (probably) will not defeat the contract. If, however, he > did begin with that holding (and the odds are actually pretty good that > this is so, for with J10874 he might have led the jack), he can either > lay down HA or play a spade. But this will not be clear to him, and - > perhaps reading some suit preference implication into your D2 - he may, > left to his own devices, play a club. > > The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the > table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; he can forbid a > spade lead, of course, but your partner will now have no logical > alternative to laying down HA. Why not? Once the spade Ace is picked up (after enforcing the option) then it is known that partner "may have a black ace and H Qxx" a club is clearly logical in that situation (note this differs from a situation where declarer allows a penalty card to remain on the table). > At least, that is my understanding from the recent correspondence on the > subject of Law 50D. I cannot help feeling, though, that there must be a > flaw somewhere. If you still consider a club to be a non-LA the flaws lies in failing to apply the "could have known" principle and adjusting - or better still the "almost certainly knew, shoot at dawn principle". Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 8 18:37:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f187ajb05960 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:36:45 +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 f187abt05922 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:36:38 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f187aUo08585 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:36:30 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 07:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation 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: <001001c0912e$b9ce44c0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > Perhaps the ACBL read L16A1 as I did originally, which is that a > player may blurt out, "I reserve the right to call the Director" when > s/he perceives UI. Maybe L16A1 should be rewritten to describe a more > friendly procedure. No need to wait for a rewrite of the law. A regulation would do. I suggest Reserving Rights (an ACBL regulation): When a player believes UI has been made available by an opponent he should (politely) seek agreement from his opponents as to the facts. E.g. "Do you agree there was a hesitation?". If there is no agreement the director should be called immediately. The ACBL considers a blunt statement such as "I reserve the right to call the Director" as inappropriate for such a situation. I do not think this is in conflict with an election-free 16a1. 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 Feb 9 02:11:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f18F7uQ02685 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:07:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18F7Et02681 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:07:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B5C8176A8 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 16:06:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:06:27 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: BLML Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Gill a écrit : > > Very interesting. Does this mean that a paragraph like > L64C (director responsible for equity after a revoke) > should be added at the end of the Penalty Card law? > > In the 1992 Australian Winter Nationals I experienced a > similar case when my RHO accidentally dropped a Penalty > Card which forced his partner to choose one of the two > winning plays instead of several losing options. I recall > asking the Director whether the ruling "there's nothing the > TD can do about this to restore equity" was really correct. No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump suit: AKJxx xxxx He cashed the HA, crossed to dummy and led a trump. South discarded a spade but immediately appologized and produced a heart. West tried the ace and it turned out the South had Qxx in hearts. The spade became a penalty card but of course it did no good to West. As it has been established that South's manoeuvre was purely accidental most Directors thought that there was nothing for the TD to do here. During the discussion, however, they were convinced that one should adjust to 6H=. 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 Feb 9 02:23:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f18FKcs02702 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:20:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f18FKWt02698 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:20:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from freenet10.carleton.ca (freenet10 [134.117.136.30]) by freenet.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/NCF_f1_v3.00) with ESMTP id KAA20895 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:20:23 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA13899; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:20:23 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 10:20:23 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A local director thought that the recent column written in the bulleting was interesting, and would like some comments. Tony (aka ac342) >Hi,=20 >Please find attached a typed version of the Gerard copy of February. > > >Appeals: A New View Ron Gerard > >Recounts by Responder > >Bridge mimics life. Although few would cliam that the two are of the = >same blobal significance, recounts have played an increasingly prominent = >role in Hesitation Blackwood situations as well as in teh political = >arena. And, as in that other setting, there is substantial confusion = >about the proper fole of recounts in Blackwood auctions. > >Blackwood recounts are incorrect responses by responder, followed by = >enlightenment on the next round of bidding. Fore example, 5 d to show = >one ace or key card when you actually hold two, then a raise of asker's = >signoff or slam bid to slam or grand slam, respectively. Before Key Card = >and Roman Key Care Blackwood, recounts were relatively rare becuase = >there was notihng particulary complicated about showing ces. > >Nowadayds, responders seem to get confsuesed about what suit is trumps, = >wheterh they are playing "regular' or 1430, even the role of te queen of = >trumps (you'll see). When this produces a Hesitation Balckwood = >"decision' by the asker, it can cause problems for the responder who has = >come to his senses in the time that it took the asker to place the = >contact. > >Let's return to a close cousin of the situation tha began this topic - = >Blackwood episodes with 0 or 3. You hold: >K83.AKJ.AK98.KT2 > >2N3Ha:3S4Nb:5Hc5Sd (study subscripting) >a transfer >b Roman Keycard Blackwood by agreement >c an error >d the usual (break in tempo) > >That 5 h bid should have been 5 d (1430 responses), but you mixed it up = >with 5 h to show two key cards and no s Q. Partner took considerable = >time before bidding 4 s and in the interim you noticed your mistake. = >Partner thinks your side can make 5 s opposite two key cards, so it must = >be clear to bid 6 s when you have three. Or is it? > >In real life, at the Cincinnatin Spring NABC, West bid 6 s and made it = >opposite >AQJ964:T76:T:QJ7 > >What's the problem, you say? Well, there's a big problem. Suppose = >partner had signed off in normal tempo, as would have been teh case ina = >an auciton not infected with Hesitation Blackwood. Would you have = >discovered your extra key card? Perhaps you say, "It didn't matter. I = >swear I relized I had given the wrong response as soon as I bid 5 h. So = >even before my partner took time, I made up my mind to bid 6 s over 5 s = >( or 7 s over 6 s )>" > >Maybe. But we can't really tell, can we? What we CAN tell is that it is = >unauthorized information to West to know that East was considering a = >call that should have been almost automatic based upon the reply to = >Blackwood. The Hesitation suggested that the auction was other than what = >it seemed. > >But Blackwood auctions are supposed to be what they seem. > >To committ Hesitation Blackwood is UI. West shouldn't ahve had the = >opportunity to recheck his hand because that much time shouldn't have = >passed. Whether West actually used that time for that purpose is not the = >point, since we don't know. What we do know is that in a vacuum, without = >the extra time, some number of West's peer group would have had no = >reason to recount, would have assumed they gave the correct response and = >would have honored East's signoff. > >So it was a logical alternative (LA) for West to pass 5 s and the slam = >could not be allowed. To quote from the decision: "(The) break in tempo = >demonstrably suggested that the Blackwood responder review the auction = >and (his) own calls, looking for one which might be giving partner cause = >for consideration...IN the present auction without the UI, It was an LA = >to assume that partner's captaincy governs and that they know where to = >place the contract after the response. No need for reevaluation, = >reassessment or recounting of controls is necessary." > >I'll return to a version of the same example I used when discussing this = >situation int eh 0 or 3 installment. How does West know that East "has = >to" have an ace? What is East had taken a plyder with QJTxxxx:x:x:QJTx? >That's not a hand East was supposed to hold, but it's probalby not the = >worst Balckwood horror ever perpetrated. Why couldn't the "error" int eh = >auctio have been that East didn't ahve a pure hand for 4NT, as above? = >Why is this any different than the 0 or 3 responder in in our original = >example who knows from Hesitation Backwood that the asker doesn't have = >almost that same hand, with no aces there as well as here? > >It isn't. > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 02:57:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f18FvUs02722 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:57:30 +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-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 f18FvKt02718 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 02:57:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14QtRZ-0004f3-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:57:13 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:55:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski writes >Peter Gill a écrit : >> >> Very interesting. Does this mean that a paragraph like >> L64C (director responsible for equity after a revoke) >> should be added at the end of the Penalty Card law? >> >> In the 1992 Australian Winter Nationals I experienced a >> similar case when my RHO accidentally dropped a Penalty >> Card which forced his partner to choose one of the two >> winning plays instead of several losing options. I recall >> asking the Director whether the ruling "there's nothing the >> TD can do about this to restore equity" was really correct. > > No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in >Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents >cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump >suit: I think that, accident or no, this is a case of " ... could have known ...". I would adjust - I'd be interested in DWS view here. cheers john > >AKJxx xxxx > >He cashed the HA, crossed to dummy and led a trump. >South discarded a spade but immediately appologized and >produced a heart. West tried the ace and it turned out >the South had Qxx in hearts. >The spade became a penalty card but of course it did >no good to West. > As it has been established that South's manoeuvre >was purely accidental most Directors thought that >there was nothing for the TD to do here. During >the discussion, however, they were convinced that one should >adjust to 6H=. > > > 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 9 06:44:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f18Jh5t04422 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 06:43:05 +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 f18Jgxt04418 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 06:43:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:39:38 -0800 Message-ID: <003c01c09207$4b772620$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 11:37:55 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Tim West-meads" > > > Perhaps the ACBL read L16A1 as I did originally, which is that a > > player may blurt out, "I reserve the right to call the Director" when > > s/he perceives UI. Maybe L16A1 should be rewritten to describe a more > > friendly procedure. > > No need to wait for a rewrite of the law. A regulation would do. I > suggest > > Reserving Rights (an ACBL regulation): When a player believes UI has been > made available by an opponent he should (politely) seek agreement from his > opponents as to the facts. E.g. "Do you agree there was a hesitation?". > If there is no agreement the director should be called immediately. > The ACBL considers a blunt statement such as "I reserve the right to call > the Director" as inappropriate for such a situation. > > I do not think this is in conflict with an election-free 16a1. > > Good suggestion, Tim. No Election necessary. I'll forward it to the ACBL Competition & Conventions commmittee. I still think L16A1 should be reworded in a way that makes such a regulation unnecessary. By the way, L16A1 says "summon" the Director, not "call." But we all "call" the Director, so why not use that word in the Laws? I was taught in technical writing courses that good, short Anglo-Saxon words are best when there is a choice, as they improve readability. E.g., after a short look in the Laws: "after" vs "subsequent to" "before" vs "prior to" "until" vs "pending" "take back" or "put back" vs "restore" "wrong" vs "erroneous" "speed" vs "tempo" "use" vs "exercise" "ask for" vs "request" And why are calls "out of rotation" while plays are "out of turn"? Can't calls be out of turn, as everyone says? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 09:44:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f18MhsG27550 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:43:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f18Mhkt27507 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:43:47 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f18Mhce11245 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:43:38 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 22:43 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation 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: <003c01c09207$4b772620$70991e18@san.rr.com> Marv, > Good suggestion, Tim. No Election necessary. Thanks Marv, probably best not to trust Americans with elections anyway. Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 11:39:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f190ZYg29113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:35:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f190ZOt29060 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:35:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-47-20.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.47.20]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id AAA01830; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:34:20 GMT Message-ID: <000b01c09230$6fa147a0$142f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "cathie ritchie" , "Cathrina Endicott" , , "Faulkner Lord" , "lynn hunt" , "Patricia Davidson" , "Paul Endicott" Cc: , "John MacGregor" Subject: [BLML] Addresses (email) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 00:33:53 -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 "Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else?" (Stan Hunt) <==o==> > > +=+ A correspondent said: P.S. I am sending this to ALL your addresses as I think I am totally lost! > So I added this to the reply to the main query: > =========================================== > Let me also deal with my email addresses. I have three email > addresses, each in a different PC, well actually four but the > fourth is not of concern here. > cyaxares@lineone.net is my principal computer at home. It > should endure as such and I like everything sent to 'gester' to > be copied to cyaxares. > gester@globalnet.co.uk is my address for the computer (my > personal property) alongside my desk in the office. It is open > Mon - Fri from about 1030 am until about 4 p.m. (1600 hours). > However, I plan to change this address during the course of > the present month - maybe to gester@lineone.net . Await > news on this. > The third PC and its email address are used largely for > personal items intra family etc. I tend to go several days at > a time before picking up messages on this. > The Hermes address is defunct. > =========================================== > ~ 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 Feb 9 12:31:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f191S4317705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:28:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f191Rvt17668 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:27:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:24:36 -0800 Message-ID: <003101c09237$7c600ce0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:19:14 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Tim West-Meads wrote: > In-Reply-To: <003c01c09207$4b772620$70991e18@san.rr.com> > Marv, > > > Good suggestion, Tim. No Election necessary. > > Thanks Marv, probably best not to trust Americans with elections anyway. > You can trust them now that the Republicans are in power. It was the Democrats who tried to overturn the election results. :) Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 12:46:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f191hiK22259 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:43:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop1pub.verizon.net (smtppop1pub.gte.net [206.46.170.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f191hbt22255 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:43:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (1Cust43.tnt1.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.28.105.43]) by smtppop1pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id TAA57305699 Thu, 8 Feb 2001 19:37:18 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <005f01c09239$5b2338c0$0a00000a@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: References: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 17:17:34 -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 Thanks Tony, I've been stewing over this for a week. ----- Original Message ----- From: "A. L. Edwards" To: Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 7:20 AM Subject: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt > A local director thought that the recent column written in the > bulleting was interesting, and would like some comments. > > Tony (aka ac342) > >Hi,=20 > >Please find attached a typed version of the Gerard copy of February. > > > > > >Appeals: A New View Ron Gerard > > > >Recounts by Responder > > > >Bridge mimics life. Although few would cliam that the two are of the = > >same blobal significance, recounts have played an increasingly prominent = > >role in Hesitation Blackwood situations as well as in teh political = > >arena. And, as in that other setting, there is substantial confusion = > >about the proper fole of recounts in Blackwood auctions. > > > >Blackwood recounts are incorrect responses by responder, followed by = > >enlightenment on the next round of bidding. Fore example, 5 d to show = > >one ace or key card when you actually hold two, then a raise of asker's = > >signoff or slam bid to slam or grand slam, respectively. Before Key Card = > >and Roman Key Care Blackwood, recounts were relatively rare becuase = > >there was notihng particulary complicated about showing ces. > > > >Nowadayds, responders seem to get confsuesed about what suit is trumps, = > >wheterh they are playing "regular' or 1430, even the role of te queen of = > >trumps (you'll see). When this produces a Hesitation Balckwood = > >"decision' by the asker, it can cause problems for the responder who has = > >come to his senses in the time that it took the asker to place the = > >contact. > > > >Let's return to a close cousin of the situation tha began this topic - = > >Blackwood episodes with 0 or 3. You hold: > >K83.AKJ.AK98.KT2 > > > >2N3Ha:3S4Nb:5Hc5Sd (study subscripting) > >a transfer > >b Roman Keycard Blackwood by agreement > >c an error > >d the usual (break in tempo) > > > >That 5 h bid should have been 5 d (1430 responses), but you mixed it up = > >with 5 h to show two key cards and no s Q. Partner took considerable = > >time before bidding 4 s and in the interim you noticed your mistake. = > >Partner thinks your side can make 5 s opposite two key cards, so it must = > >be clear to bid 6 s when you have three. Or is it? > > > >In real life, at the Cincinnatin Spring NABC, West bid 6 s and made it = > >opposite > >AQJ964:T76:T:QJ7 > > > >What's the problem, you say? Well, there's a big problem. Suppose = > >partner had signed off in normal tempo, as would have been teh case ina = > >an auciton not infected with Hesitation Blackwood. Would you have = > >discovered your extra key card? Perhaps you say, "It didn't matter. I = > >swear I relized I had given the wrong response as soon as I bid 5 h. So = > >even before my partner took time, I made up my mind to bid 6 s over 5 s = > >( or 7 s over 6 s )>" > > > >Maybe. But we can't really tell, can we? What we CAN tell is that it is = > >unauthorized information to West to know that East was considering a = > >call that should have been almost automatic based upon the reply to = > >Blackwood. The Hesitation suggested that the auction was other than what = > >it seemed. > > > >But Blackwood auctions are supposed to be what they seem. > > > >To committ Hesitation Blackwood is UI. West shouldn't ahve had the = > >opportunity to recheck his hand because that much time shouldn't have = > >passed. Whether West actually used that time for that purpose is not the = > >point, since we don't know. What we do know is that in a vacuum, without = > >the extra time, some number of West's peer group would have had no = > >reason to recount, would have assumed they gave the correct response and = > >would have honored East's signoff. > > This is the paragraph that seems to say your hand can become UI. Certainly anything that is suggested by partner including that there is a problem is UI but providing time for reconsideration is not itself information of any kind. It seems to me that we would most often reach the same result as the last few paragraphs of the article illustrate. It could be difficult to show pass was not a LA or that partner's hesitation didn't cause the wake up to occur. On the other hand, alternative actions demonstrably suggested(L73f1) are bids and plays not "look at your hand". If the hand provides no LA where does it say we can't look at our hand or the auction? >>So it was a logical alternative (LA) for West to pass 5 s and the slam = > >could not be allowed. To quote from the decision: "(The) break in tempo = > >demonstrably suggested that the Blackwood responder review the auction = > >and (his) own calls, looking for one which might be giving partner cause = > >for consideration...IN the present auction without the UI, It was an LA = > >to assume that partner's captaincy governs and that they know where to = > >place the contract after the response. No need for reevaluation, = > >reassessment or recounting of controls is necessary." > > > >I'll return to a version of the same example I used when discussing this = > >situation int eh 0 or 3 installment. How does West know that East "has = > >to" have an ace? What is East had taken a plyder with QJTxxxx:x:x:QJTx? > >That's not a hand East was supposed to hold, but it's probalby not the = > >worst Balckwood horror ever perpetrated. Why couldn't the "error" int eh = > >auctio have been that East didn't ahve a pure hand for 4NT, as above? = > >Why is this any different than the 0 or 3 responder in in our original = > >example who knows from Hesitation Backwood that the asker doesn't have = > >almost that same hand, with no aces there as well as here? > > > >It isn't. > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 13:27:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f192OEX22298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:24:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f192O7t22294 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:24:08 +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 SAA08218; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 18:23:57 -0800 Message-Id: <200102090223.SAA08218@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 08 Feb 2001 17:17:34 PST." <005f01c09239$5b2338c0$0a00000a@pavilion> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:23:55 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Mike Dodson wrote: [quoting Ron Gerard in the ACBL Bulletin] > > >To committ Hesitation Blackwood is UI. West shouldn't ahve had the > > >opportunity to recheck his hand because that much time shouldn't have > > >passed. Whether West actually used that time for that purpose is not the > > >point, since we don't know. What we do know is that in a vacuum, without > > >the extra time, some number of West's peer group would have had no > > >reason to recount, would have assumed they gave the correct response and > > >would have honored East's signoff. > > > > This is the paragraph that seems to say your hand can become UI. Certainly > anything > that is suggested by partner including that there is a problem is UI but > providing time for reconsideration is not itself information of any kind. Technically, no one is saying that your hand can become UI. Gerard is saying that, in this situation, you can no longer do what your hand tells you to do; but this still doesn't fit the definition of UI in the Laws. Since we don't have a good term for this, I'll use the (flawed) term "ignorable information" or "illegal information", or II, for information that is "authorized" by definition but that must, in essence, be ignored anyway. Anyway, using this terminology, it certainly sounds strange to suggest that one's hand can become II. However, it may not be all that stranger than suggesting that one's own system can become II---and it's generally accepted that one's system *can* become II, if you've forgotten it and UI from partner (such as an Alert, failure to Alert, or explanation) makes you realize that you've forgotten it. The principle *might* be approximately the same, since in both cases you've been awakened. I agree that the analogy isn't perfect, since "extra time" doesn't give you information in the same way that an unexpected Alert or explanation might. -- 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 Feb 9 13:49:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f192kfh22325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:46:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f192kat22321 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:46:36 +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 NAA02245 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:49:36 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 13:40:01 +0000 (EST) Received: from immcbrn1.immi.gov.au ([164.97.95.58]) by C3W-NOTES.AU.CSC.NET (Lotus Domino Release 5.0.6) with SMTP id 2001020913445324:59801 ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:44:53 +1100 Received: by immcbrn1.immi.gov.au(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7 (934.1 12-30-1999)) id 4A2569EE.00148C16 ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:44:25 +1000 X-Lotus-FromDomain: IMMI To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-ID: <4A2569EE.00148BF7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:44:20 +1000 Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/02/2001 01:44:53 PM, Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/02/2001 01:44:57 PM, Serialize complete at 09/02/2001 01:44:57 PM Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the thread *Cap Gemini shows the way*, one wrote: >Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that a contestant >*must* always attempt to act in their own best interests. (Unless >the notorious L74B1 is given a broader than usual interpretation.) Some BLMLers contradicted, by citing L72A4 and L72A5. The spiritual heirs of Kaplan claimed that the words *it is appropriate* implied that contrary actions were not appropriate. It is a fundamental principle of mathematics that a theory needs to meet only one counter-example in order to be demolished. Therefore: If contestants must *always* attempt to act in their own best competitive interests, what about L72B3? In last year's thread *Invisible Revoke*, the overwhelming interpretation by the list of this Law was that the words *no obligation to* meant that a player had a free choice between competitiveness and kindness, with each being equally Lawful. ***************************************************************** Assume that neither your partnership, nor the opponents have committed a mechanical irregularity. Can your goals be regulated by the SO under L74B1, to force you to try to win? The ACBL once had, and maybe still has, a regulation which attempted to prohibit a contestant from playing misere. (The Bridge World noted that this reg made a Bath Coup felonious.) If I was a member of the ACBL, I would currently be in breach of the anti-Bath Coup reg. I am playing in a 6-match Swiss teams at my local club, over three consecutive Thursday nights. My expert partner and I have rarely played together before, but will soon line up at a week-long National Championship in Surfers Paradise. We are therefore treating the current event as a practice outing. During every auction, I make a point of not necessarily choosing what I consider the best call. Instead, I deliberately choose calls which are most likely to result in undiscussed bidding situations. (As a result of my felonious policy, when my top-seeded team met the second seeds, our winning margin was merely 56 imps :-)) 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 Feb 9 15:42:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f194bcR13844 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:37:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f194bUt13802 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:37:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldnkf.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.222.143]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA12944 for ; Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:37:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A83756A.804671EF@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 20:43:22 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) References: <200102090223.SAA08218@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: > Technically, no one is saying that your hand can become UI. Gerard is > saying that, in this situation, you can no longer do what your hand > tells you to do; but this still doesn't fit the definition of UI in > the Laws. Since we don't have a good term for this, I'll use the > (flawed) term "ignorable information" or "illegal information", or II, > for information that is "authorized" by definition but that must, in > essence, be ignored anyway. Please don't use II for this! If it becomes sufficiently popular, it may force me to change my II (illicit information) which is the terminology I have been using for handling the problem of prior acquisition of hand records and the like; I'm content with my abbreviation for this and if Adam has impaired it, I'm suing. As to the problem of your hand becoming UI, while I normally side with Gerard, I disagree with him here. The "extra time" argument strikes me as totally forced and totally baseless. Thus, no need for the terminology. How about "Barred information"? --JRM, OKbridge 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 Fri Feb 9 16:42:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f195dfZ05574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:39:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f195dYt05534 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:39:35 +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 QAA19235 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:42:28 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:32:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 16:37:18 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 09/02/2001 04:37:48 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ron Gerard wrote: >To commit Hesitation Blackwood is UI. Agreed. But to call this situation Hesitation Blackwood is to name an arm a leg. Part of the definition of Hesitation Blackwood is the transmission of UI about the hand of the *Hesitating Blackwooder*. >West shouldn't have had the opportunity to recheck his hand because >that much time shouldn't have passed. Shouldn't??? Hares, who call at a uniform quick tempo, gain certain intrinsic advantages because of their speed. Tortoises, with a uniform steady (but not slow) tempo, gain other intrinsic advantages - one of which is giving pard more time for thinking or *rethinking*. Only if the Blackwooder's signoff was *not* in usual tempo, *and* the partnership has a history of (and therefore an agreement about) two-way Blackwood responses, may an adjusted score be assigned under the second sentence of L73D1. 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 Feb 9 18:43:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f197d7K11784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:39:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f197cxt11749 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:39:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-79-24.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.79.24]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA21073; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:38:30 GMT Message-ID: <001b01c0926b$a82c37c0$184f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" , References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:33:18 -0000 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else?" (Stan Hunt) <==o==> ----- Original Message ----- From: John (MadDog) Probst To: Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 3:55 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking > In article <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski > writes > >Peter Gill a écrit : > >> > >> Very interesting. Does this mean that a paragraph like > >> L64C (director responsible for equity after a revoke) > >> should be added at the end of the Penalty Card law? > >> > >> In the 1992 Australian Winter Nationals I experienced a > >> similar case when my RHO accidentally dropped a Penalty > >> Card which forced his partner to choose one of the two > >> winning plays instead of several losing options. I recall > >> asking the Director whether the ruling "there's nothing the > >> TD can do about this to restore equity" was really correct. > > > > No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in > >Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents > >cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump > >suit: > > I think that, accident or no, this is a case of " ... could have known > ...". I would adjust - I'd be interested in DWS view here. > +=+ The introductory paragraph of Law 50 applies. ~ 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 Feb 9 19:30:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f198Rd428893 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:27:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f198RWt28889 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 19:27:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-97-18.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.97.18]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA07044; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:26:41 GMT Message-ID: <002b01c09272$63163260$184f063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , References: <4A2569EE.00148BF7.00@immcbrn1.immi.gov.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:26:49 -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 "Why do you have to be a nonconformist like everybody else?" (Stan Hunt) <==o==> ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 3:44 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu > ----------------------- \x/ ------------------------- > > In the thread *Cap Gemini shows the way*, one wrote: > > >Nowhere in the Laws or the Scope is it stated that > > a contestant > >*must* always attempt to act in their own best > > interests. (Unless the notorious L74B1 is given a > > broader than usual interpretation.) > ----------- \x/ ---------- > The ACBL once had, and maybe still has, a regulation > which attempted to prohibit a contestant from playing > misere. (The Bridge World noted that this reg made a > Bath Coup felonious.) > -------------- \x/ --------------------- +=+ The distinction should be made between the purposes of the Laws in defining the game and the powers of sponsoring orgs to create a mode or style for their tournaments. The place for a requirement of this kind, when it is desirable, is in the Conditions of Contest. WBF General Conditions of Contest, Section 26.4: " The WBF expects all teams and partnerships to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. While a team may rest its players and make other decisions for strategic reasons, the failure to play anything less than as good bridge as possible is not permitted and the Committee* shall have the authority to determine whether there has been such a failure. Teams may submit particular proposed strategies to the Committee in advance to determine compliance with this provision. Any non-compliance will be subject to such penalties as may be imposed by the Committee, including recommendation that the Executive Council disqualify or suspend any team." [* Tournament Appeals Committee] ~ Grattan ~ 'It was a miracle of rare device A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice' +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 21:02:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f199wVV18740 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:58:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ruthenium ([194.73.73.138]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f199wOt18736 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:58:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.105.190] (helo=pbncomputer) by ruthenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14RAJo-0004Lo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 09:58:20 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0927e$d2c60020$be6901d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> <001b01c0926b$a82c37c0$184f063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:58:11 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > > No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in > >Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents > >cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump > >suit: > > I think that, accident or no, this is a case of " ... could have known > ...". I would adjust - I'd be interested in DWS view here. > +=+ The introductory paragraph of Law 50 applies. Yes, but the fact is that the person who commits *any* irregularity that turns out to benefit his side could have known, before committing it, that it might do so. Whereas it may happen that an irregularity benefits a player's side in a way that he did not foresee, that is an entirely different matter from a way that he could not have foreseen, since if something happens, it is (ipso facto) possible that someone could have foreseen it. At present, Laws 72B1 and 72A5 are incompossible. This ought to be resolved. 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 Feb 9 21:21:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19AIES18770 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:18:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19AI8t18766 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 21:18:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.105.190] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14RAct-0001Lo-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:18:04 +0000 Message-ID: <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:17:57 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Once again, DB and I show our very different ways of looking > at bridge and the laws of bridge. Quite so. The point is that: > Sometimes people can profit by deliberate illegalities. This > doesn't worry me much--certainly not enough to write the laws in such a > way that thousands of purely accidental errors are punished as if they were > deliberate ones, in order to catch one deliberate one. Nobody revokes on purpose. But the law punishes people who revoke. It seems to me entirely sensible that the laws of a game should not have to concern themselves with what people meant to do (or did not mean to do). If X is an infraction, then there is a penalty for X, regardless of the motive for the commission of X. That penalty should be sufficient to deter people from deliberately doing X - that is, it should provide full redress to the opponents, so that their result is as good as it could have been had X not been perpetrated, and it should include an additional element of penalty. If this deals harshly with people who accidentally do X - so what? The original revoke law contained both of these elements: the revoke trick, illegally won, was given back (redress) and an additional trick was transferred (penalty). The important fact is that nobody, from the Bermuda Bowl to the kitchen table, had any problem at all with this law - if you revoked, whether you did it on purpose or not, you were going to lose a couple of tricks and get an awful result. That was your fault for not paying attention, and was universally accepted as such. But now we have laws which attempt to take into account whether the revoke "made any difference", or whether someone who breaks the laws by accident "could have known" this or did not "carefully avoid" that. For exactly that reason, we have a game that no one knows how to play any more. The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 9 22:36:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19BX8J00555 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:33:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from listonosz.comarch.pl (listonosz.comarch.pl [195.116.193.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19BX0t00514 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 22:33:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from comarch.pl (pcciborowski.sse.comarch [10.1.10.136]) by listonosz.comarch.pl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A96F176AD for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:32:43 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3A83D538.257FFB99@comarch.pl> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:32:08 +0100 From: Konrad Ciborowski X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [fr] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@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 a écrit : >The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to > profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. Amen, David. And still that revoke law works a lot better the either the claim law or MI law. Can you even image the existnce of debate dWs vs. DWS on revokes? When a revoke occurs the TD opens TFLB, reads the appropriate Law and makes ruling. The same in every place in the world. But unfortunately there are plenty of Laws that need to be "interpreted"; and they are.. Just look: 1) Scene one: two card ending. Declarer has one spade (good) and one losing club left in dummy. He says "club". The deffenders wait a second or two and then say "so we take the rest". Declarer replies "I meant of course that I concede a club; it would be absurd not to play a spade now." TD rules that "club" was an incomplete call so L46B apllies; thereore a club should be played but "declarer's different intention was incontrovertible" so he lets him take his trick for the spade. 2) Scene two: declarer has AKJ32 in hand and 864. His RHO plays the 5D, he plays the 2 from his hand and LHO follows with the 7! Declarer says "diamond" but after a second corrects himself to "eight, please". TD rules that "diamond" was an incomplete call so L46B apllies; therefore the 4 should be played because "declarer's different intention was NOT incontrovertible" this time. I guess you already know the answer: a diferent person was directing. At the risk of being called frustrated by Ton I admit that I was deender in the first case and declarer in the second. I don't mind losing a trick for the D7; I'm ready to pay for my mistakes. But "consistency is all I ask". And the approach that every mistake is punished regardless of the player's intention, whether it matters or not ensures consistency. Your approach, Grant, doesn't. 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 Sat Feb 10 00:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19DNmM10136 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:23:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19DNgt10102 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 00:23:42 +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 f19DNbf51544 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:23:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@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, 09 Feb 2001 08:22:44 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:20 AM 2/8/01, ac342 wrote: >A local director thought that the recent column written in the >bulleting was interesting, and would like some comments. [article snipped] If you've been reading Mr. Gerard's series throughout, it will be obvious that he is a strong spokesman for the "if it hesitates shoot it" lobby. We can (and undoubtedly will continue to) argue at length about might-have's and could-have's and whether the law should require adjudicators to read minds. But, putting all that aside, there will be situations where a player miscounts his key cards and misresponds to Blackwood, realizes he has done so, and decides that he will attempt to recover by raising his partner's signoff. If his partner boxes his cards and slams them on the table, then signs off at 5, taking .3 seconds to do so, he will raise to 6. If his partner huddles and dithers, then signs off at 5, taking a full minute to do so, he will raise to 6. If we adjust back to 5 in the latter situation, it's clear that it's the hesitation that's being punished, not the raise. More debatable is the relevance of the contention made in the actual AC case Mr. Gerard cites that it was (or, rather, might have been) only the hesitation by the Blackwood bidder that provided the responder with the time and/or incentive to realize that he had misresponded originally. That raises the question, recently brought to our attention by (IIRC) Herman, whether the knowledge of the cards one actually holds can ever be UI under any circumstances. Right now I'd be inclined to vote no, but the floor is still open. 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 Feb 10 01:54:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19EqHw11632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:52:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19EqAt11594 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:52:10 +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 PAA03289; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:52:06 +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 PAA12919; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:51:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010209155354.00849c70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 15:53:54 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> References: <200102081520.KAA13899@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 08:22 9/02/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >More debatable is the relevance of the contention made in the actual AC >case Mr. Gerard cites that it was (or, rather, might have been) only >the hesitation by the Blackwood bidder that provided the responder with >the time and/or incentive to realize that he had misresponded >originally. That raises the question, recently brought to our >attention by (IIRC) Herman, whether the knowledge of the cards one >actually holds can ever be UI under any circumstances. AG : If I understand Herman, he merely pretends that the UI lies in the fact that what one has bid is not what one holds. To this you could indeed be awakened by partner's huddle. Right now I'd >be inclined to vote no, but the floor is still open. AG : for UIers to disappear into ? 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 Feb 10 02:57:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19Fv5g28502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:57:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19Fuwt28498 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:56:59 +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 KAA11312 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:55 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA16333 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:54 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:56:54 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102091556.KAA16333@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "David Burn" > Yes, but the fact is that the person who commits *any* irregularity that > turns out to benefit his side could have known, before committing it, > that it might do so. The language of L72B1 is "likely to damage" the NOS. There's a big difference between 'might' and 'likely'. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 03:03:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19G34R28530 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:03:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19G2vt28526 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:02:58 +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 KAA04946 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:04:27 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010209100151.007dce00@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:01:51 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <3A83D538.257FFB99@comarch.pl> References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> 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 f19G30t28527 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:32 PM 2/9/2001 +0100, Konrad Ciborowski wrote: >David Burn a écrit : >>The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to >> profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. > > Amen, David. And still that revoke law works a lot better the >either the claim law or MI law. Can you even image the existnce >of debate dWs vs. DWS on revokes? Revokes are much easier situations to write laws about than MI, surely. Very few laws can be written as simply as that. > At the risk of being called frustrated by Ton I admit that >I was deender in the first case and declarer in the second. >I don't mind losing a trick for the D7; I'm ready to pay for >my mistakes. But "consistency is all I ask". And the approach >that every mistake is punished regardless of the player's intention, >whether it matters or not ensures consistency. Your approach, >Grant, doesn't. Quite true, I fully agree. I repeat my position--I understand the good you are trying to achieve, but I am not willing to pay the price you are willing to pay to get it. I am not willing to have automatic penalties attached to imperfect claim statements, hesitations, or incomplete card designations, because it would do more to decrease the pleasure of the game for me [and, I _think_, most other people] than the added consistency would increase pleasure. > Konrad Ciborowski > Kraków, Poland 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 Feb 10 03:16:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19GGMH28570 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:16:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19GGFt28566 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:16:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4pn.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.55]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA18164 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:16:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008c01c092b3$ae93ffb0$3713f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: References: <003101c09237$7c600ce0$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:16:37 -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 Ex-CUSE me...are you telling us we should have given the job to TB? That dog won't hunt! :-)) Craig Tim WM wrote... probably best not to trust Americans with elections anyway. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 03:19:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19GJiq28585 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:19:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19GJct28581 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 03:19:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id LAA12538 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:19:35 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA16375 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:19:35 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:19:35 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102091619.LAA16375@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "John R. Mayne" > As to the problem of your hand becoming UI, while I normally side with > Gerard, I disagree with him here. The "extra time" argument strikes me > as totally forced and totally baseless. While Gerard has a point, I think the problem is that he is using the wrong law. Neither the legal auction nor the contents of one's hand can possibly be UI. I think the law he may be looking for is 73B1, but I'm not sure. To take a possibly clearer example, suppose we have an ordinary auction, and in the middle of it, North says to South "Stay awake over there; I'm about to start cue bidding." This sounds like some kind of infraction to me, although it isn't clear how we would adjust the score. The one thing I am sure of is that L16 isn't involved because North hasn't given any real information about his own hand. (Assume that the auction alone will make it obvious that North's next bid is a cue and not something else.) How would people approach this infraction, aside from the obvious PP? And in the "hesitation Blackwood with miscounted aces" case, are we willing to make the hesitation itself the infraction? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 04:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19HbH525400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19Hb5t25340 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.218]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f19Hb1701638 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:37:02 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A83CDC7.1129DC85@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:00:23 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation References: <003101c09237$7c600ce0$70991e18@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: > > > > You can trust them now that the Republicans are in power. It was the > Democrats who tried to overturn the election results. :) > Sorry, Marv, the way I see it, it was the Republicans who succeeded in overturning the results. (Smiley noted) -- 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 Feb 10 04:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19Hb9525355 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19Hb0t25308 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.218]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f19Han701622 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:36:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A83CD3A.3EF5FE35@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:58:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com><3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> <001b01c0926b$a82c37c0$184f063e@dodona> <000701c0927e$d2c60020$be6901d5@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with David Burn on this one. David Burn wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > > > No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in > > >Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents > > >cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump > > >suit: > > > > I think that, accident or no, this is a case of " ... could have > known > > ...". I would adjust - I'd be interested in DWS view here. > > > +=+ The introductory paragraph of Law 50 applies. > > Yes, but the fact is that the person who commits *any* irregularity that > turns out to benefit his side could have known, before committing it, > that it might do so. Very true. We need to find at least one logical argument that supports the "could have known" in the actual case. just to recap, the hands were : x AKJxx xxxx Qxx declarer (left) had cashed the ace and crossed to dummy to lead small. offender had first revoked, but changed this, in time (even sooner), to a small one. >From the point of view of declarer, is it more likely that someone who discovers a revoke has only one - or more than one ? I don't think there is any change in likelyhood, especially if it is clear that the revoke (as is usually the case in cases like this) is because offender thought another suit was going to be played. So I really don't believe that declarer should draw this conclusion. And I don't think one can suggest that offender could have known that showing another card would tempt declarer into making a conclusion that is faulty. > Whereas it may happen that an irregularity benefits > a player's side in a way that he did not foresee, that is an entirely > different matter from a way that he could not have foreseen, since if > something happens, it is (ipso facto) possible that someone could have > foreseen it. At present, Laws 72B1 and 72A5 are incompossible. This > ought to be resolved. > -- 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 Feb 10 04:37:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19HbJC25409 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19Hb8t25349 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 04:37:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-218.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.218]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f19Hb4701648 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:37:04 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A83CFBA.5011F36@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 12:08:42 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> <005f01c09239$5b2338c0$0a00000a@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike dodson wrote: > > This is the paragraph that seems to say your hand can become UI. Certainly > anything > that is suggested by partner including that there is a problem is UI but > providing time for reconsideration is not itself information of any kind. > > It seems to me that we would most often reach the same result as the last > few > paragraphs of the article illustrate. It could be difficult to show pass > was not a LA > or that partner's hesitation didn't cause the wake up to occur. On the > other hand, alternative actions demonstrably suggested(L73f1) are bids and > plays not > "look at your hand". If the hand provides no LA where does it say we can't > look > at our hand or the auction? > The answer to this one is almost the same as in that other thread - is your own bid AI to you ? I believe that when there is UI that suggests that you take some action that provides you with AI, then the I that you find is still UI. The I is AI, but the fact that you need the I is UI. Your action is based upon this "fact that you needed to find out". It is the same as with the "professional question". The response that partner has extracted for your benefit is, in itself, AI, but the fact that there were "questions to be asked" is 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 Sat Feb 10 05:14:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19IEIA08423 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:14:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19IEBt08391 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:14:12 +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 KAA24375; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:14:07 -0800 Message-Id: <200102091814.KAA24375@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:19:35 EST." <200102091619.LAA16375@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 10:13:46 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > > From: "John R. Mayne" > > As to the problem of your hand becoming UI, while I normally side with > > Gerard, I disagree with him here. The "extra time" argument strikes me > > as totally forced and totally baseless. > > While Gerard has a point, I think the problem is that he is using the > wrong law. Neither the legal auction nor the contents of one's hand > can possibly be UI. What should happen in this situation? North bids 4NT. South bids 5C, showing no aces. This surprises North, who thinks South is very unlikely on the prior auction not to have an ace. Plus, this deck of cards is pretty sticky, and at the beginning of the hand, North saw South struggling while trying to get his hand sorted and fanned properly. North draws the conclusion that South probably has an ace hidden. West, who doesn't know what flavor of Blackwood they're using, asks about the meaning of 5C. North says "It shows zero aces, but I suspect he has an ace hidden because these cards are sticky." West passes, and North then signs off at 5S. South, after hearing North's comment, now realizes he's looking at just 12 cards, and he finds the missing ace and goes on to 6S, which is cold. Obviously, North has violated L73B1 and deserves a procedural penalty of either one full board or one bullet, whichever is the greater penalty. But does Law 16 apply? I think it might. One could argue like this: South received the unauthorized information that North believed South had a card stuck. South's action, to take a closer look at his hand and then correct for it, was something demonstrably suggested by this UI. A logical alternative action would have been for South to assume that North's decision was final, and pass 5S without rechecking. Since the action he actually took was demonstrably suggested by the UI, the 6S call is thus illegal and the contract is rolled back to 5S. The point here, however, is that this does not make one's hand become UI. The UI in this example is North's remark, and South's actions were, according to the argument, demonstrably suggested by the remark. The hand itself is not UI, but South taking a closer look at his hand was an action suggested by the UI. Arguing that "one's hand cannot possibly be UI" is really a strawman argument here; that was the point I was trying to make earlier, and that's why I suggested adopting a new term to avoid this sort of confusion. I'm happy with "Barred Information" by the way, if it will help me avoid a copyright infringement lawsuit. Now if you also believe that one's hand cannot possibly be BI, that's a totally different argument. By the way, if you think using L16 in my example is ridiculous, that's fine, because you can still use L12A1 to adjust. This is also a fallback position for Ron Gerard's argument. If one agrees with Gerard that an infraction was committed (when one partner hesitates and the other discovers a missing ace), then it doesn't really matter whether it's technically covered by L16 or not. If L16 doesn't apply, then L12A1 does, so you can adjust. (I'm not saying I agree that there's an infraction in Gerard's example.) > . . . The one thing I am sure of is that L16 isn't involved because > North hasn't given any real information about his own hand. I don't think UI has to be information about partner's hand. If I forget my system and my partner's Alert wakes me up, I have UI even though the Alert doesn't tell me anything about partner's hand. -- 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 Feb 10 05:41:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19IdbQ10845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:39:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from psa836.la.asu.edu (root@psa836.la.asu.edu [129.219.44.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19IdVt10813 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:39:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19Bo6p02963 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:50:06 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:31:43 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020911500602.02895@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, David Burn wrote: > But now we have laws which attempt to take into account whether the > revoke "made any difference", or whether someone who breaks the laws by > accident "could have known" this or did not "carefully avoid" that. For > exactly that reason, we have a game that no one knows how to play any > more. The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to > profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. But the rules are needed to create fair situations in the occasional places in which they matter. 99% of revokes are dealt with by the one-trick or two-trick penalty, and 99% of calls out of turn are dealt with by the barring of partner. The contract is 3NT. Dummy has AKQ974 of clubs and no side entry. Wast has J32 of clubs and the S5 mixed in with them. West discards the S5 on the third club, then wins the fourth round with the CJ. The two-trick penalty is inadequate here because West gained three tricks as a direct result of his infraction. I don't see any way to handle this situation fairly without the current rule, precisely in order to prevent West from profiting from the irregularity. But indirect profits need to be allowed, unless you want to require every infraction to be punished with a bad result. South opens 1NT out of turn. The penalty is that North is barred. When South's turn comes, he guesses to bid 3NT. As it happens, N-S have 23 HCP but nine tricks, so N-S get a top because the field is in 1NT or 2NT making three. They paid the penalty, as South was forced to guess at the contract; N-S should not be penalized further for guessing right. Or, still more innocuous, West makes a slow pass over 3H in a competitive auction; this is not even an infraction, although it transmits UI. East, an ethical player, passes rather than competing to 3S when both are LA's. Both contracts go down one. SHould E-W be allowed to keep their good score? -- 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 Feb 10 06:00:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19IwoR17447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:58:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19Iwht17411 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 05:58:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19C9Je02979 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:09:19 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:59:30 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200102091619.LAA16375@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102091619.LAA16375@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020912091803.02895@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Steve Willner wrote: > While Gerard has a point, I think the problem is that he is using the > wrong law. Neither the legal auction nor the contents of one's hand > can possibly be UI. > I think the law he may be looking for is 73B1, but I'm not sure. To > take a possibly clearer example, suppose we have an ordinary auction, > and in the middle of it, North says to South "Stay awake over there; > I'm about to start cue bidding." This sounds like some kind of > infraction to me, although it isn't clear how we would adjust the > score. The one thing I am sure of is that L16 isn't involved because > North hasn't given any real information about his own hand. L16 doesn't say that the information is about his own hand; it only says that the information suggests a call or play. As a clearer example in this case, suppose that North opens 1NT, East bids 2H, and North says, "Remember, we're playing Lebensohl". This doesn't suggest anything about North's hand, but it may suggest that South bid 2NT. > (Assume that the auction alone will make it obvious that North's next > bid is a cue and not something else.) > How would people approach this infraction, aside from the obvious PP? In this context, the infraction did not cause any damage, so I don't see any basis for adjusting the score. (In my example, an adjustment might be in order.) > And in the "hesitation Blackwood with miscounted aces" case, are we > willing to make the hesitation itself the infraction? The hesitation itself can never be an infraction; turning it into a communication is a violation of L73B1 as well as L16. -- 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 Feb 10 07:22:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19KLvo06246 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:21:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19KLpt06242 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:21:51 +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 OAA10011 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:23:21 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010209142045.007bc820@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:20:45 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:17 AM 2/9/2001 -0000, David Burn wrote: >> Once again, DB and I show our very different ways of looking >> at bridge and the laws of bridge. > >Quite so. The point is that: > >> Sometimes people can profit by deliberate illegalities. This >> doesn't worry me much--certainly not enough to write the laws in such >a >> way that thousands of purely accidental errors are punished as if they >were >> deliberate ones, in order to catch one deliberate one. > >Nobody revokes on purpose. But the law punishes people who revoke. It >seems to me entirely sensible that the laws of a game should not have to >concern themselves with what people meant to do (or did not mean to do). >If X is an infraction, then there is a penalty for X, regardless of the >motive for the commission of X. That penalty should be sufficient to >deter people from deliberately doing X - that is, it should provide full >redress to the opponents, so that their result is as good as it could >have been had X not been perpetrated, and it should include an >additional element of penalty. If this deals harshly with people who >accidentally do X - so what? It detracts from my enjoyment of the game--that's what. See below. >The original revoke law contained both of these elements: the revoke >trick, illegally won, was given back (redress) and an additional trick >was transferred (penalty). The important fact is that nobody, from the >Bermuda Bowl to the kitchen table, had any problem at all with this >law - if you revoked, whether you did it on purpose or not, you were >going to lose a couple of tricks and get an awful result. That was your >fault for not paying attention, and was universally accepted as such. And I had no quarrel with it, and would have no quarrel with bringing it back. [Assuming there's still L64c to take care of the NT-blocking cases.] What I disagree with is the assumption that all irregularities can be dealt with the same way. Consider, for example, UI. Will we have a law that says that all hesitations will be punished by a bad board? Of course, we'll have to punish all fast bids, too. Bam--the game of bridge just ceased to exist. Because I guarantee you that no pair can play even a single hand and make every bid in exactly the same tempo. And if you find a pair that can, I'll find you a million pairs who would rather play Parcheesi than try. I have said before that the Burn rule on claims would kill off all claims at my club. It might not kill them off at the Bermuda Bowl--although it might do it there, too. I don't want to pay that price to prevent somebody from getting away with an ambiguous claim sometimes. >But now we have laws which attempt to take into account whether the >revoke "made any difference", or whether someone who breaks the laws by >accident "could have known" this or did not "carefully avoid" that. For >exactly that reason, we have a game that no one knows how to play any I just don't see this. I know of far more people who quit Duplicate because they don't enjoy the atmosphere of tension than people who quit because they don't understand the laws, or what to expect from them. >more. The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to >profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. Like civil laws, the laws of bridge should be written so that protecting society from the malevolent is balanced with protecting the innocent from unnecessary punishment. I don't want bridge games decided by penalties. I don't want to lose a match because I accidentally dropped a card on the table, or because I didn't very explicitly say that I was playing trumps from the top down--and, frankly, I don't want to _win_ a match because my opponent did. I want to bid and play the cards, with as few penalties as possible. >David Burn 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 Feb 10 07:29:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19KTmU06261 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:29:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f19KTgt06257 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:29:42 +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 OAA13036 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:31:12 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010209142836.007cede0@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 14:28:36 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <000701c0927e$d2c60020$be6901d5@pbncomputer> References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> <001b01c0926b$a82c37c0$184f063e@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:58 AM 2/9/2001 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Yes, but the fact is that the person who commits *any* irregularity that >turns out to benefit his side could have known, before committing it, >that it might do so. Whereas it may happen that an irregularity benefits >a player's side in a way that he did not foresee, that is an entirely >different matter from a way that he could not have foreseen, since if >something happens, it is (ipso facto) possible that someone could have >foreseen it. At present, Laws 72B1 and 72A5 are incompossible. This >ought to be resolved. The law says that the offender must be in a position where he could have _known_ that it was _likely_ to benefit him. We can argue whether "likely" means "more likely than not" or just "has some significant chance", but it surely must mean more than just "might" or "has a non-zero probability". And although "known" surely doesn't mean "known with certainty", it must mean at the very least something like "has available significant evidence". Suppose that I have an unbalanced 17-count, heavy on the minors. The odds that barring partner and then blasting 3NT will a) get us to the best contract, and b) do so in a way that will give us a better result than had we bid normally, are very slim. The chance is not zero--if 3NT is the right spot, we might not get there otherwise, or our bidding might give information to the defense. But the chance is very slim. If I knew what was in everyone's hands, I might see that it was actually _likely_ to produce a good result, maybe even nearly _certain_. But I don't possess that knowledge. So I think "could have known" and "likely to", together, make this law reasonable after all. _After_ I've accidentally barred my partner, I can then invoke L72A5 and try to blast 3NT. It's 'likely' that'll be a bad contract. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 07:47:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19KkGX06282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:46:16 +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 f19KkAt06278 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 07:46:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-37-33.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.37.33]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA29918; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:45:40 GMT Message-ID: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "David Burn" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" , Subject: [BLML] The inscrutable face of the game Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 20:46:54 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The failure to play anything less than as good bridge as possible is not permitted." (WBF Conditions of Contest) <==-==> +=+ I just thought I would read through that again. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 09:41:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19MeXw13046 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:40:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f19MeRt13008 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:40:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.153.112]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:40:47 -0800 Message-ID: <000c01c092e9$403abb40$70991e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010207110329.007d9b80@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <002901c09281$94258fe0$be6901d5@pbncomputer> <01020911500602.02895@psa836> Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:38:25 -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: "David J Grabiner" > > But indirect profits need to be allowed, unless you want to require > every infraction to be punished with a bad result. South opens 1NT > out of turn. The penalty is that North is barred. When South's turn > comes, he guesses to bid 3NT. As it happens, N-S have 23 HCP but nine > tricks, so N-S get a top because the field is in 1NT or 2NT making > three. They paid the penalty, as South was forced to guess at the > contract; N-S should not be penalized further for guessing right. That North is barred is AI, so South can bid anything at all. > > Or, still more innocuous, West makes a slow pass over 3H in a > competitive auction; this is not even an infraction, although it > transmits UI. East, an ethical player, passes rather than competing to > 3S when both are LA's. Both contracts go down one. SHould E-W be > allowed to keep their good score? > Less inocuous, because the break in tempo is UI. Of course, the pass must be chosen if it is an LA, there is no choice. But if pass is crazy, illogical, no one would pass, then I don't think E-W should be allowed to keep their good score. As often stated, my position is that doing something illogical because of UI is illegal (the notion of doing it was suggested to the mind by the UI). Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 10 11:12:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1A0BvI15128 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:11:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1A0Bot15091 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:11:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f19HMRn03134 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:22:27 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 17:04:10 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <01020911500602.02895@psa836> <000c01c092e9$403abb40$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <000c01c092e9$403abb40$70991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01020917222604.02895@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 09 Feb 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > From: "David J Grabiner" > > But indirect profits need to be allowed, unless you want to require > > every infraction to be punished with a bad result. South opens 1NT > > out of turn. The penalty is that North is barred. When South's turn > > comes, he guesses to bid 3NT. As it happens, N-S have 23 HCP but nine > > tricks, so N-S get a top because the field is in 1NT or 2NT making > > three. They paid the penalty, as South was forced to guess at the > > contract; N-S should not be penalized further for guessing right. > > That North is barred is AI, so South can bid anything at all. I agree with this, even if 3NT would normally be gambling for this partnership. But there is a rule in place to prevent abuse in this situation. If South bids 4NT RKC with hearts trump and one key card, North bids 5S, and South bids 5H, the penalty for the insufficient bid is AI. However, if South bids 5NT to play there and makes it exactly, you will adjust. This is why we need the "could have known" rule for the odd cases. > > Or, still more innocuous, West makes a slow pass over 3H in a > > competitive auction; this is not even an infraction, although it > > transmits UI. East, an ethical player, passes rather than competing to > > 3S when both are LA's. Both contracts go down one. Should E-W be > > allowed to keep their good score? > Less innocuous, because the break in tempo is UI. Of course, the > pass must be chosen if it is an LA, there is no choice. The point here is that nobody violated any rule. It isn't reasonable to penalize a player for an action which he made because of the rules of bridge, which includes the UI law. The rule happened to work to the advantage of the offenders on this hand, and the result should be allowed to stand (unless West could have known that it would work to his advantage to discourage East from bidding). Both of these situations are examples of the need for definite limitations and penalties, and only for rare exceptions in which the player could have known that the infraction could work to his advantage, or gained as a direct consequence. This works well, because there are laws, along with a general rule for the rare cases where the law is inadequate. To all BLML members: How common are these situations in which the law fails? I have once had an opponent request a "could have known" ruling against me (I barred partner on a misfit deal and we played in a partial when the field was going down in games; the TD ruled that I didn't know about the misfit). I heard about the insufficient-Blackwood example from a TD who had actually invoked it in a previous tournament. I have never encountered a revoke doing more than the associated penalty, although one of my friends received a five-trick adjustment when a doubleton queen plus a revoke stopped an AKJxxxx suit. -- 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 Feb 10 20:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1A9PNK24604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:25:23 +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-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 f1A9PGt24600 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 20:25:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-9-37.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.9.37]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1A9P9709184 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:25:10 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A842F1C.5365CE9@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:55:40 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@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: > > > We can (and undoubtedly will continue to) argue at length about > might-have's and could-have's and whether the law should require > adjudicators to read minds. But, putting all that aside, there will be > situations where a player miscounts his key cards and misresponds to > Blackwood, realizes he has done so, and decides that he will attempt to > recover by raising his partner's signoff. If his partner boxes his > cards and slams them on the table, then signs off at 5, taking .3 > seconds to do so, he will raise to 6. If his partner huddles and > dithers, then signs off at 5, taking a full minute to do so, he will > raise to 6. If we adjust back to 5 in the latter situation, it's clear > that it's the hesitation that's being punished, not the raise. > Yes, but how will this player prove that he would also have raised after a fast signoff ? This is as with all UI cases. When in possession of UI, one is restricted to LAs. Those are usually somewhat bigger than "what the player would have done". > More debatable is the relevance of the contention made in the actual AC > case Mr. Gerard cites that it was (or, rather, might have been) only > the hesitation by the Blackwood bidder that provided the responder with > the time and/or incentive to realize that he had misresponded > originally. That raises the question, recently brought to our > attention by (IIRC) Herman, whether the knowledge of the cards one > actually holds can ever be UI under any circumstances. Right now I'd > be inclined to vote no, but the floor is still open. > The actual cards are always AI. The fact that you should look at them again, because something is going on, is 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 Sat Feb 10 21:51:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1AAp1924665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:51:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1AAost24661 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:50:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id CAA25621 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 02:05:48 -0900 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 01:51:09 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A842F1C.5365CE9@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 One thing I haven't heard anyone address yet in this thread is that for many partnerships -- probably most at the top level -- pulling partner's signoff may well have a systemic meaning! The most common such agreement is that showing 0 [or 1] aces, then bidding over partner's signoff, shows 2 [3] aces and a previously undisclosed void. A big hazard of trying to catch up after accidentally bidding 5C or 5D when you didn't mean it, is that your partner is liable to carry on to 7 once you've revealed the much-better hand by bidding again. In a UI situation, in fact, your partner may well be *obligated* to continue on to 7 when the UI says you are making only 6, unless the previous auction has very clearly made 2A+void an impossible holding. Oddly I've never seen that actually enter into a writeup of a hesitation Blackwood case. Why 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 Sun Feb 11 04:31:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1AHUTJ24962 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 04:30:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtppop3pub.verizon.net (smtppop3pub.gte.net [206.46.170.22]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1AHUMt24958 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 04:30:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from pavilion (1Cust77.tnt2.bellingham.wa.da.uu.net [63.25.64.77]) by smtppop3pub.verizon.net with SMTP for ; id LAA109678855 Sat, 10 Feb 2001 11:25:34 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <001701c09386$be0b82a0$0a00000a@pavilion> From: "mike dodson" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> <005f01c09239$5b2338c0$0a00000a@pavilion> <3A83CFBA.5011F36@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:21:17 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > mike dodson wrote: > > > > > This is the paragraph that seems to say your hand can become UI. Certainly > > anything > > that is suggested by partner including that there is a problem is UI but > > providing time for reconsideration is not itself information of any kind. > > > > It seems to me that we would most often reach the same result as the last > > few > > paragraphs of the article illustrate. It could be difficult to show pass > > was not a LA > > or that partner's hesitation didn't cause the wake up to occur. On the > > other hand, alternative actions demonstrably suggested(L73f1) are bids and > > plays not > > "look at your hand". If the hand provides no LA where does it say we can't > > look > > at our hand or the auction? > > > > The answer to this one is almost the same as in that other > thread - is your own bid AI to you ? > > I believe that when there is UI that suggests that you take > some action that provides you with AI, then the I that you > find is still UI. > The I is AI, but the fact that you need the I is UI. > Your action is based upon this "fact that you needed to find > out". Whether there is UI is the question. Gerard said that simply partner providing the time for reconsideration created UI. Suppose instead partner had left for the restroom or spilled coffee on the table, no information about the hand, no restrictions. Suppose partner mumbles "hearts, spades, hearts, spades? Which should I chose?". Lots of UI but if, while I'm worrying over what my LA's might be, I notice an extra ace. I still may have a problem on strain but no problem on raising the level. I don't contend there will be many (any) real life examples where we can separate UI from time to think but its a short cut to say they are the same. Why bother when "if it hesitates, shoot it" is even quicker. 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 Feb 11 11:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1B0T2w19604 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:29:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp.myokay.net (db.myokay.net [195.211.161.152]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1B0Sst19559 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 11:28:56 +1100 (EST) Received: (qmail 71030 invoked for bounce); 10 Feb 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Received: from dialin-194-29-58-156.frankfurt.gigabell.net (HELO rabbit) (194.29.58.156) by smtp.myokay.net with SMTP; 10 Feb 2001 23:27:37 -0000 Message-ID: <006a01c093b9$7239d740$9c3a1dc2@rabbit> From: "Thomas Dehn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:29:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Gordon Bower" wrote: > If I may be excused for extracting one sentence from the writeup that > caught my attention: > > Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > > > >Recently the claim laws > > >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing > > declarer > > >to repeat a successful finesse). > > I sincerely hope a) that he is wrong and b) that there is an editorial > insertion in the casebook explaining that there is a flaw in the > reasoning. I can't see any basis for allowing claimer to repeat a > successful finesse without a statement unless one of the opponents has > shown out (or one opponent is out of the suit but hasn't shown out and > declarer has indicated he has a complete count.) You have AQJxx opposite xx. You need five tricks from this suit. A finesse to the Q has worked. 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 Feb 11 16:59:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1B5x8N07351 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:59:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1B5x1t07317 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:59:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:55:38 -0800 Message-ID: <002b01c093ef$aeab42a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <3A842F1C.5365CE9@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 21:50:27 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Herman De Wael" > Eric Landau wrote: > > > > > > More debatable is the relevance of the contention made in the actual AC > > case Mr. Gerard cites that it was (or, rather, might have been) only > > the hesitation by the Blackwood bidder that provided the responder with > > the time and/or incentive to realize that he had misresponded > > originally. That raises the question, recently brought to our > > attention by (IIRC) Herman, whether the knowledge of the cards one > > actually holds can ever be UI under any circumstances. Right now I'd > > be inclined to vote no, but the floor is still open. > > > > The actual cards are always AI. > The fact that you should look at them again, because > something is going on, is UI. > But the "something" has to be UI that recommends one action over another if there is going to be any constraint. I open 1C with 13 HCP, and rebid 1NT (13-15). Partner thinks quite a while and bids 2NT. Whether s/he was stretching or being conservative is unknown. While the thought is going on, I rearrange my cards (a nervous habit) and find a king I hadn't seen before. Am I supposed to pass now, because that's what I would have done if partner had bid 2NT without all the thought? I don't think so. However, in Hesitation Blackwood the hesitator is obviously signing off, not inviting. The long thought before the signoff makes partner wonder what caused it, so the hand is searched for a possible solution, a reason to bid six. "Oh, I forgot 1430 and answered incorrectly." That can't be accepted. The difference is a subtle one, but I think I'm right. As with failures to Alert or misAlerts, after which partners claim that they would have gotten it right anyway, score adjustments for Hesitation Blackwood slams should be nearly automatic. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 11 22:58:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BBuBa27609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:56:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BBu3t27564 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:56:03 +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 MAA17527; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:55:55 +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 MAA13127; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:55:45 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010211125747.0083c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:57:47 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200102091814.KAA24375@mailhub.irvine.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:13 9/02/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: >Obviously, North has violated L73B1 and deserves a procedural penalty >of either one full board or one bullet, whichever is the greater >penalty. But does Law 16 apply? AG : either there is some subtle sense I don't understand, or Adam doesn't know whether the grester penalty would be the assessing of a one board penalty, or the firing of the culprit. Any ideas ? >I think it might. One could argue like this: South received the >unauthorized information that North believed South had a card stuck. >South's action, to take a closer look at his hand and then correct for >it, was something demonstrably suggested by this UI. A logical >alternative action would have been for South to assume that North's >decision was final, and pass 5S without rechecking. Since the action >he actually took was demonstrably suggested by the UI, the 6S call is >thus illegal and the contract is rolled back to 5S. > >The point here, however, is that this does not make one's hand become >UI. The UI in this example is North's remark, and South's actions >were, according to the argument, demonstrably suggested by the remark. AG : fine, but ... if partner merely hesistates before bidding 5S, the message is not very obvious ; saying that one's own error is unmistakably suggested by the hesitation is excessive. If partner hesistates, any bridge player would be more likely to think 'he once again doesn't know what tot do' than 'I miscounted'. I wouldn't adjudicate to 5S +1, the 'unmistakably' condition not being met. Facial expression would have conveyed more, of course. Regards, A. >The hand itself is not UI, but South taking a closer look at his hand >was an action suggested by the UI. Arguing that "one's hand cannot >possibly be UI" is really a strawman argument here; that was the point >I was trying to make earlier, and that's why I suggested adopting a >new term to avoid this sort of confusion. I'm happy with "Barred >Information" by the way, if it will help me avoid a copyright >infringement lawsuit. Now if you also believe that one's hand cannot >possibly be BI, that's a totally different argument. > >By the way, if you think using L16 in my example is ridiculous, that's >fine, because you can still use L12A1 to adjust. This is also a >fallback position for Ron Gerard's argument. If one agrees with >Gerard that an infraction was committed (when one partner hesitates >and the other discovers a missing ace), then it doesn't really matter >whether it's technically covered by L16 or not. If L16 doesn't apply, >then L12A1 does, so you can adjust. (I'm not saying I agree that >there's an infraction in Gerard's example.) > > >> . . . The one thing I am sure of is that L16 isn't involved because >> North hasn't given any real information about his own hand. > >I don't think UI has to be information about partner's hand. If I >forget my system and my partner's Alert wakes me up, I have UI even >though the Alert doesn't tell me anything about partner's hand. > > -- 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 Sun Feb 11 23:11:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BCAqc02847 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:10:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BCAit02809 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:10:45 +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 NAA19094; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:10:37 +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 NAA18776; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:10:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:12:30 +0100 To: "Grattan Endicott" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game In-Reply-To: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:46 9/02/01 -0000, you wrote: > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"The failure to play anything less than as > good bridge as possible is not permitted." > (WBF Conditions of Contest) AG : this is, at best, the wrong way to state how one should play. At worst, it is an attempt to pervert the game. The right formulation would be 'the failure to play in the way that one assumes to yield the best result possible is not permitted'. (or anything you would think to be better English) The difference is big : suppose the opponents arrived in a grotesque contract of 4H, and that I think they can make 6C. (live case from Saturday's Belgium T4 Cup) To double them would be very bad bridge indeed, and I know it, so I would not be allowed to do it. But if I know they are stubborn enough to stand in their 4H, I'm right in doubling them. It's very bad bridge, but it would make my score better. Why should it be disallowed ? 4H was duly doubled, and went one down. 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 Feb 12 00:40:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BDdNn03936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:39:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BDdGt03892 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:39:17 +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 <20010211133913.JELH26737.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 05:39:13 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 08:39:14 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.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, 11 Feb 2001 13:12:30 +0100, Alain wrote: >At 20:46 9/02/01 -0000, you wrote: >> >>Grattan Endicott> <=> >>"The failure to play anything less than as >> good bridge as possible is not permitted." >> (WBF Conditions of Contest) > >AG : this is, at best, the wrong way to state how one should play. At >worst, it is an attempt to pervert the game. The right formulation would be >'the failure to play in the way that one assumes to yield the best result >possible is not permitted'. (or anything you would think to be better English) > >The difference is big : suppose the opponents arrived in a grotesque >contract of 4H, and that I think they can make 6C. (live case from >Saturday's Belgium T4 Cup) To double them would be very bad bridge indeed, >and I know it, so I would not be allowed to do it. But if I know they are >stubborn enough to stand in their 4H, I'm right in doubling them. It's very >bad bridge, but it would make my score better. Why should it be disallowed ? >4H was duly doubled, and went one down. > There are a number of justifications for playing anti-percentage lines, and on a strict reading of the CoC above, they aren't permitted. Everyone knows what the CoC *means* but it's equally obvious what they actually *say*. This is a plague for the law makers - I well remember the initial version of the (British) Computer Misuse Act, where the sponsor (a Tory backbencher called Greenway or Greenaway, or something like that) would have managed to make sending a fax a criminal offence if his bill had been passed in his original form. Maybe the wording should be something like "Playing in such a way as to deliberately achieve inferior results is not permitted". There are no doubt plenty of loopholes in that as well, but I think it's an improvement on the current wording. Brian. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 00:58:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BDvlU09208 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:57:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BDvft09204 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:57:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.189.26] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Rx0P-0000ym-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:57:34 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c09432$927fd260$1abd01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:56:38 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alan wrote: > >"The failure to play anything less than as > > good bridge as possible is not permitted." > > (WBF Conditions of Contest) > > AG : this is, at best, the wrong way to state how one should play. At > worst, it is an attempt to pervert the game. The right formulation would be > 'the failure to play in the way that one assumes to yield the best result > possible is not permitted'. (or anything you would think to be better English) I suppose it isn't surprising that a number of people have failed to grasp the true significance of the regulation quoted by Grattan. After all, when it first appeared, nobody - including the authors - realised what it actually said. It was intended, obviously, to mean that you are not allowed to play deliberately bad bridge in a given match in order (perhaps) to improve your chances of eliminating a strong team at the round robin stage of a tournament by losing on purpose to a weaker team. But what it *says* is that you must not fail to play less than as well as you can play - in other words, you are obliged to play sub-optimal bridge at all times. 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 Feb 12 01:06:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BE5m110443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:05:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BE5ft10401 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:05:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-88-41.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.88.41]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id OAA11477; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:05:11 GMT Message-ID: <000f01c09434$03b0c2e0$2958063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John Probst" Cc: Subject: [BLML] Update: David W Stevenson Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:06:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The failure to play anything less than as good bridge as possible is not permitted." (WBF Conditions of Contest) <==-==> +=+ I have just had another chat with DWS who is still in hospital. Not the same hospital as he has been moved. Arrowe Park treated the initial problem but then decided to move him out to Clatterbridge Hospital (Ward M3, Clatterbridge, Wirral, CH63 4JY - he still is unable to receive tel calls, but enquiries to 0151 482 7626). The information is a little confused. It seems he was unable to get the medical staff in Arrowe Park to deal with a second problem - very sore mouth and painful to take food; they decided they could not keep a bed available for him at Arrowe Park and that one could be made available in Clatterbridge. So that is where he is. I was slightly disturbed by the fact that the chief activities of Clatterbridge stem from its status as the main centre of oncology for a wide territory around Liverpool and Chester, but I have just made enquiries and, yes, it does deal with some overflows from Arrowe Park which has few spare beds. So I am discounting currently anything sinister in the move per se. This message is addressed primarily to JP because David hopes he will pass the news to rgb. ~ 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 Feb 12 01:41:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BEedI18151 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:40:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smarthost-1.mail.telinco.net (smarthost-1.mail.telinco.net [212.1.128.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BEeWt18115 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:40:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from ppp-1-125.cvx2.telinco.net ([212.1.140.125] helo=dawnhass) by smarthost-1.mail.telinco.net with smtp (Exim 3.02 #7) id 14Rxfv-000Ifk-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:40:28 +0000 Message-ID: <001301c09438$991f0400$662afea9@dawnhass> From: "Damian Hassan" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c09432$927fd260$1abd01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:40:36 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I suppose it isn't surprising that a number of people have failed to > grasp the true significance of the regulation quoted by Grattan. After > all, when it first appeared, nobody - including the authors - realised > what it actually said. It was intended, obviously, to mean that you are > not allowed to play deliberately bad bridge in a given match in order > (perhaps) to improve your chances of eliminating a strong team at the > round robin stage of a tournament by losing on purpose to a weaker team. > But what it *says* is that you must not fail to play less than as well > as you can play - in other words, you are obliged to play sub-optimal > bridge at all times. > > David Burn > London, England > Ah! After all these years, an explanation for John Probst's bridge. He plays that way because he is legally obliged to:) Damian Hassan (John's ex-partner) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 04:08:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BH5s118757 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:05:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from finch-post-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 f1BH5lt18753 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:05:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14RzwV-0008Ee-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:05:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:04:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@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 In article , Brian Meadows writes >On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:12:30 +0100, Alain wrote: > >>At 20:46 9/02/01 -0000, you wrote: >>> >>>Grattan Endicott>> <=> >>>"The failure to play anything less than as >>> good bridge as possible is not permitted." >>> (WBF Conditions of Contest) >> >>AG : this is, at best, the wrong way to state how one should play. At >>worst, it is an attempt to pervert the game. The right formulation would be >>'the failure to play in the way that one assumes to yield the best result >>possible is not permitted'. (or anything you would think to be better English) >> >>The difference is big : suppose the opponents arrived in a grotesque >>contract of 4H, and that I think they can make 6C. (live case from >>Saturday's Belgium T4 Cup) To double them would be very bad bridge indeed, >>and I know it, so I would not be allowed to do it. But if I know they are >>stubborn enough to stand in their 4H, I'm right in doubling them. It's very >>bad bridge, but it would make my score better. Why should it be disallowed ? >>4H was duly doubled, and went one down. >> > >There are a number of justifications for playing anti-percentage >lines, and on a strict reading of the CoC above, they aren't >permitted. Everyone knows what the CoC *means* but it's equally >obvious what they actually *say*. > >This is a plague for the law makers - I well remember the initial >version of the (British) Computer Misuse Act, where the sponsor >(a Tory backbencher called Greenway or Greenaway, or something >like that) would have managed to make sending a fax a criminal >offence if his bill had been passed in his original form. > >Maybe the wording should be something like > >"Playing in such a way as to deliberately achieve inferior >results is not permitted". > >There are no doubt plenty of loopholes in that as well, but I >think it's an improvement on the current wording. the split infinitive to start with "Deliberately playing badly is not permitted" is far too obvious > > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 12 04:09:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BH7v818765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:07:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BH7ot18761 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:07:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14RzyR-0008az-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:07:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:06:39 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game References: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c09432$927fd260$1abd01d5@pbncomputer> <001301c09438$991f0400$662afea9@dawnhass> In-Reply-To: <001301c09438$991f0400$662afea9@dawnhass> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001301c09438$991f0400$662afea9@dawnhass>, Damian Hassan writes > >> I suppose it isn't surprising that a number of people have failed to >> grasp the true significance of the regulation quoted by Grattan. After >> all, when it first appeared, nobody - including the authors - realised >> what it actually said. It was intended, obviously, to mean that you are >> not allowed to play deliberately bad bridge in a given match in order >> (perhaps) to improve your chances of eliminating a strong team at the >> round robin stage of a tournament by losing on purpose to a weaker team. >> But what it *says* is that you must not fail to play less than as well >> as you can play - in other words, you are obliged to play sub-optimal >> bridge at all times. >> >> David Burn >> London, England >> >Ah! After all these years, an explanation for John Probst's bridge. He plays >that way because he is legally obliged to:) Doh! If I'm not dealt the hand I'm bidding or playing can I help that? Welcome back to blml. cheers john > >Damian Hassan >(John's ex-partner) > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 12 04:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BHAZ718785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:10:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BHASt18781 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:10:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14S013-000BP3-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:10:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 17:08:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: [BLML] Re: Update: David W Stevenson References: <000f01c09434$03b0c2e0$2958063e@dodona> In-Reply-To: <000f01c09434$03b0c2e0$2958063e@dodona> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000f01c09434$03b0c2e0$2958063e@dodona>, Grattan Endicott writes > >Grattan Endicott <=> >"The failure to play anything less than as > good bridge as possible is not permitted." > (WBF Conditions of Contest) > <==-==> > > >+=+ I have just had another chat with DWS >who is still in hospital. Not the same hospital >as he has been moved. Arrowe Park treated >the initial problem but then decided to move >him out to Clatterbridge Hospital (Ward M3, >Clatterbridge, Wirral, CH63 4JY - he still is >unable to receive tel calls, but enquiries to >0151 482 7626). I think that your occasional news on DWS's progress is an entirely proper use of blml. Thank you for keeping us posted > > The information is a little confused. It >seems he was unable to get the medical >staff in Arrowe Park to deal with a second >problem - very sore mouth and painful to >take food; they decided they could not >keep a bed available for him at Arrowe Park >and that one could be made available in >Clatterbridge. So that is where he is. I was >slightly disturbed by the fact that the >chief activities of Clatterbridge stem from >its status as the main centre of oncology >for a wide territory around Liverpool and >Chester, but I have just made enquiries >and, yes, it does deal with some overflows >from Arrowe Park which has few spare >beds. So I am discounting currently >anything sinister in the move per se. > This message is addressed primarily to >JP because David hopes he will pass the >news to rgb. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > Will do. John > > > > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 12 04:25:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BHOve18808 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:24:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1BHOqt18804 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:24:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:25:11 -0800 Message-ID: <002301c0944f$7e0ecbc0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000901c09432$927fd260$1abd01d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 09:21:11 -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: "David Burn" > Alan wrote: > > > >"The failure to play anything less than as > > > good bridge as possible is not permitted." > > > (WBF Conditions of Contest) > > > > AG : this is, at best, the wrong way to state how one should play. At > > worst, it is an attempt to pervert the game. The right formulation > would be > > 'the failure to play in the way that one assumes to yield the best > result > > possible is not permitted'. (or anything you would think to be better > English) > > I suppose it isn't surprising that a number of people have failed to > grasp the true significance of the regulation quoted by Grattan. After > all, when it first appeared, nobody - including the authors - realised > what it actually said. It was intended, obviously, to mean that you are > not allowed to play deliberately bad bridge in a given match in order > (perhaps) to improve your chances of eliminating a strong team at the > round robin stage of a tournament by losing on purpose to a weaker team. > But what it *says* is that you must not fail to play less than as well > as you can play - in other words, you are obliged to play sub-optimal > bridge at all times. > I guess "nothing less" was meant. Reminds me of the oft-heard "I could care less," intending "I couldn't care less." Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 04:30:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BHUcx18830 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:30:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1BHUUt18822 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:30:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1BHUQ713761 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:30:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A868911.3D12A81E@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:44:01 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <3A842F1C.5365CE9@village.uunet.be> <002b01c093ef$aeab42a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I agree with Marvin ! "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > But the "something" has to be UI that recommends one action over another > if there is going to be any constraint. > > I open 1C with 13 HCP, and rebid 1NT (13-15). Partner thinks quite a while > and bids 2NT. Whether s/he was stretching or being conservative is > unknown. While the thought is going on, I rearrange my cards (a nervous > habit) and find a king I hadn't seen before. Am I supposed to pass now, > because that's what I would have done if partner had bid 2NT without all > the thought? I don't think so. > > However, in Hesitation Blackwood the hesitator is obviously signing off, > not inviting. The long thought before the signoff makes partner wonder > what caused it, so the hand is searched for a possible solution, a reason > to bid six. "Oh, I forgot 1430 and answered incorrectly." That can't be > accepted. > > The difference is a subtle one, but I think I'm right. > Yes indeed you are. It is not just the allowing for some time that is UI, there must be some extra element. But that element might be very small. "What the hell is partner thinking over - let's see my cards again - oh, that's what !" is enough. Perhaps a question that might be raised is "would the player also have reinvestigated his cards if an opponent had merely gone to the bar ?". > As with failures to Alert or misAlerts, after which partners claim that > they would have gotten it right anyway, score adjustments for Hesitation > Blackwood slams should be nearly automatic. > note the word "nearly". -- 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 Feb 12 04:30:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1BHUab18829 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:30:36 +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-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 f1BHURt18820 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 04:30:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-149.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.149]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1BHUK713749 for ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:30:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A868829.C1FA37D0@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:40:09 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <200102081520.KAA13899@freenet10.carleton.ca> <005f01c09239$5b2338c0$0a00000a@pavilion> <3A83CFBA.5011F36@village.uunet.be> <001701c09386$be0b82a0$0a00000a@pavilion> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk mike dodson wrote: > > Herman wrote: > > > mike dodson wrote: > > > > > > > > This is the paragraph that seems to say your hand can become UI. > Certainly > > > anything > > > that is suggested by partner including that there is a problem is UI but > > > providing time for reconsideration is not itself information of any > kind. > > > > > > It seems to me that we would most often reach the same result as the > last > > > few > > > paragraphs of the article illustrate. It could be difficult to show > pass > > > was not a LA > > > or that partner's hesitation didn't cause the wake up to occur. On the > > > other hand, alternative actions demonstrably suggested(L73f1) are bids > and > > > plays not > > > "look at your hand". If the hand provides no LA where does it say we > can't > > > look > > > at our hand or the auction? > > > > > > > The answer to this one is almost the same as in that other > > thread - is your own bid AI to you ? > > > > I believe that when there is UI that suggests that you take > > some action that provides you with AI, then the I that you > > find is still UI. > > The I is AI, but the fact that you need the I is UI. > > Your action is based upon this "fact that you needed to find > > out". > Whether there is UI is the question. Gerard said that simply partner > providing the time > for reconsideration created UI. Suppose instead partner had left for the > restroom or > spilled coffee on the table, no information about the hand, no restrictions. > Suppose > partner mumbles "hearts, spades, hearts, spades? Which should I chose?". > Lots of > UI but if, while I'm worrying over what my LA's might be, I notice an extra > ace. I still > may have a problem on strain but no problem on raising the level. > > I don't contend there will be many (any) real life examples where we can > separate > UI from time to think but its a short cut to say they are the same. Why > bother when > "if it hesitates, shoot it" is even quicker. > > Mike Dodson > That is unfair, Mike. I read your message stating that Ron is a proponent of that theory, and I agree with you that this theory is false. That does not mean however, that the opinion that was voiced in the article that was cited, has anything whatsoever to do with that false theory. Clearly we should still consider LA's. And we do. What the article says is that giving partner some time, thus allowing him to rethink, is a form of UI. Now you may or may not agree with this, but dismissing it by equating it to a theory that carries not a lot of weight around these circles, is a cheap shot. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 11:13:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1C0BvY11066 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:11:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1C0Bot11024 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:11:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.255.176] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14S6an-0002oq-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:11:46 +0000 Message-ID: <002e01c09488$5fd48440$b0ff7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:11:14 -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 wrote: > >Maybe the wording should be something like > > > >"Playing in such a way as to deliberately achieve inferior > >results is not permitted". > > > >There are no doubt plenty of loopholes in that as well, but I > >think it's an improvement on the current wording. > > the split infinitive to start with > Once and for all, split infinitives are perfectly correct and acceptable English. That they may not be correct (or even possible) Latin is really neither here nor there. It is only for practical reasons that I would move the adverb to the beginning of: Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result on any deal is not permitted. Of course, to determine whether or not a player has breached this Condition of Contest would require mind-reading by the officials, which is a very Bad Thing. 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 Feb 12 12:55:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1C1q6E22113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:52:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bertha.au.csc.net (bertha.au.csc.net [203.0.101.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1C1q1t22109 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:52:01 +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 MAA06994; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:54:51 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:45:09 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu To: "cyaxares::.gov.au":"lineone.net:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:49:33 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 12/02/2001 12:50:04 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ The distinction should be made between >the purposes of the Laws in defining the game >and the powers of sponsoring orgs to create a mode >or style for their tournaments. The place for a >requirement of this kind, when it is desirable, is in >the Conditions of Contest. > WBF General Conditions of Contest, Section >26.4: > " The WBF expects all teams and partnerships >to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. >While a team may rest its players and make other >decisions for strategic reasons, the failure to play >anything less than as good bridge as possible is not >permitted and the Committee* shall have the >authority to determine whether there has been >such a failure. Teams may submit particular >proposed strategies to the Committee in advance >to determine compliance with this provision. Any >non-compliance will be subject to such penalties >as may be imposed by the Committee, including >recommendation that the Executive Council >disqualify or suspend any team." >[* Tournament Appeals Committee] > ~ Grattan ~ >'It was a miracle of rare device >A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice' +=+ In Xanadu did Vanderbilt A stately pleasure game decree Towards the end of the qualifying rounds of the 1971 Bermuda Bowl, the French team were mathematically certain to qualify for the Final. So the team played *less than as good bridge as possible* by deliberately breaking up its regular partnerships. This culminated in the notorious deal where a honeymoon French partnership Blackwooded to 7H when missing four aces. But why should WBF fiat force the French to avoid a stupid grand slam on a meaningless deal by requiring the team to line up to best advantage? As Kaplan repeatedly proclaimed, instead of legislating the unenforcable, the contest rules should reward the desirable. For example, to make every deal in the Bermuda Bowl meaningful for a team certain to qualify, adopt a sensible carry-forward regulation. World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything - it's the only thing.* But should the pleasure game of bridge be ruined by the superimposition of a principle requiring you to *win at all times and in all circumstances*? Some years ago my Canberra team travelled a few hundred kilometres to Sydney, in order to play in the Spring National Open Teams championship (affectionately known as the SNOT). The format of this event is nine x 20 board qualifying Swiss matches, with the top two teams contesting a 64 board final. My team performed poorly, and with one qualifying match to go we were certain to finish midfield. As luck would have it, the final round paired us against some friends, also from Canberra, also due to finish midfield. The original plan of our teams had been to drive back to Canberra at the conclusion of the qualifying, arriving at 3 a.m. But since our match was meaningless, the other captain and I agreed on a double-forfeit so we could all arrive home in Canberra at a civilised hour. Obviously a double-forfeit meant that our two teams colluded against *playing to win at all times and in all circumstances*. But the ABF CTD was more lenient than a WBF CTD would have been - stately decreeing our pleasure. 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 Feb 12 17:26:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1C6NGX13068 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:23:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1C6N9t13036 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:23:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (56.spmax4.connectnc.net [65.162.22.154]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id BAA43275 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:23:05 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <001d01c094bc$37141780$9a16a241@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Fw: Class project Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:22:45 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001A_01C09492.4D8E95A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 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_001A_01C09492.4D8E95A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I know this does not apply to Bridge Laws, but how thrilled these kids = would be to hear from People around the world! Hope you don't mind too = much. Nancy ----- Original Message -----=20 Subject: Fw: class project >Hello! > > We are in Mr. Street's 4th grade class at Newcastle Public School = in >Newcastle, Nebraska. Newcastle is a village with a population of >approximately 270 people in northeast Nebraska. In Social Studies we >have >been studying the states and capitals and decided to map an e-mail >project. > > We are really curious to see where in the world our e-mail will >travel >by >the Internet throughout the rest of the school year. We would like = your >help >please!! We ask that you do these two things: > > 1) E-mail us and tell us your location so that we can plot it on = our >United States or World map.(city/town,state/province,country) > > 2) Forward this letter to as many people as possible, even if they >live >in the same town as you. > Our e-mail address is: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.com > mail to: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.com > > We hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for any help you can give >us! > > Your friends, > Mr. Street's 4th Grade Class > Newcastle Public School > Newcastle, Nebraska ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C09492.4D8E95A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I know this does not apply to = Bridge Laws,=20 but how thrilled these kids would be to hear from People around the = world! =20 Hope you don't mind too much.  Nancy
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Fw: class project

>Hello!
>
>     We are in = Mr. Street's=20 4th grade class at Newcastle Public School in
>Newcastle, = Nebraska. =20 Newcastle is a village with a population of
>approximately 270 = people in=20 northeast Nebraska.  In Social Studies we
>have
>been = studying=20 the states and capitals and decided to map an=20 e-mail
>project.
>
>     We are = really=20 curious to see where in the world our e-mail=20 will
>travel
>by
>the Internet throughout the rest of = the=20 school year.  We would like your
>help
>please!! We ask = that=20 you do these two things:
>
>     1) = E-mail us=20 and tell us your location so that we can plot it on our
>United = States or=20 World=20 map.(city/town,state/province,country)
>
>   &= nbsp;=20 2) Forward this letter to as many people as possible, even if=20 they
>live
>in the same town as = you.
>    =20 Our e-mail address is: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.c= om
>          = ;            =     =20 mail to: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.c= om
>
>    =20 We hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for any help you can=20 give
>us!
>
>     Your=20 friends,
>     Mr. Street's 4th Grade=20 Class
>     Newcastle Public=20 School
>     Newcastle,=20 Nebraska
------=_NextPart_000_001A_01C09492.4D8E95A0-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 19:04:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1C83N703767 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 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 hotmail.com (f186.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.186]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1C83Ht03763 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:03:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:03:10 -0800 Received: from 172.167.251.48 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:03:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.167.251.48] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Class project Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:03:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2001 08:03:10.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[3D9B33A0:01C094CA] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Nancy" > >I know this does not apply to Bridge Laws, but how thrilled these kids >would be to hear from People around the world! Hope you don't mind too >much. Nancy However, they do not say which school year they are collecting data for. This e-mail could be several years old or even a hoax to begin with. There is a very similar mail listed as a pseudo-hoax at: http://hoaxbusters.ciac.org/HBChainLetters.shtml#mrsary -Todd >----- Original Message ----- > >Subject: Fw: class project > > > >Hello! > > > > We are in Mr. Street's 4th grade class at Newcastle Public School in > >Newcastle, Nebraska. Newcastle is a village with a population of > >approximately 270 people in northeast Nebraska. In Social Studies we > >have > >been studying the states and capitals and decided to map an e-mail > >project. > > > > We are really curious to see where in the world our e-mail will > >travel > >by > >the Internet throughout the rest of the school year. We would like your > >help > >please!! We ask that you do these two things: > > > > 1) E-mail us and tell us your location so that we can plot it on our > >United States or World map.(city/town,state/province,country) > > > > 2) Forward this letter to as many people as possible, even if they > >live > >in the same town as you. > > Our e-mail address is: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.com > > mail to: newcastle_4th_grade@yahoo.com > > > > We hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for any help you can give > >us! > > > > Your friends, > > Mr. Street's 4th Grade Class > > Newcastle Public School > > Newcastle, Nebraska > _________________________________________________________________ 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 Mon Feb 12 19:26:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1C8Q8D03806 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:26:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from ms1.freezone.co.uk (IDENT:root@ms1.purplenet.co.uk [212.1.130.118]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1C8Q1t03802 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:26:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (ppp-1-192.cvx5.telinco.net [212.1.152.192]) by ms1.freezone.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA19200; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:44:38 GMT Message-ID: <001501c094cd$3932a200$c09801d4@default> From: "magda thain" To: "Thomas Dehn" , "bridge-laws" References: <006a01c093b9$7239d740$9c3a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:24:09 -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 I know that you are not really interested in the problems of running a small local bridge club but I can tell you that a question like this makes problems where you know that some players will not take the second finesse because they fear they will not make even a second trick in the suit. It is all right saying 'for the class of player involved' but do you really say that we must treat club members as being in different classes? mt To: Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 11:29 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim > >. I can't see any basis for allowing claimer to repeat a > > successful finesse without a statement unless one of the opponents has > > shown out (or one opponent is out of the suit but hasn't shown out and > > declarer has indicated he has a complete count.) > > You have AQJxx opposite xx. You need five tricks from > this suit. A finesse to the Q has worked. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 22:45:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CBhWK11532 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:43:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CBhNt11524 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:43:24 +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 MAA23076; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:43:16 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id MAA05494; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:43:04 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010212124509.007c5660@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:45:09 +0100 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:49 12/02/01 +1000, richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: >Towards the end of the qualifying rounds of the 1971 >Bermuda Bowl, the French team were mathematically >certain to qualify for the Final. So the team played >*less than as good bridge as possible* by deliberately >breaking up its regular partnerships. This >culminated in the notorious deal where a honeymoon >French partnership Blackwooded to 7H when missing four >aces. AG : this notorious deal shouldn't have happened. But at least it wasn't deliberate. What about the case of a team, certain to qualify, chucking points in the last round of the Zonal championship, just to ensure that the other qualifier from their zone would be a weaker team, which improves their chances to win the Bermuda Bowl ? (I don't remember whether they did) At that time, the French, who were the victims, felt it was perfectly correct (see Meyer's article in Le Bridgeur). They also felt honored. I don't think we have to argue with this : sometimes, to give oneself the best chance to win means you have to throw points away. If the conditions of the contest permit this, they, not the players, are evil. An editorial in The Bridge World covers a similar case, where a Dutch pair, playing in a multi-session tournament, needed to let their direct opponents from that day win ; it put their global opponents out of the contest (it is an intricated case about the best n sessions counting). They were chastised. I ask you, why ? If they had to play badly to win, and duly did, where is the cheating ? Ah, yes, in the conditions of the contest. But making the players responsible for this is absurd. 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 Feb 12 22:57:18 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CBuqI11902 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:56:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CBuit11894 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:56:45 +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 MAA28645; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:56:38 +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 MAA17403; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:56:27 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010212125832.00842920@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:58:32 +0100 To: "David Burn" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game In-Reply-To: <002e01c09488$5fd48440$b0ff7ad5@pbncomputer> References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@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 00:11 12/02/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: > >Once and for all, split infinitives are perfectly correct and acceptable >English. That they may not be correct (or even possible) Latin is really >neither here nor there. It is only for practical reasons that I would >move the adverb to the beginning of: > >Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result on >any deal is not permitted. AG : I can't even agree with that one; If I feel getting an absurd result on the 1st deal will help me win the match, because the opponents will think they are playing against a lunatic (well, they are ; you need two players to make a pair <:-> ), why should I be disallowed to get it ??? And there is still the case of the people who think (wrongly IMOBO, but they are allowed to) that you can't win a Swiss tournament by first scoring 25. If they decline playing for 25, they are in their minds playing for the best chance to eventually win the tournament. How can this be wrong ? The only thing that might be disallowed is : deliberately not playing to get the best score in the competition (not on the board or the match). Ad there would still remain the case of the round-robin. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 12 23:47:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CCl0X13352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:47:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CCkqt13345 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 23:46:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.132.77] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14SINU-00032g-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:46:48 +0000 Message-ID: <000801c094f1$d8cfcc60$4d8401d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010212125832.00842920@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:46:38 -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 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > >Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result on > >any deal is not permitted. > > AG : I can't even agree with that one; If I feel getting an absurd result > on the 1st deal will help me win the match, because the opponents will > think they are playing against a lunatic (well, they are ; you need two > players to make a pair <:-> ), why should I be disallowed to get it ??? > And there is still the case of the people who think (wrongly IMOBO, but > they are allowed to) that you can't win a Swiss tournament by first scoring > 25. If they decline playing for 25, they are in their minds playing for the > best chance to eventually win the tournament. How can this be wrong ? > > The only thing that might be disallowed is : deliberately not playing to > get the best score in the competition (not on the board or the match). > Ad there would still remain the case of the round-robin. I don't agree with the regulation myself. I think that if you perceive it will further your goal of winning a tournament, you ought to be allowed to lose a board or a match on purpose during that tournament. But the WBF don't agree with me, so they have created a regulation. All we are trying to do now is help them rewrite it so that it says what they meant, instead of the complete opposite of what they meant. 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 Feb 13 00:46:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CDji615050 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:45:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CDjat15043 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:45:37 +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 f1CDjVc59025 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:45:31 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@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, 12 Feb 2001 08:43:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A842F1C.5365CE9@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@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 12:55 PM 2/9/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > We can (and undoubtedly will continue to) argue at length about > > might-have's and could-have's and whether the law should require > > adjudicators to read minds. But, putting all that aside, there will be > > situations where a player miscounts his key cards and misresponds to > > Blackwood, realizes he has done so, and decides that he will attempt to > > recover by raising his partner's signoff. If his partner boxes his > > cards and slams them on the table, then signs off at 5, taking .3 > > seconds to do so, he will raise to 6. If his partner huddles and > > dithers, then signs off at 5, taking a full minute to do so, he will > > raise to 6. If we adjust back to 5 in the latter situation, it's clear > > that it's the hesitation that's being punished, not the raise. > >Yes, but how will this player prove that he would also have >raised after a fast signoff ? >This is as with all UI cases. When in possession of UI, one >is restricted to LAs. Those are usually somewhat bigger >than "what the player would have done". Quite so. We can't prove that he would have raised opposite a fast signoff, nor can we prove that he would not have. So the question before us is on which presumption should we base the result of our potential adjudication when he does raise. I am quite comfortable making the presumption that he would have raised regardless, that, in effect, once he has legimately noticed that he has misresponded he will believe he has no LA to attempting to recover by raising, and that the necessary percentage of his peers (whatever that might happen to be in any particular jurisdiction) will agree with him. The contrary presumption, that he might have the LA of passing, hoping that his partner believes that he has lost his gamble in asking for key cards and is now settling for the 5-level expecting to be off three key cards and probably go down (in which case he (the responder) can recover by passing) just seems too far-fetched. > > More debatable is the relevance of the contention made in the actual AC > > case Mr. Gerard cites that it was (or, rather, might have been) only > > the hesitation by the Blackwood bidder that provided the responder with > > the time and/or incentive to realize that he had misresponded > > originally. That raises the question, recently brought to our > > attention by (IIRC) Herman, whether the knowledge of the cards one > > actually holds can ever be UI under any circumstances. Right now I'd > > be inclined to vote no, but the floor is still open. > >The actual cards are always AI. >The fact that you should look at them again, because >something is going on, is UI. This, I believe, is the key point raised by Mr. Gerard in his article. I'm currently leaning towards the view that this is too fine a line to attempt to draw. Consider: Playing behind a screen in a competitive auction, West responds to Blackwood and sends the tray across. While he is waiting for the try to come back, which takes 20 seconds, he looks at his cards again and discovers that he has misresponded. After the 20 seconds, the tray comes back; East has signed off at five; South passes. West raises to 6, which makes. Should we: (a) allow the result to stand, (b) adjust the result to five making six, or (c) determine whether it was North or East who took the 20-second huddle, allowing the raise to stand if it was North but adjusting if it was East? If you answered (c), what should we do if North and East each took 10 seconds to decide their call? If you answered (a) or (b), would you reply differently to an otherwise identical situation without the screen? 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 Feb 13 01:05:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CE54515595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:05:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CE4rt15586 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:04:54 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1CE4ji04699 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:04:45 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 14:04 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game 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: <002e01c09488$5fd48440$b0ff7ad5@pbncomputer> DB wrote: > Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result on > any deal is not permitted. Notwithstanding that much of my play is deliberate but still achieves inferior results there appear to be other situations where reasonable tactics fall foul of this. 16 board match. I play board 1 in 3NT and there a 10 tricks on a simple squeeze. I deliberately fluff the play because I believe that the gain from opponents underestimating me over the next 15 boards will exceed the 1 IMP I just threw them. Later in the match I make a safety play that caters to the 1NT opener holding a singleton when of course he holds a doubleton. No doubt I will be locked up when the thought police arrive. 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 Feb 13 02:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CFJ6k23051 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:19:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe71.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.206]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CFIwt23044 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 02:18:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 07:18:51 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.128.78] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010212125832.00842920@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c094f1$d8cfcc60$4d8401d5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:10:47 -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 Feb 2001 15:18:51.0551 (UTC) FILETIME=[1AEE52F0:01C09507] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: David Burn To: Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 6:46 AM Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game | Alain wrote: | | > >Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result | | > >on any deal is not permitted. | > AG : I can't even agree with that one; If I feel getting an absurd | result | > on the 1st deal will help me win the match, because the opponents will | > think they are playing against a lunatic (well, they are ; you need | two | > players to make a pair <:-> ), why should I be disallowed to get it | ??? | > And there is still the case of the people who think (wrongly IMOBO, | but | > they are allowed to) that you can't win a Swiss tournament by first | scoring | > 25. If they decline playing for 25, they are in their minds playing for the | > best chance to eventually win the tournament. How can this be wrong ? | > | > The only thing that might be disallowed is : deliberately not playing to | > get the best score in the competition (not on the board or the match). | > Ad there would still remain the case of the round-robin. | | I don't agree with the regulation myself. I think that if you perceive | it will further your goal of winning a tournament, you ought to be | allowed to lose a board or a match on purpose during that tournament. | But the WBF don't agree with me, so they have created a regulation. All | we are trying to do now is help them rewrite it so that it says what | they meant, instead of the complete opposite of what they meant. | | David Burn | London, England I was was not going to suggest anything, however it turns out that I have strong feelings on this subject. Any regulation such as contemplated in this instance not only is a bridge lawyer's dreaam, but cheapens both the event but the game itself. L72A1 says what needs to be said, and does it nicely, completely, and rquires no embellishment. 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 Tue Feb 13 03:10:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CG8oG01654 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:08:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CG8at01577 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:08:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14SLWa-0007kA-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:08:24 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:06:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game References: <001301c092d9$a075b100$21257bd5@dodona> <3.0.6.32.20010211131230.00844480@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010212125832.00842920@pop.ulb.ac.be> <000801c094f1$d8cfcc60$4d8401d5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Roger Pewick writes > > >| Alain wrote: >| >| > >Deliberately playing in such a way as to achieve an inferior result >| | > >on any deal is not permitted. > snip >| I don't agree with the regulation myself. I think that if you perceive >| it will further your goal of winning a tournament, you ought to be >| allowed to lose a board or a match on purpose during that tournament. >| But the WBF don't agree with me, so they have created a regulation. All >| we are trying to do now is help them rewrite it so that it says what >| they meant, instead of the complete opposite of what they meant. >| >| David Burn >| London, England > >I was was not going to suggest anything, however it turns out that I have >strong feelings on this subject. > >Any regulation such as contemplated in this instance not only is a bridge >lawyer's dreaam, but cheapens both the event but the game itself. L72A1 >says what needs to be said, and does it nicely, completely, and rquires no >embellishment. 72A1: So we play according to the Laws. 40A: A player may make any call or play ... So the regulation about playing badly is illegal ... Bah humbug. Anyway, how does one measure this? I've often posted on the subject of high-variance, near-zero-sum strategies. Proddy once commented: "Playing with you, when you've decided to win a match, is like a white knuckle ride ... it's clear what's happening, I have no control over the situation, and just hang onto the edge of my seat trying not to be hurled out of the cardroom". We turned round a lot of lost matches. We also lost a lot of lost matches by very large margins. There is no question I was playing badly. cheers john > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 13 04:39:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CHcq427426 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:38:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CHcjt27392 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:38:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:39:01 -0800 Message-ID: <00a201c0951a$9aa58140$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Class project Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:38:18 -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 Looks like someone is collecting valid e-mail addresses for spamming. Marv > >From: "Nancy" > > > >I know this does not apply to Bridge Laws, but how thrilled these kids > >would be to hear from People around the world! Hope you don't mind too > >much. Nancy > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 05:27:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CIQxW09048 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:26:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CIQrt09041 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 05:26:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:27:13 -0800 Message-ID: <013b01c09521$56250520$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <006a01c093b9$7239d740$9c3a1dc2@rabbit> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:26:22 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Thomas Dehn": > > "Gordon Bower" wrote: > > If I may be excused for extracting one sentence from the writeup that > > caught my attention: > > > > Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > > > > > >Recently the claim laws > > > >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing > > > declarer > > > >to repeat a successful finesse). > > > > I sincerely hope a) that he is wrong and b) that there is an editorial > > insertion in the casebook explaining that there is a flaw in the > > reasoning. I can't see any basis for allowing claimer to repeat a > > successful finesse without a statement unless one of the opponents has > > shown out (or one opponent is out of the suit but hasn't shown out and > > declarer has indicated he has a complete count.) > > You have AQJxx opposite xx. You need five tricks from > this suit. A finesse to the Q has worked. The finesse is allowed, because failure to take it would be irrational. If, howver, that AQJxx was alone in dummy, and the ace of diamonds on the next round would insure the (undoubled, matchpoint) contract, then a claimer who hasn't stated a line of play must "take" the finesse if it loses, and must play the ace if the king is onside. Neither losing play would be irrational, so the losing line must be assumed. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 07:17:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKH1R11682 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:01 +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-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 f1CKGlt11664 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:16:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14SPOi-000DDd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:16:34 +0000 Message-ID: <$EO1jGBFUHf6Ewfc@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:15:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ed Reppert writes >Hash: SHA1 > >At 9:18 PM -0800 1/31/01, Marvin L. French wrote: >>It's a business double, why would it be Alertable? Because partner >>would naturally lead the suit that any good bridge player would >>lead? I don't think so. >> >>Okay, let's clarify. >> >>1C-P-1S-P >>1N-P-2N-P >>3N-P-P-X is for penalty. Obviously the doubler has spades under >>control, and is prepared for (if not demanding) a spade lead. Not >>Alertable. >> >>1N-P-3N-X >> >>With no special partnership agreement, partner will lead a >>weak/short suit. That's just bridge, not Alertable. If the double >>calls for a heart lead, that is a convention, and conventions (with >>specified exceptions) are Alertable. >> >>Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double >>a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying >>on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double >>is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double >>requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, >>then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't >>ignore that often-ignored word, "special." > >Perhaps I'm confused. I thought we were talking about Lightner >doubles - a double of a slam contract which calls for the lead of a >specific suit. I said (and still say) that if the double calls for a >specific lead, it's alertable *even if one would lead that suit >anyway*. What would pass mean in this case? Don't lead that suit, >right? So the double says "we can set the contract *if* you lead the >specified suit". Seems to me that says more than just "I think we can >set the contract." I do not think that Lightner doubles always say "we can set the contract if you lead suit X". Sometimes I believe they say "Leading suit X will gain us a trick: let us hope that they only started with twelve!" For example, if you double 6S with xxx -- xxxxx xxxxx you have no real reason to believe a heart lead will beat 6S - but the odds are much better is partner leads a heart. Another point about Lightner is that it asks for a specific suit: if you have an agreement over that suit it may not be the same agreement as the rest of the world. -- 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 Feb 13 07:17:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKGwQ11677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:16:58 +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-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 f1CKGht11660 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:16:43 +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 14SPOa-000DDW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:16:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:10:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <200102021937.OAA08627@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200102022102.NAA02181@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200102022102.NAA02181@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 >LHO paused a long time before passing. Against 5C, the opponents take >the first three tricks; now you face your hand and claim. The >opponents agree to the claim and put their hands back in the board. >You have only seen 3 of RHO's cards. When you ask to see RHO's hand, >he refuses, on the grounds that no Law requires him to show it to you. >Now, do you have "substantial reason to believe" that UI was used >illegally, as L16A2 says? I'd maintain that you don't, having seen >less than one quarter of RHO's hand. So, if you believe that you must >have "substantial reason to believe" before you call the TD, what do >you do now? Call the Director. Failure of an opponent to show you his hand when you asked, especially with a reasonable reason for asking, is a clear breach of L74A2. Do people really play the game this way? No-one has refused to show me [or anyone else while I have been at the table] their hand in my experience of duplicate bridge, which is now 38 years. -- 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 Feb 13 07:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKGxE11680 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:16:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CKGet11657 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:16:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14SPOi-000DDe-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:16:36 +0000 Message-ID: <+0Q1PJB+WHf6Ewc6@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:18:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner References: <007701c08bcb$52169ed0$6f13f7a5@james> <011901c08c0e$67bacca0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010201132933.00847400@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010201132933.00847400@pop.ulb.ac.be> 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 f1CKGmt11663 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >At 21:18 31/01/01 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Sometimes the line is hard to draw. I think that if one would double >>a slam or 3NT with a strange but competent-seeming partner, relying >>on partner's bridge sense to find the right lead, then such a double >>is not Alertable, even with a regular partner. If the double >>requires some *special* agreement in order to get the desired lead, >>then the double is Alertable. See L75C, last sentence, and don't >>ignore that often-ignored word, "special." > >AG : I don't find it in my French version (I mean, French language). The >word is 'particulière', which is the translation of 'specific'. If the bid >has a specific meaning, alert it and, if requested, explain it. The English >version seems to request more 'unusualness'. I'd say that if you play that >1NT-2C-2H-3NT always shows 4 spades (I don't : it could merely be a hand >with short H that is now out of the woods), then the English version >doesn't require us to alert, while the French one would. I find this a strange distinction, considering the Laws do not cover alerting. Surely the Law book is irrelevant? Whether you should alert depends on whether your SO says you should in your regs. One problem with the original question is that the original question came from Italy and I have no idea about Italian alerting regs. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 07:17:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKHFq11696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f1CKH2t11683 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:03 +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 14SPOn-000DDg-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:16:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:21:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner References: <004401c08c74$d2034ae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <200102011840.KAA32321@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200102011840.KAA32321@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 > >Marv wrote [regarding 1NT-2C-2H-3NT]: > >> My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not >> promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French >> approach on this one. >> >> 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when >> he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention >> "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what >> should be Alerted. > >Alerts are generally used to indicate something that isn't >"standard". When determining what is "standard", the original meaning >an inventor gave to a convention shouldn't have any relevance. > >In fact, my dim and possibly faulty recollection tells me that the >original version of the Stayman convention, as invented by Rapee' was >a way that nobody plays it any more. Invented by Rapee? Re-invented, surely. Marx had already invented it. [s] >As for 1NT-2C-2H-3NT: The "standard" is indeed that this promises four >spades; that's how it is in any textbook I've ever read. In fact, you >could rephrase this a little, and say that 3NT doesn't *tell* partner >you have four spades, but rather it *asks* partner to correct to 4S if >he has four. (You could thus use Stayman on something like >AQT 3 KJ952 K643 and try to play in a 4-3.) In any case, the >"standard" inference is that responder is interested in a spade >contract (he's not interested in hearts, but he did ask about the >majors, Q.E.D.). If this inference doesn't apply in your case, what >*can* one infer from the fact that responder went through Stayman >instead of just bidding 1NT-3NT? Whatever inference this might be, or >if no inference can be drawn at all (e.g. if you played 1NT-3NT as >conventional), it's not standard, and thus it doesn't seem weird to me >to require that it be alerted. But whether it is to be alerted depends on the SO and its regs, surely, not just on logic as to how strange it is? -- 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 Feb 13 07:17:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKHTP11709 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f1CKHDt11694 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:13 +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 14SPP8-000DDd-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:17:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:29:43 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> In-Reply-To: <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Nancy writes >In solving this problem, did you take South away from the table to discuss >the problem? Many directors here do not talk to the player away from the >table. Should this happen, how does one handle the UI that has occurred. >It has been suggested that if a director does talk to a player away from the >table the player's answer should be something like "I am not sure what I >would do" or some other noncommittal answer. This sounds to me like waiting >to see what happens and then protesting. I would like to hear some >discussion about this thought. What is gained by taking South away from the table? What do you ask him? As far as I can see, when ACBL TDs take players away from the table in MI situations, the main result is to put the NOs at a severe disadvantage by making them decide on an action in a situation they should not be in, and then holding it to them despite the Laws. As you will realise from this, I strongly disapprove of taking a non- offender away from the table in an MI situation. -- 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 Feb 13 07:17:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKHTW11710 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:30 +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-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 f1CKHBt11692 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:15 +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 14SPP9-000DDe-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:17:01 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:36:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <3.0.6.32.20010201132126.0082e210@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010201132126.0082e210@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 >a) South was entitled to retract his bid. He decided to double instead. The >fact that he had at first bid 2S is known to his partner, and since N/S >didn't do anything wrong. 2S is thus AI to them. My gut feeling is that it >isn't for E/W, but TFLB doesn't provide me with any answer. L16C2 makes it unauthorised. >Anyway, the fact that West led a heart, not a spade, can't be wrong, since >leading a spade was not a LA :-) > >b) Even if the infraction damaged N/S, I'd certainly let the score stand, >because his 3NT is a huge gamble. The infraction cannot have damaged N/S through MI, since the only call made after the MI was taken back, giving N/S two calls for the price of one. I can see no possibility that UI damaged N/S. -- 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 Feb 13 07:18:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CKHmM11725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-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 f1CKHRt11708 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 07:17:28 +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 14SPPI-000DDW-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:17:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001 21:33:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Taking Players Away from Table 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 > >I agree that TDs taking players away from the table >is generally an ungood thing. > >However, there is one exception where it can be useful. > >Suppose that Partner A has made a conventional call. >Suppose also that the opponents desire to know the >meaning of this call. And suppose that Partner B's >explanation is, "It is conventional, but I have forgotten >which convention we play." > >Under L40B, L40D and L75A the TD could remove >Partner B from the table (to prevent further UI being >transmitted), and then require Partner A to inform the >opponents of the A&B partnership agreement about >Partner A's own conventional call. The TD must make it *clear* to the player that he should only tell the oppos if there *is* a partnership agreement. I agree with this approach, which is mentioned in the EBU Orange book. Furthermore, there are a few other cases where TDs might take players away from the table. But not NOs in MI 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 Tue Feb 13 08:14:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLE8Y15443 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:14:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CLDut15431 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:13:57 +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 NAA27327; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:13:50 -0800 Message-Id: <200102122113.NAA27327@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 "Sat, 03 Feb 2001 21:21:54 GMT." Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:13:49 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >Marv wrote [regarding 1NT-2C-2H-3NT]: > > > >> My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not > >> promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French > >> approach on this one. > >> > >> 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when > >> he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention > >> "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what > >> should be Alerted. > > > >Alerts are generally used to indicate something that isn't > >"standard". When determining what is "standard", the original meaning > >an inventor gave to a convention shouldn't have any relevance. > > > >In fact, my dim and possibly faulty recollection tells me that the > >original version of the Stayman convention, as invented by Rapee' was > >a way that nobody plays it any more. > > Invented by Rapee? Re-invented, surely. Marx had already invented > it. The one Stayman published was invented by his partner Rapee'. I'm not clear on whether Marx's invention, which I believe came first (but was published afterwards), was the exact same thing; maybe it was. In that case, I should say that the original convention invented by Rapee' and Marx was a way that nobody plays it any more. In any case, I've never seen any allegations that Rapee' got his ideas from Marx; the way I've seen it, they both got the idea around the same time. When my wife was first interested in learning a little bridge, she spotted a beginner's book in a bookstore and decided to get it. It was one by Alan and Maureen Hiron. At one point in the book is the following (wording may not be exact---I'm writing from memory): "It was invented by an Englishman [Kempson], perfected by an Englishman [Marx], and published by an American [Stayman]. Guess who it got named after?" > >As for 1NT-2C-2H-3NT: The "standard" is indeed that this promises four > >spades; that's how it is in any textbook I've ever read. In fact, you > >could rephrase this a little, and say that 3NT doesn't *tell* partner > >you have four spades, but rather it *asks* partner to correct to 4S if > >he has four. (You could thus use Stayman on something like > >AQT 3 KJ952 K643 and try to play in a 4-3.) In any case, the > >"standard" inference is that responder is interested in a spade > >contract (he's not interested in hearts, but he did ask about the > >majors, Q.E.D.). If this inference doesn't apply in your case, what > >*can* one infer from the fact that responder went through Stayman > >instead of just bidding 1NT-3NT? Whatever inference this might be, or > >if no inference can be drawn at all (e.g. if you played 1NT-3NT as > >conventional), it's not standard, and thus it doesn't seem weird to me > >to require that it be alerted. > > But whether it is to be alerted depends on the SO and its regs, > surely, not just on logic as to how strange it is? Well, yes, but the discussion here is about whether the ACBL regulations are strange or not. Marvin said he was willing to follow the ACBL's requirements (of course), but thought they were strange. -- 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 Feb 13 08:14:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLE8N15442 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:14:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CLDvt15432 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:13:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive467.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.199]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA15286 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:13:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009101c09538$c56c4c10$c710f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:14:19 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "cyaxares::.gov.au : lineone.net:>" <@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu > > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > >+=+ The distinction should be made between > >the purposes of the Laws in defining the game > >and the powers of sponsoring orgs to create a mode > >or style for their tournaments. The place for a > >requirement of this kind, when it is desirable, is in > >the Conditions of Contest. > > WBF General Conditions of Contest, Section > >26.4: > > " The WBF expects all teams and partnerships > >to play to win at all times and in all circumstances. > >While a team may rest its players and make other > >decisions for strategic reasons, the failure to play > >anything less than as good bridge as possible is not > >permitted and the Committee* shall have the > >authority to determine whether there has been > >such a failure. Teams may submit particular > >proposed strategies to the Committee in advance > >to determine compliance with this provision. Any > >non-compliance will be subject to such penalties > >as may be imposed by the Committee, including > >recommendation that the Executive Council > >disqualify or suspend any team." > >[* Tournament Appeals Committee] > > ~ Grattan ~ > >'It was a miracle of rare device > >A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice' +=+ > > In Xanadu did Vanderbilt > A stately pleasure game decree > > Towards the end of the qualifying rounds of the 1971 > Bermuda Bowl, the French team were mathematically > certain to qualify for the Final. So the team played > *less than as good bridge as possible* by deliberately > breaking up its regular partnerships. This > culminated in the notorious deal where a honeymoon > French partnership Blackwooded to 7H when missing four > aces. > > But why should WBF fiat force the French to avoid a stupid > grand slam on a meaningless deal by requiring the team to > line up to best advantage? As Kaplan repeatedly proclaimed, > instead of legislating the unenforcable, the contest rules > should reward the desirable. For example, to make every > deal in the Bermuda Bowl meaningful for a team certain to > qualify, adopt a sensible carry-forward regulation. > > World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning > isn't everything - it's the only thing.* But should the > pleasure game of bridge be ruined by the superimposition > of a principle requiring you to *win at all times and in > all circumstances*? > > Some years ago my Canberra team travelled a few hundred > kilometres to Sydney, in order to play in the Spring > National Open Teams championship (affectionately known > as the SNOT). The format of this event is nine x 20 > board qualifying Swiss matches, with the top two teams > contesting a 64 board final. > > My team performed poorly, and with one qualifying match > to go we were certain to finish midfield. As luck would > have it, the final round paired us against some friends, > also from Canberra, also due to finish midfield. > > The original plan of our teams had been to drive back to > Canberra at the conclusion of the qualifying, arriving > at 3 a.m. But since our match was meaningless, the other > captain and I agreed on a double-forfeit so we could all > arrive home in Canberra at a civilised hour. > > Obviously a double-forfeit meant that our two teams > colluded against *playing to win at all times and in all > circumstances*. > > But the ABF CTD was more lenient than a WBF CTD would have > been - stately decreeing our pleasure. > > Best wishes > > R > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 08:20:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLKB315591 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:20:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CLK3t15584 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:20:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive467.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.16.199]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA25724; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:19:51 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a301c09539$9e212260$c710f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: , , "alain gottcheiner" Cc: References: <3.0.6.32.20010212124509.007c5660@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:20:24 -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 We are discussing here "sportsmanlike dumping" which was the last TBW editorial by EK before his death. His point was primarily that COC should never be such as to present a contestant which such an unpalatable choice...but that they should play to win the event not the match. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" > I don't think we have to argue with this : sometimes, to give oneself the > best chance to win means you have to throw points away. If the conditions > of the contest permit this, they, not the players, are evil. > > An editorial in The Bridge World covers a similar case, -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 08:41:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLfgB20569 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:41:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CLfYt20529 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:41:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14SQiv-000N09-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:41:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:44:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. 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 Pamela L. Mayne writes >I think I speak for all of us when saying that we all have hope of David >improving. Precisely what improvements are warranted are debated. (Shall >we?) As you wish! >You might want to let him know that by an overwhelming 12-7 vote, BLML hopes >he gets well soon. (The dissenters also want him well, just hoping to >prolong his break from this list.) 12-7 seems a good majority here. Anyway, after eight days in two hospitals and an operation, I am as weak as a kitten, feel extremely ill, but am back home. -- 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 Feb 13 08:49:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLnZh23360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:49:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CLnSt23312 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:49:28 +1100 (EST) Received: by falhost.fujitsu.com.au; id IAA02152; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:49:21 +1100 Received: from mailhost.fujitsu.com.au(137.172.19.140) by falhost via smap (V2.1) id xma001891; Tue, 13 Feb 01 08:48:54 +1100 Received: from Viruswall (mailhost.fujitsu.com.au) with ESMTP id f1CLmrK29575 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 f1CLmrc29569 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:48:53 +1100 Received: from SERCDEMOnote ([137.172.15.125]) by doctech (4.1/SMI-4.1-MHS-7.0) id AA21736; Tue, 13 Feb 01 08:34:16 EST Message-Id: <005901c0953e$2a683fc0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> From: "Peter Newman" To: References: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:52:59 +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, Just another confirmation from a list reader about the attempt (no doubt noble) to make every player play their best on every board.... Tim wrote: > > 16 board match. I play board 1 in 3NT and there a 10 tricks on a simple > squeeze. I deliberately fluff the play because I believe that the gain > from opponents underestimating me over the next 15 boards will exceed the > 1 IMP I just threw them. > > Later in the match I make a safety play that caters to the 1NT opener > holding a singleton when of course he holds a doubleton. > > No doubt I will be locked up when the thought police arrive. > > Tim West-Meads > I don't think you need to be so tactical to break the rules....I was just reading the bulletin from the recent NEC cup in Tokyo and a hand which Gawrys played carefully in a grand slam to make 7 dropping a doubleton queen offside rather than taking a finesse by getting a count on the hand. Paul Hackett in six took one look at dummy and asked where the relevant queen was to decide whether he got the overtrick. Making six. I assume that is illegal ;-) 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 Tue Feb 13 08:54:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLsZM24271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:54:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1CLsOt24267 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:54:29 +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 QAA20057; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:54:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA259184855; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:54:15 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:54:14 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: RE: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. 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="Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:54:14 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1CLsWt24268 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ---- Anyway, after eight days in two hospitals and an operation, I am as weak as a kitten, feel extremely ill, but am back home. ______________________________________________________________________ Take care of you David. You have only one.... and we too..... Amities Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 08:57:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CLvi824366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:57:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.dybdal.dk (cpe.atm0-0-0-114174.boanxx1.customer.tele.dk [193.89.241.80]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CLvbt24360 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:57:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A4B3D7F10 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:57:15 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws List Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:57:15 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3.0.6.32.20010212124509.007c5660@pop.ulb.ac.be> <00a301c09539$9e212260$c710f7a5@james> In-Reply-To: <00a301c09539$9e212260$c710f7a5@james> 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 f1CLvet24362 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:20:24 -0500, "Craig Senior" wrote: >We are discussing here "sportsmanlike dumping" which was the >last TBW editorial by EK before his death. His point was >primarily that COC should never be such as to present a >contestant which such an unpalatable choice...but that they >should play to win the event not the match. Exactly. In Denmark, we have a regulation that makes it clear that there is nothing wrong in playing to win the event, even if that means playing to lose a match. The same regulation urges arranging organizations to use score carry-forward to reduce the risk of the situation arising. Forbidding players to lose a match in order to win the tournament seems to me to be almost equivalent to forbidding players to lose a trick in order to win a contract - and nobody seems to want that. -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 09:36:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CMaTg02490 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:36:29 +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-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CMaLt02438 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:36:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from RCraigH@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.45.240f15e (4320) for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:35:44 -0500 (EST) From: RCraigH@aol.com Message-ID: <45.240f15e.27b9bf3f@aol.com> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:35:43 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_45.240f15e.27b9bf3f_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 10501 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_45.240f15e.27b9bf3f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott wrote -- > World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything - > . Actually, that was Vince Lombardi, when coaching the Green Bay Packers.... Craig Hemphill --part1_45.240f15e.27b9bf3f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Grattan Endicott wrote --

World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything -
it's the only thing
.

Actually, that was Vince Lombardi, when coaching the Green Bay Packers....

Craig Hemphill
--part1_45.240f15e.27b9bf3f_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 10:58:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1CNvvK05035 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail.pinehurst.net (mail.pinehurst.net [12.4.96.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1CNvot05029 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:57:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mom (sp3com1-15.connectnc.net [12.20.159.15]) by mail.pinehurst.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06483 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:57:47 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from nancy@pinehurst.net) Message-ID: <005901c0954f$8de935c0$3e9f140c@mom> Reply-To: "Nancy" From: "Nancy" To: References: <00a201c0951a$9aa58140$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Class project Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:57:27 -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 responded to this email and got a reply from the school, stating they had received a huge number of emails from around the world, complete with the school's name and mailing address. I don't think this is a hoax. Treat as you will! Nancy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin L. French" To: Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 12:38 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Fw: Class project > Looks like someone is collecting valid e-mail addresses for spamming. > > Marv > > > >From: "Nancy" > > > > > >I know this does not apply to Bridge Laws, but how thrilled these kids > > >would be to hear from People around the world! Hope you don't mind too > > >much. Nancy > > > > > > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 13 11:36:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D0ZV405784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:35:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1D0ZNt05778 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:35:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-002kslawrP285.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.87]) by swan.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA09419 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:35:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200102121836170240.0179A326@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <45.240f15e.27b9bf3f@aol.com> References: <45.240f15e.27b9bf3f@aol.com> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:36:17 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >> World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything >- >> . > >Actually, that was Vince Lombardi, when coaching the Green Bay Packers.... What Lombardi actually said (in full) was, "Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is." 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 Feb 13 12:52:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D1qIK07287 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:52:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1D1qCt07281 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:52:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:52:31 -0800 Message-ID: <016401c0955f$8c2c0220$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <004401c08c74$d2034ae0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <200102011840.KAA32321@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Double lightner Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:51:37 -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 From: "David Stevenson" > Adam Beneschan writes > > > >Marv wrote [regarding 1NT-2C-2H-3NT]: > > > >> My practice is like yours, but I am required to Alert the 3NT bid as not > >> promising four spades, which seems weird to me. I prefer the French > >> approach on this one. > >> > >> 2C is an asking bid, not a telling bid, as Sam Stayman made clear when > >> he described the convention. If a modified version of his convention > >> "tells" something about responder's major suit holding, that is what > >> should be Alerted. > > > >Alerts are generally used to indicate something that isn't > >"standard". When determining what is "standard", the original meaning > >an inventor gave to a convention shouldn't have any relevance. > > > >In fact, my dim and possibly faulty recollection tells me that the > >original version of the Stayman convention, as invented by Rapee' was > >a way that nobody plays it any more. > > Invented by Rapee? Re-invented, surely. Marx had already invented > it. > [s] > > >As for 1NT-2C-2H-3NT: The "standard" is indeed that this promises four > >spades; that's how it is in any textbook I've ever read. (Probably repeating myself, but I must) Stayman's textbook on notrump bidding (*Highroad to Winning Bridge*) says that it should not promise four spades. I figure he ought to know. Who else is more qualified to describe how this convention should be played? > > But whether it is to be alerted depends on the SO and its regs, > surely, not just on logic as to how strange it is? Yes. The ACBL tendency (not always consistent) is to require the Alert of treatments that are not in general use. No harm in that, I suppose. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 13:03:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D22Nn07456 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1D22Ft07450 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:02:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:02:35 -0800 Message-ID: <018501c09560$f439c680$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:59:50 -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 Stevenson" > > What is gained by taking South away from the table? What do you ask > him? As far as I can see, when ACBL TDs take players away from the > table in MI situations, the main result is to put the NOs at a severe > disadvantage by making them decide on an action in a situation they > should not be in, and then holding it to them despite the Laws. > > As you will realise from this, I strongly disapprove of taking a non- > offender away from the table in an MI situation. > Amen. In presenting contrary views not long ago, from Rich Colker and Gary Blaiss, I left out one argument that a prominent ACBL TD has. He says that often a player will not mention a very logical call that would have been made in the absence of MI, surprising the TD, who thinks that call would be automatic. In adjudicating the case, the TD now will not consider that this call might have been made. Had the discussion waited until later, the player might have second thoughts (perhaps with outside assistance). I don't buy this argument, but in fairness must include it along with Rich and Gary's opinions, previously quoted. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 13:23:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D2Mmq07843 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:22:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1D2Mft07837 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:22:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:22:58 -0800 Message-ID: <01a901c09563$cd6f53a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <005901c0953e$2a683fc0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:20:33 -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 I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my partner/teammates to do the same. I would not put a burden on the organizers of an event to arrange for other philosophies. Too bad they can't count on everyone's having mine. Winning when losing would gain would be a ribbon in my cap, proudly worn. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 16:08:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D57Xc29101 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:07:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1D57Lt29093 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:07:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1D53Vb09398; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:03:32 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 00:04:33 -0500 To: David Stevenson From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 8:44 PM +0000 2/12/01, David Stevenson wrote: >Anyway, after eight days in two hospitals and an operation, I am as >weak as a kitten, feel extremely ill, but am back home. Well, you're making progress, then. That's good. :-) Best Wishes, Ed -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOojA/L2UW3au93vOEQL1MQCeOxyTwUYjzKDW8tWF9G6jrUTFbz8AoJ2K HFrNuYDfdV/9VDKi72ek2xSP =rK2O -----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 Feb 13 20:40:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D9cHJ02970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:38:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1D9c9t02961 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:38:10 +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 KAA09067; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:34:05 +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 KAA17950; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:37:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010213103956.00844750@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:39:56 +0100 To: RCraigH@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu In-Reply-To: <45.240f15e.27b9bf3f@aol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:35 12/02/01 EST, RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > >World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything - >it's the only thing >. > >Actually, that was Vince Lombardi, when coaching the Green Bay Packers.... AG : I confirm that Bobby Fischer once said that, and that he uninterruptedly thought it. But of course a grest thought may be shared by several great people. 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 Feb 13 20:54:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D9sXv03485 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:54:33 +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 (f195.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.195]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1D9sRt03478 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:54:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:54:20 -0800 Received: from 172.159.155.165 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 09:54:20 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.159.155.165] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 01:54:20 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2001 09:54:20.0366 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF9D06E0:01C095A2] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Peter Newman" >I don't think you need to be so tactical to break the rules....I was just >reading the bulletin from the recent NEC cup in Tokyo and a hand which >Gawrys played carefully in a grand slam to make 7 dropping a doubleton >queen >offside rather than taking a finesse by getting a count on the hand. > >Paul Hackett in six took one look at dummy and asked where the relevant >queen was to decide whether he got the overtrick. Making six. > >I assume that is illegal ;-) With 0-1 imps at stake, take the lazy claim and use the time for the match to think about more important things. My main problem with this thread is that no one has defined what "as good of bridge as possible" (or any variation on that theme) is. Is the atomic unit one must do one's best at the event, a match, a board, or one trick? I don't think it should be every board. If you believe in or consider mental fatigue, a marathon runner intentionally does not give it his all every step or even mile. He'd never make it to the end of the race. Many people, particularly at club games and low level tournaments, will give up a board before giving it their all. They may be frustrated, eager to be done with it to smoke, or making judicious use of their time allotted to play a set of boards. -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 Tue Feb 13 20:57:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1D9vOl03578 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:57:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1D9vGt03571 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:57:17 +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 KAA14930; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:53:13 +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 KAA02768; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:56:58 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010213105905.00844380@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:59:05 +0100 To: "Marvin L. French" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] A late alert debacle In-Reply-To: <018501c09560$f439c680$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <01fc01c08bad$061ada00$a791e13f@oemcomputer> <003b01c08c5c$698249c0$dfafa03f@mom> 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 f1D9vKt03573 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 17:59 12/02/01 -0800, Marvin L. French wrote: > >In presenting contrary views not long ago, from Rich Colker and Gary >Blaiss, I left out one argument that a prominent ACBL TD has. He says that >often a player will not mention a very logical call that would have been >made in the absence of MI, surprising the TD, who thinks that call would >be automatic. > >In adjudicating the case, the TD now will not consider that this call >might have been made. Had the discussion waited until later, the player >might have second thoughts (perhaps with outside assistance). AG : one major problem with that consideration is that, the human mind being what it is, one is often less inventive in artificial situations (also called whatifs) than at the table. I can mention several cases when a player had an astute idea at the table, an idea that would probably not have occurred away from the table. Also, perceptivity, table feel, can play a rôle. This means that the fact that somebody does not spontaneously mention an option does by no means imply that one wouldn't have found it at the table. Thus, this TD's argument seems to me very weak. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 22:16:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DBETU08398 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:14:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from nuser.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 f1DBEMt08392 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:14:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id A2414D7C89 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:14:17 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:14:17 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <005901c0953e$2a683fc0$7d0fac89@SERCDEMOnote> <01a901c09563$cd6f53a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <01a901c09563$cd6f53a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1DBEOt08393 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:20:33 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would >always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my >partner/teammates to do the same. The question is whether "the best bridge" is the bridge that wins the hand or the bridge that wins the tournament. Logically speaking, it should be the latter, but Marv's point of view is very consistent with what most of us tend to intuitively consider "the best bridge". I believe that playing to win the tournament should be legal. Many players share Marv's point of view and will instead play to win the board. Regulations should allow both and should try to make the practical difference as small as possible. (I don't think I've ever encountered a difference in practice.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 13 22:41:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DBfBA14474 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:41:11 +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.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 f1DBf4t14448 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:41:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-68.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.68]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1DBeoS22286 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 12:40:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A881978.C4E01774@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:12:24 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@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 12:55 PM 2/9/01, Herman wrote: > > > > >Yes, but how will this player prove that he would also have > >raised after a fast signoff ? > >This is as with all UI cases. When in possession of UI, one > >is restricted to LAs. Those are usually somewhat bigger > >than "what the player would have done". > > Quite so. We can't prove that he would have raised opposite a fast > signoff, nor can we prove that he would not have. So the question > before us is on which presumption should we base the result of our > potential adjudication when he does raise. I am quite comfortable > making the presumption that he would have raised regardless, that, in > effect, once he has legimately noticed that he has misresponded he will > believe he has no LA to attempting to recover by raising, and that the > necessary percentage of his peers (whatever that might happen to be in > any particular jurisdiction) will agree with him. The contrary > presumption, that he might have the LA of passing, hoping that his > partner believes that he has lost his gamble in asking for key cards > and is now settling for the 5-level expecting to be off three key cards > and probably go down (in which case he (the responder) can recover by > passing) just seems too far-fetched. > Sorry Eric, but you are missing the point. We always have to make a decision, and you and I may well differ on our opinion, but first we must ask the same question. If the question is "given that the player realizes that he has miscounted, would he raise to six ?", then the answer, I agree with you, is yes. But I believe that the question should be "if partner would sign-off quickly, would the player realize he has miscounted ?", and that answer, I believe, is no. I don't really think you disagree with that one, do you ? So the question we are coming back to is this : "When a player has available UI, and because of that UI, he takes some action, which in itself produces AI, does that AI now become UI ?" I believe that it does. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 00:29:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DDRwR17173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:27:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stmpy-3.cais.net (stmpy-3.cais.net [205.252.14.73]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DDRpt17169 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:27:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from elandau.cais.com (207-176-64-97.dup.cais.net [207.176.64.97]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1DDRkH17668 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:27:46 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@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, 13 Feb 2001 08:26:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A881978.C4E01774@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:12 PM 2/12/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > > At 12:55 PM 2/9/01, Herman wrote: > > > > > > > >Yes, but how will this player prove that he would also have > > >raised after a fast signoff ? > > >This is as with all UI cases. When in possession of UI, one > > >is restricted to LAs. Those are usually somewhat bigger > > >than "what the player would have done". > > > > Quite so. We can't prove that he would have raised opposite a fast > > signoff, nor can we prove that he would not have. So the question > > before us is on which presumption should we base the result of our > > potential adjudication when he does raise. I am quite comfortable > > making the presumption that he would have raised regardless, that, in > > effect, once he has legimately noticed that he has misresponded he will > > believe he has no LA to attempting to recover by raising, and that the > > necessary percentage of his peers (whatever that might happen to be in > > any particular jurisdiction) will agree with him. The contrary > > presumption, that he might have the LA of passing, hoping that his > > partner believes that he has lost his gamble in asking for key cards > > and is now settling for the 5-level expecting to be off three key cards > > and probably go down (in which case he (the responder) can recover by > > passing) just seems too far-fetched. > >Sorry Eric, but you are missing the point. > >We always have to make a decision, and you and I may well >differ on our opinion, but first we must ask the same >question. > >If the question is "given that the player realizes that he >has miscounted, would he raise to six ?", then the answer, I >agree with you, is yes. > >But I believe that the question should be "if partner would >sign-off quickly, would the player realize he has miscounted >?", and that answer, I believe, is no. > >I don't really think you disagree with that one, do you ? > >So the question we are coming back to is this : > >"When a player has available UI, and because of that UI, he >takes some action, which in itself produces AI, does that AI >now become UI ?" > >I believe that it does. A nice analysis. I'd say that Herman and I agree on the point I was trying to make in the cited passage; we differ on the issue I raised subsequently, which Herman has appropriately restated. When a player has UI, he "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested..." So our disagreement seems to hinge on the meaning of "actions" in the context of L16. Guided by the words of the first paragraph, which says, "To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law," I interpret "actions" as "calls or plays". Herman's contrary view is that taking a second look at one's cards is an "action" covered by L16. But if this were true, it would mean that when an opponent huddles and his partner then reexamines his hand, we would be obliged by L16A2 to "summon the Director forthwith". I don't read the law that way, and I suggest that the footnote to L16A2 supports my interpretation. But I'm still listening to the discussion. 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 Feb 14 01:01:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DE02117220 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 01:00:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1DDxtt17212 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:59:56 +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 f1DDxpq47246 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:59:51 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010213084012.00ab2c30@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, 13 Feb 2001 08:59:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim In-Reply-To: <013b01c09521$56250520$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> References: <006a01c093b9$7239d740$9c3a1dc2@rabbit> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 01:26 PM 2/12/01, Marvin wrote: >From: "Thomas Dehn": > > > > Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > > > > > > > >Recently the claim laws > > > > >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., > allowing > > > > declarer > > > > >to repeat a successful finesse). > > > > You have AQJxx opposite xx. You need five tricks from > > this suit. A finesse to the Q has worked. > >The finesse is allowed, because failure to take it would be irrational. > >If, howver, that AQJxx was alone in dummy, and the ace of diamonds on the >next round would insure the (undoubled, matchpoint) contract, then a >claimer who hasn't stated a line of play must "take" the finesse if it >loses, and must play the ace if the king is onside. Neither losing play >would be irrational, so the losing line must be assumed. I agree with Marv's view. Perhaps a more to-the-point example would be AQJ106 opposite 32, needing three tricks to make, with no side entry to the long suit but sufficient control to be willing to lose a trick, playing against unknown opponents. First round is 2,4,10,5. We all would repeat the finesse, going with both the mathmatical and the psychological odds. But the A on the second round could be the winning play. Is Mr. McCracken saying that we should presume that declarer would repeat the finesse when the K is onside as expected? 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 Feb 14 02:52:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DFpVn14560 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:51:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DFpOt14529 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:51:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from thorium ([194.75.226.70] helo=btinternet.com) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Shjc-0002UV-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:51:20 +0000 From: dburn@btinternet.com Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:51:20 GMT Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Message-id: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 194.222.4.103 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marv wrote: >I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my partner/teammates to do the same. I wouldn't. Suppose, for example, that a situation arose in which England was certain to finish first or second in a round robin qualifying group, and progress to the knock- out stages. And suppose that if England finished second, it would go into that half of the knock-out draw that included Italy, the USA and Poland, while if it finished first, it would go into that half of the knock-out draw that included Tristan da Cunha, Queen Maud Land and Belgium. I can assure you that England would take very good care to score no Victory Points at all in its final round robin match, and would also incur as many procedural penalties as possible. Anything, in fact, rather than having to face Belgium again! 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 Feb 14 03:27:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DGQOu19966 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:26:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DGQIt19962 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:26:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from actinium ([194.75.226.69] helo=btinternet.com) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14SiHO-0005Qc-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:26:14 +0000 From: dburn@btinternet.com Reply-to: dburn@btinternet.com To: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:26:14 GMT Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Message-id: <3a896026.f4b.0@btinternet.com> X-User-Info: 194.222.4.103 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Eric wrote: >A nice analysis. I'd say that Herman and I agree on the point I was trying to make in the cited passage; we differ on the issue I raised subsequently, which Herman has appropriately restated. >When a player has UI, he "may not choose from among logical alternative actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested..." So our disagreement seems to hinge on the meaning of "actions" in the context of L16. Guided by the words of the first paragraph, which says, "To base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an infraction of law," I interpret "actions" as "calls or plays". Herman's contrary view is that taking a second look at one's cards is an "action" covered by L16. It may not matter. If I have followed all of this correctly, which is by no means certain, the position being discussed is: North uses Blackwood; South (who has miscounted his key cards) gives the wrong response; North signs off slowly, causing South to re-examine his hand, discover his error, and continue to slam anyway. First of all, communication between partners other than by means of calls or plays is not legal. If North's slow sign-off conveys to South: "I am puzzled that you have so few key cards, I would have thought you would have more for your bidding, but if you really are telling the truth, I suppose we cannot make slam", and if South's re-examination of his hand is prompted by North's evident puzzlement, then we may say that illegal communication has taken place, and that an adjusted score may be assigned. Another way of looking at this is: if North takes some time to sign off over South's response to Blackwood, South has the unauthorized information that there is (or may be) something wrong. If, based on this, he looks at his hand again when he would not otherwise have done so, and if based on this re-examination he bids a slam, it would be possible to say that his call was based on the unauthorized information, After all, if A is based on B, and B is based on C, then there is at least some case for the notion that A is based on C. 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 Feb 14 04:49:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DHluL22928 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:47:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1DHlnt22883 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:47:50 +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 SAA10784; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:43:47 +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 SAA26542; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:47:31 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010213184938.00840330@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:49:38 +0100 To: dburn@btinternet.com, From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game In-Reply-To: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:51 13/02/01 GMT, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >Marv wrote: > >>I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on >this subject, I would always play the best bridge I can >possibly play and would expect my partner/teammates >to do the same. > >I wouldn't. Suppose, for example, that a situation arose >in which England was certain to finish first or second in a >round robin qualifying group, and progress to the knock- >out stages. And suppose that if England finished >second, it would go into that half of the knock-out draw >that included Italy, the USA and Poland, while if it >finished first, it would go into that half of the knock-out >draw that included Tristan da Cunha, Queen Maud Land >and Belgium. I can assure you that England would take >very good care to score no Victory Points at all in its >final round robin match, and would also incur as many >procedural penalties as possible. Anything, in fact, >rather than having to face Belgium again! AG : I'm delighted to read your reasons for this preference. For a short time, I thought you estimated the playing level of Belgium as equivalent to TdC and QML. Although, there is at least one similarity : climate :-/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 04:53:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DHrD624792 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:53:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1DHr5t24747 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 04:53:06 +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 SAA11937; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:49:04 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id SAA28722; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:52:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010213185454.00841280@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:54:54 +0100 To: dburn@btinternet.com, From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3a896026.f4b.0@btinternet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:26 13/02/01 GMT, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >Eric wrote: > >First of all, communication between partners other than >by means of calls or plays is not legal. If North's slow >sign-off conveys to South: "I am puzzled that you have >so few key cards, I would have thought you would have >more for your bidding, but if you really are telling the >truth, I suppose we cannot make slam", and if South's >re-examination of his hand is prompted by North's >evident puzzlement, then we may say that illegal >communication has taken place, and that an adjusted >score may be assigned. AG : but what do you do of the word 'unmistakably' in the wording of L16A ? How can one suggest that there is a casual link between the tempo and the re-thinking, with such strong certitude ? Surely, it is much less obvious than the case of the slow pass. 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 Feb 14 05:30:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DITjD28782 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 05:29:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1DITdt28778 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 05:29:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 6CE51D7C89 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:29:35 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 19:29:35 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.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 f1DITgt28779 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:51:20 GMT, dburn@btinternet.com wrote: >I can assure you that England would take >very good care to score no Victory Points at all in its >final round robin match, and would also incur as many >procedural penalties as possible. "For the irregularity of deliberately committing an irregularity in order to incur a PP, I am awarding you a PP in the form of 3 VPs to be _added_ to your score." There does not seem to be anything in the wording of L90 to forbid positive PPs. -- 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 Feb 14 06:10:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DJAG811523 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:10:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DJAAt11490 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:10:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:10:27 -0800 Message-ID: <028101c095f0$8c313a60$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 10:24:41 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Marv wrote: > > >I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on > this subject, I would always play the best bridge I can > possibly play and would expect my partner/teammates > to do the same. > > I wouldn't. Suppose, for example, that a situation arose > in which England was certain to finish first or second in a > round robin qualifying group, and progress to the knock- > out stages. And suppose that if England finished > second, it would go into that half of the knock-out draw > that included Italy, the USA and Poland, while if it > finished first, it would go into that half of the knock-out > draw that included Tristan da Cunha, Queen Maud Land > and Belgium. I can assure you that England would take > very good care to score no Victory Points at all in its > final round robin match, and would also incur as many > procedural penalties as possible. Anything, in fact, > rather than having to face Belgium again! > If that's the sporting thing to do, consistent with the spirit of the game, how come no one brags about such an accomplishment? I doubt that another team that would have survived the round-robin but for the deliberate loss would praise it either. As captain of a six-person team, I would hold out my strongest pair, resting them, and tell the other four to play their hearts out. That's as far as I would go. The organizers may be able to prevent this "problem," but it's too bad they have to concern themeselves with it. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 07:32:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DKVnZ24975 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:31:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp07.iafrica.com (smtp07.iafrica.com [196.2.51.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DKVGt24970 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:31:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from l2k5q2 ([196.31.176.140]) by smtp07.iafrica.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with SMTP id <0G8P00GQMQBJEO@smtp07.iafrica.com> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:30:58 +0200 (SAT) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 22:25:52 +0200 From: Rusty Court Subject: [BLML] Degree of culpability To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <000b01c095fb$47cb2740$8cb01fc4@l2k5q2> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0960B.ECD89F00" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0960B.ECD89F00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is my annual crawling out of my lurkers hidey-hole. The bidding has been completed, the lead faced and dummy has been = spread. It now becomes obvious that someone has incorrect cards. It turns out = that declarer has a hand from the other board (two board rounds). The TD rules that the board is unplayable (L12A2) and awards an ArtAS of = Av+\Av- in terms of L12C1. This happened last night but I received a telephone call this afternoon = from the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all along that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, what = should he do? I advised him to leave the Av- for the declaring side, revert the = defenders Av+ to average and award them a procedural penalty for not drawing = attention to this fact at the earliest opportunity. I believe that the board could = have been salvaged if that had been done. (I think this fact came to light today) Now that I have had time to look at the FLB, I believe that this is the = correct course. The board has become unplayable (L12A2) and warrants as ArtAS (L12C1) but what about the defenders, specifically the defender who was=20 aware of the situation? Although L9A1 only says "....any player *may* call attention to an = irregularity..." (my emphasis), it does not specifically require it. L9B1a says that "The = Director must be summoned at once when attention has been drawn to an = irregularity." I don't want to get drawn into the semantics of "...when attention has = been...", but obviously an irregularity had come to this defenders attention and = that player is guilty of not calling the Director and so defenders are liable to = forfeiture of their rights, L11A. L11C talks about the Directors right to assess a procedural penalty. = This law does not specify the recipient of the penalty but, presumably, it is = intended for an offender, not a non-oiffender(!), so I would use L90A to issue a = procedural penalty, and quite a substantial one, to the defenders, for several of = the reasons suggested in that law. Opinions please. Rusty Court. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0960B.ECD89F00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is my annual crawling out of my = lurkers=20 hidey-hole.
 
The bidding has been completed, the = lead faced and=20 dummy has been spread.
It now becomes obvious that someone has = incorrect=20 cards. It turns out that
declarer has a hand from the other = board (two=20 board rounds). The TD
rules that the board is unplayable = (L12A2) and=20 awards an ArtAS of Av+\Av-
in terms of L12C1.
 
This happened last night but I received = a telephone=20 call this afternoon from
the TD to say that one of the defenders = had said=20 that she knew all along
that the offending player had taken = cards from the=20 wrong board, what should
he do? I advised him to leave the Av- = for the=20 declaring side, revert the defenders
Av+ to average and award them a = procedural penalty=20 for not drawing attention
to this fact at the earliest = opportunity. I believe=20 that the board could have been
salvaged if that had been done. (I = think this fact=20 came to light today)
 
Now that I have had time to look at the = FLB, I=20 believe that this is the correct
course. The board has become unplayable = (L12A2) and=20 warrants as ArtAS
(L12C1) but what=20 about the defenders, specifically the defender who was
aware of the=20 situation?
 
Although L9A1 only says "....any player = *may* call=20 attention to an irregularity..."
(my emphasis), it does not specifically = require it.=20 L9B1a says that "The Director
must be summoned at once when attention = has been=20 drawn to an irregularity."
I don't want to get drawn into the = semantics of=20 "...when attention has been...",
but obviously an irregularity had come = to this=20 defenders attention and that player
is guilty of not calling the Director = and so=20 defenders are liable to forfeiture of their
rights, L11A.
 
L11C talks about the Directors right to = assess a=20 procedural penalty. This law
does not specify the recipient of the = penalty but,=20 presumably, it is intended
for an offender, not a = non-oiffender(!), so I would=20 use L90A to issue a procedural
penalty, and quite a substantial one, = to the=20 defenders, for several of the reasons
suggested in that law.
 
Opinions please.
 
Rusty Court.
------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C0960B.ECD89F00-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 07:49:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DKmpl25014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:48:51 +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 f1DKmkt25010 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:48:47 +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 HAA20952 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:51:52 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:42:04 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:46:28 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/02/2001 07:46:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk A savage place ! as holy and enchanted As e'er beneath a waning moon was haunted By woman wailing for her demon-lover ! Brian Baresch wrote: >What Lombardi actually said (in full) was, "Winning >isn't everything, but wanting to win is." It is true that the *object* of any game is to win. But when I play Scrabble, I am not wailing for my demon-lover named Victory. Instead, my purpose in playing Scrabble is the pleasure of anagramising the letters in my rack. If, rather, I was seduced by the demon-lover Victory, then I would play tiddly-winks instead - winning is easier to achieve in that profoundly boring game. Sponsoring Organisations which require bridge tournaments to be a savage place, by enforcing the seduction of all contestants by Victory, are hurting this pleasure game. Whom is worse - a rude, result merchanting bridge lawyer, or a peaceful soul who technically breaks the Laws by not summoning the TD after an opponent's irregularity? 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 Feb 14 08:01:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DL1N025043 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:01:23 +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 f1DL1Gt25039 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:01:17 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-64-192.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.64.192]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA02290; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 21:00:39 GMT Message-ID: <003501c09600$12d6b040$c040063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , , "alain gottcheiner" References: <3.0.6.32.20010213103956.00844750@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:00:22 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "From quiet homes and first beginning, Out to the undiscovered ends, There's nothing worth the wear of winning, But laughter and the love of friends." ~ Hilaire Belloc.. <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu > At 17:35 12/02/01 EST, RCraigH@aol.com wrote: > > > >World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning isn't everything - it's the only thing > >. > > > >Actually, that was Vince Lombardi, when coaching the Green Bay Packers.... > > AG : I confirm that Bobby Fischer once said that, and that he uninterruptedly thought it. > But of course a great thought may be shared by several great people. > +=+ As recorded the precise words that Vince Lombardi used were "Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is." ~ G ~ +=+ p.s. taxed with 'Xanadu' my spellchecker offers 'Landau'. That's reputation for you, Eric. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 09:00:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DLxC126366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:59:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DLx5t26322 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:59:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id QAA10734 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:59:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA03824 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:59:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:59:01 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102132159.QAA03824@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Rusty Court > The bidding has been completed, the lead faced and dummy has been spread. > It now becomes obvious that someone has incorrect cards. ... > This happened last night but I received a telephone call this afternoon from > the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all along > that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, Is the correction period over? If it is, you can't change the score. If not, L12C1 seems to prescribe avg- to declarer's side ("directly at fault") and avg to defender's side ("partially at fault"). I suppose you could consider defender's side directly at fault also and give avg-, but that doesn't seem right to me. I don't see why you would wish to give a PP in addition. You can also ask the defender whether she comes to the club to play bridge or for some other reason. You might wish to phrase the question more politely :-), but the real point is to educate the player. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 09:53:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DMrCk09864 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:53:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1DMr5t09815 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaui5q.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.72.186]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07930 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:52:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002d01c09628$d7e15160$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <000b01c095fb$47cb2740$8cb01fc4@l2k5q2> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:52:52 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rusty Court" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 12:25 PM Subject: [BLML] Degree of culpability This is my annual crawling out of my lurkers hidey-hole. +++ Hi Rusty. Hope to see your here more often. Do remember to tell us about your cats and dogs ;) The bidding has been completed, the lead faced and dummy has been spread. It now becomes obvious that someone has incorrect cards. It turns out that declarer has a hand from the other board (two board rounds). The TD rules that the board is unplayable (L12A2) and awards an ArtAS of Av+\Av- in terms of L12C1. +++ Sounds good so far This happened last night but I received a telephone call this afternoon from the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all along that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, what should he do? I advised him to leave the Av- for the declaring side, revert the defenders Av+ to average and award them a procedural penalty for not drawing attention to this fact at the earliest opportunity. I believe that the board could have been salvaged if that had been done. (I think this fact came to light today) +++If the defender could have salvaged the board, why give the defender only partial culpability? A- to both sides, IMO. Now that I have had time to look at the FLB, I believe that this is the correct course. The board has become unplayable (L12A2) and warrants as ArtAS (L12C1) but what about the defenders, specifically the defender who was aware of the situation? Although L9A1 only says "....any player *may* call attention to an irregularity..." (my emphasis), it does not specifically require it. L9B1a says that "The Director must be summoned at once when attention has been drawn to an irregularity." I don't want to get drawn into the semantics of "...when attention has been...", but obviously an irregularity had come to this defenders attention and that player is guilty of not calling the Director and so defenders are liable to forfeiture of their rights, L11A. +++Herein lies the problem, as the meaning of "when attention has been drawn to the irregularity" is important. Attention has been drawn to an irregularity when someone says "Look at the irregularity", or something along those lines. Just because the player has seen it does not mean that attention has been drawn. A player has the right to see an irregularity and not draw attention to it. That is what this defender has done. L9 is irrelevant here. L11A is also irrelevant, IMO. The NOS has noticed an irregularity, and not summoned the TD. However, they are not required to summon the TD until attention has been brought to the irregularity. One cannot penalize them for failing to do something they are not required to do. However, see below... L11C talks about the Directors right to assess a procedural penalty. This law does not specify the recipient of the penalty but, presumably, it is intended for an offender, not a non-oiffender(!), so I would use L90A to issue a procedural penalty, and quite a substantial one, to the defenders, for several of the reasons suggested in that law. Opinions please. Rusty Court. +++As I indicated above, I would give the defender who failed to stop the infraction a full share of the culpability for making the board unplayable, and would give an A-. However, before giving a PP, there needs to be a violation of procedure. Rather than try and stretch L9 or L11, take a look at L7D: "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout the session is primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the table." That seems to fit the bill nicely, and gets us away from L9, which has not been violated. Certainly, having all players playing the same board is maintaining proper conditions of play, and this particular defender did not meet that obligation. A PP under L90 now seems appropriate. The original offender committed an inadvertent infraction. However, the defender who noticed the offense, but did not act to correct conditions of play, committed an intentional act that violated the Laws and directly contributed to rendering the board unplayable. IMO, the intentional act (or failure to act) justifies a more severe penalty than the inadvertent infraction. Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 10:14:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1DNDGI16985 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:13:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1DND9t16948 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:13:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA13593 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:13:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA03915 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:13:06 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:13:06 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102132313.SAA03915@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Hirsch Davis" > at L7D: "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout the session is > primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the > table." So you are giving the defender a PP if she was NS (assuming stationary NS as in usual movements) but not if she was EW? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 11:13:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E0CcK08188 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:12:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E0CUt08146 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:12:31 +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 QAA29669; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:12:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200102140012.QAA29669@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Feb 2001 17:52:52 PST." <002d01c09628$d7e15160$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 16:12:24 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > +++As I indicated above, I would give the defender who failed to stop the > infraction a full share of the culpability for making the board unplayable, > and would give an A-. However, before giving a PP, there needs to be a > violation of procedure. Rather than try and stretch L9 or L11, take a look > at L7D: "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout the session is > primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the > table." That seems to fit the bill nicely, and gets us away from L9, which > has not been violated. Steve Willner just pointed out that L7D is inappropriate, since it only applies to players who remain at the same table throughout the session. I agree that L9 and L11 haven't been violated. However, I'm not sure you need to find a violation of another Law before applying Law 90. L90A says the TD may assess PP's for any offense that "unduly delays or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at another table." The offense doesn't have to be a violation of another Law, except that you may need to cite another Law to find that a player has "violated correct procedure". Nor does the offense have to be listed in L90B, which lists some offenses subject to PP's but specifically says it's not an exhaustive list. I think that a player who deliberately fails to stop this sort of infraction can be ruled to be "obstructing the game", since it prevents one and possibly two boards from being played normally, and "inconveniencing other contestants", since, when I play bridge, I go there to play cards and not to rack up A+'s and A-'s, and being deprived of the opportunity to play the boards (and having to sit for maybe fifteen minutes doing nothing) certainly seems like an inconvenience to me. I think there's enough in L90 alone to justify a PP. -- 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 Feb 14 11:46:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E0jTa18582 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E0jMt18540 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:45:23 +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 14Sq4F-0009DD-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 00:45:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:19:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] David Stevenson makes progress. 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 > Anyway, after eight days in two hospitals and an operation, I am as >weak as a kitten, feel extremely ill, but am back home. Some comments have made me realise that I have never really made clear my situation. I have been ill since very early January. None of my illnesses have been very severe, but the number of them has been wearisome, and I have been in pain because of a swelling, and an unrelated problem in my mouth. I currently feel very poor, and am still having treatment, and am still in pain. However, a complete and full recovery is anticipated, and I look forward to that, perhaps by March. -- 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 Feb 14 12:15:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E1EfU28648 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:14:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E1Eat28644 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:14:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from vnmvhhid ([62.255.4.36]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010214011431.CBRD6427.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@vnmvhhid> for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 01:14:31 +0000 Message-ID: <000d01c095be$eb03e600$2404ff3e@vnmvhhid> From: "Anne Jones" To: "BLML" References: <200102140012.QAA29669@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:14:37 -0000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > +++As I indicated above, I would give the defender who failed to stop the > > infraction a full share of the culpability for making the board unplayable, > > and would give an A-. However, before giving a PP, there needs to be a > > violation of procedure. Rather than try and stretch L9 or L11, take a look > > at L7D: "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout the session is > > primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the > > table." That seems to fit the bill nicely, and gets us away from L9, which > > has not been violated. > > Steve Willner just pointed out that L7D is inappropriate, since it > only applies to players who remain at the same table throughout the > session. > > I agree that L9 and L11 haven't been violated. However, I'm not sure > you need to find a violation of another Law before applying Law 90. > L90A says the TD may assess PP's for any offense that "unduly delays > or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates > correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at > another table." The offense doesn't have to be a violation of another > Law, except that you may need to cite another Law to find that a > player has "violated correct procedure". Nor does the offense have to > be listed in L90B, which lists some offenses subject to PP's but > specifically says it's not an exhaustive list. I think that a player > who deliberately fails to stop this sort of infraction can be ruled to > be "obstructing the game", since it prevents one and possibly two > boards from being played normally, and "inconveniencing other > contestants", since, when I play bridge, I go there to play cards and > not to rack up A+'s and A-'s, and being deprived of the opportunity to > play the boards (and having to sit for maybe fifteen minutes doing > nothing) certainly seems like an inconvenience to me. I think there's > enough in L90 alone to justify a PP. > > -- Adam > I admit to being in two minds about whether or not she has had her attention drawn to an infraction when she noticed it. However I had my attention drawn to Law72 which says 4. Concealing an Infraction A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or mixing the cards prematurely. > I know that this gives as an example the revoke situation, and I know that this is interpreted in such a way that as long as a player does not take further action to conceal, there is no duty to reveal. However, only yesterday, in answer to an observation of mine, DWS said to me "don't use the examples when you are looking for interpretation of regulation. So I will ignore the example and suggest that Law 72 is the law to apply. "A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction." So this is the law that allows the use of a Law 90 penalty. Anne -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 14:22:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E3LiI01231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:21:44 +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 f1E3Lbt01188 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:21:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from c3w-fwb (c3w-fwb [203.0.101.98]) by bertha.au.csc.net (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id OAA03257; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:24:39 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:14:50 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability To: "adam::.gov.au":"irvine.com:>"<@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au, adam@irvine.com.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:19:09 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/02/2001 02:19:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Adam Beneschan wrote: [big snip] >Nor does the offense have to be listed in L90B, >which lists some offenses subject to PP's but >specifically says it's not an exhaustive list. >I think that a player who deliberately fails to >stop this sort of infraction can be ruled to be >"obstructing the game", since it prevents one >and possibly two boards from being played >normally, [snip] When an opponent attempts an OLOOT, I routinely prevent them. By doing so, am I immorally acting against my own best interests? Should I therefore be penalised under the WBF regulation requiring me *to play to win at all times and in all circumstances*? Contrariwise, if I let an opponent OLOOT, then Adam Beneschan TD will hit me with a PP. I believe that neither the WBF reg, nor Adam, are correct. Apart from L42B2, the Laws are silent on irregularity prevention. Therefore, both the competitive and the kind choices are equally Lawful and equally moral. 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 Feb 14 14:33:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E3Xdu05554 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:33:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E3XYt05529 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:33:34 +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 OAA04838 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:36:40 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:26:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:31:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 14/02/2001 02:31:46 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Anne Jones wrote: >"A player may not attempt to conceal >an inadvertent infraction." > >So this is the law that allows the >use of a Law 90 penalty. >Anne L72 clearly refers to a player concealing *their own* inadvertant infraction. Stretching that law to require prevention of an opponent's infraction is both unLawful and immoral. 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 Feb 14 15:47:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E4klQ24029 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:46:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E4kft24025 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:46:41 +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 XAA14775 for ; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:46:32 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id XAA28595; Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:46:30 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:46:30 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102140446.XAA28595@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Re: A Hypothesis for BLML Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is *not* mine, but from a local director (murraygw@home.com). >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C095E1.3E85A4E0 >Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > >I'm called to the table in the hypothetical case: > >1H 3H >4N 5D* >5H** 6H*** > >*One ace >**Hesitation, then signoff >***Unusual bid. > >If the 5D bidder's hand actually contains two aces, then I believe that=20 >question that the director should ask of the 6H bidder are: >Q:"Why did you bid 6H?" >If then >A:"because I miscounted my aces and have in effect lied to my partner." = >then > >Q:"When did you discover that you had miscounted your aces?" >If then >A:"When my partner bid only 5H and my partner could not possibly have = >expected me to have more than two aces for my simple limit raise, I = >looked at my hand and discovering that I had two instead of just one, I = >decided to risk my partner's raising me to a grand slam if indeed she = >had only one (since my 5D bid otherwise shows four)." then of the other = >partner: > >Q:"Why didn't you raise to grand slam when you found out that your = >partnership had five of the four aces?" :) > >Then of the 5H bidder: >Q:"Might you have studied your hand as a result of your partner's slow = >bid of 5H?" >A:"I might have. If my partner bids other than 6H or 5N, I would have = >had to try to remember what the responses were." then > >Q:"Is it at all possible that you studied your hand again only because = >your partner took so long to bid 5H and you began to suspect that you = >couldn't count to two properly?" > >Of course it would be easy to roll it back to 5H without questions and = >club directors might wish that to be the simple rule. > >In my opinion, the Gerard Feb2001 Bulletin example reminds me of cases = >where alerts that have been made might have alerted me to courses of = >action that I had already determined. If the director had been called, = >it would have been only my word as to when I realized that I had misbid. = >If I were the director in those cases, I would want to easily rule an = >adjustment for the opposition (self-serving rot and all that). >In addition, the Gerard case is an interesting one where a hesitation, = >regardless of speculation re:cause, gives more time for the hesitator's = >partner to consider bids. > >Do we penalize simply because more time is then available? >I don't think so. > >------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C095E1.3E85A4E0 >Content-Type: text/html; > charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > > >charset=3Diso-8859-1"> > > > > >
I'm called to the table in the = >hypothetical=20 >case:
>
 
>
1H     =20 >3H
4N      5D*
5H**   =20 >6H***
>
 
>
*One ace
**Hesitation, then=20 >signoff
***Unusual bid.
>
 
>
If the 5D bidder's hand actually = >contains two aces,=20 >then I believe that
question that the director should ask of the 6H = >bidder=20 >are:
Q:"Why did you bid 6H?"
If then
A:"because I miscounted my = >aces=20 >and have in effect lied to my partner." then
>
 
>
Q:"When did you discover that you had = >miscounted=20 >your aces?"
If then
A:"When my partner bid only 5H and my partner = >could=20 >not possibly have expected me to have more than two aces for my simple = >limit=20 >raise, I looked at my hand and discovering that I had two instead of = >just one, I=20 >decided to risk my partner's raising me to a grand slam if indeed she = >had only=20 >one (since my 5D bid otherwise shows four)." then of the other=20 >partner:
>
 
>
Q:"Why didn't you raise to grand slam = >when you=20 >found out that your partnership had five of the four aces?" =20 >:)
>
 
>
Then of the 5H bidder:
Q:"Might you = >have studied=20 >your hand as a result of your partner's slow bid of 5H?"
A:"I might = >have. If=20 >my partner bids other than 6H or 5N, I would have had to try to remember = >what=20 >the responses were." then
>
 
>
Q:"Is it at all possible that you = >studied your hand=20 >again only because your partner took so long to bid 5H and you began to = >suspect=20 >that you couldn't count to two properly?"
>
 
>
Of course it would be easy to roll it = >back to 5H=20 >without questions and club directors might wish that to be the simple=20 >rule.
>
 
>
In my opinion, the Gerard Feb2001 = >Bulletin example=20 >reminds me of cases where alerts that have been made might have alerted = >me to=20 >courses of action that I had already determined. If the director had = >been=20 >called, it would have been only my word as to when I realized that I had = >misbid.=20 >If I were the director in those cases, I would want to easily rule an = >adjustment=20 >for the opposition (self-serving rot and all that).
In addition, the = >Gerard=20 >case is an interesting one where a hesitation, regardless of speculation = > >re:cause, gives more time for the hesitator's partner to consider=20 >bids.
>
 
>
Do we penalize simply because more time = >is then=20 >available?
I don't think so.
> >------=_NextPart_000_0044_01C095E1.3E85A4E0-- > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 18:34:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E7X3o03609 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:33:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp6.mindspring.com (smtp6.mindspring.com [207.69.200.110]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E7Wut03604 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:32:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugdp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.185]) by smtp6.mindspring.com (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id CAA09291 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:32:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001601c09671$794045a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "BLML" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 02:32:46 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: To: "adam::.gov.au : irvine.com:>" <@bertha.au.csc.net> Cc: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:19 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > > Adam Beneschan wrote: > > [big snip] > > >Nor does the offense have to be listed in L90B, > >which lists some offenses subject to PP's but > >specifically says it's not an exhaustive list. > >I think that a player who deliberately fails to > >stop this sort of infraction can be ruled to be > >"obstructing the game", since it prevents one > >and possibly two boards from being played > >normally, > > [snip] > > When an opponent attempts an OLOOT, I routinely > prevent them. By doing so, am I immorally > acting against my own best interests? Should I > therefore be penalised under the WBF regulation > requiring me *to play to win at all times and > in all circumstances*? > > Contrariwise, if I let an opponent OLOOT, then > Adam Beneschan TD will hit me with a PP. > > I believe that neither the WBF reg, nor Adam, are > correct. Apart from L42B2, the Laws are > silent on irregularity prevention. Therefore, > both the competitive and the kind choices are > equally Lawful and equally moral. > > Best wishes > > R > No, this is not quite right either, as the analogy falls apart. L12C1 assigns a score based on responsibility for making the board unplayable. In the original situation, a player who could prevent an infraction that would make a board unplayable but does not do so should, IMO, bear at least partial responsibility. So, in this instance where the infraction would render a board null and void, I think the Laws speak to preventing such an infraction, albeit indirectly. I think Steve had it right. A-/A, no PP. However, to go further, while I don't like the sportsmanship of allowing a board to be thrown out, in the absence of a Law that prevents it, it appears legal. So, it becomes a legitimate strategy for a player, coming against a better pair and noticing a player take a hand from the wrong board, to sit silently and take the Ave, which is a greater score than would have been expected against the stronger pair. Is there even an obligation for the player to mention he could have prevented the infraction? Would a TD called to the table in the situation where a player has taken out a hand from the wrong board even think to ask the opponents if they had seen the player do it, when the perpetrator of the infraction is perfectly clear? Can the player legally and ethically sit back, say nothing, and take the A+? Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 18:56:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E7uMB03665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:56:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E7uGt03661 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:56:17 +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 IAA07488; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:52:14 +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 IAA22670; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:55:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214085805.0083fc20@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:58:05 +0100 To: Rusty Court , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability In-Reply-To: <000b01c095fb$47cb2740$8cb01fc4@l2k5q2> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 22:25 13/02/01 +0200, Rusty Court wrote: This happened last night but I received a telephone call this afternoon from the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all along that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, what should he do? I advised him to leave the Av- for the declaring side, revert the defenders Av+ to average and award them a procedural penalty for not drawing attention to this fact at the earliest opportunity. I believe that the board could have been salvaged if that had been done. (I think this fact came to light today) AG : note that it is only the *other* board that is deemed unplayable. The actual board just has to be played in the contract named. Yes, it seems ethic to penalize the defender (who choose a bad time to explain his attitude on the board ...), but on which grounds ? Yes, L90A seems the right point to begin from, and the etc. in L90B7 could well include the present case. Also, L74A3 could help us whenever anybody did something he shouldn't do (or did anything he shuold). According to L12C1, I would only give the defender a light penalty, ie 50% on the board. (which is certainly less than he hoped) 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 Feb 14 19:01:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E81ew03686 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cadillac.meteo.fr (cadillac.meteo.fr [137.129.1.4]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E81Xt03682 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:01:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from meteo.fr (localhost.meteo.fr [127.0.0.1]) by cadillac.meteo.fr (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA21044 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:01:24 GMT Message-ID: <3A8A3B56.3AE48683@meteo.fr> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:01:26 +0100 From: Jean Pierre Rocafort X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [fr] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game References: <3a8957f8.329a.0@btinternet.com> <028101c095f0$8c313a60$c39b1e18@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 : > > David Burn wrote: > > > Marv wrote: > > > > >I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on > > this subject, I would always play the best bridge I can > > possibly play and would expect my partner/teammates > > to do the same. > > > > I wouldn't. Suppose, for example, that a situation arose > > in which England was certain to finish first or second in a > > round robin qualifying group, and progress to the knock- > > out stages. And suppose that if England finished > > second, it would go into that half of the knock-out draw > > that included Italy, the USA and Poland, while if it > > finished first, it would go into that half of the knock-out > > draw that included Tristan da Cunha, Queen Maud Land > > and Belgium. I can assure you that England would take > > very good care to score no Victory Points at all in its > > final round robin match, and would also incur as many > > procedural penalties as possible. Anything, in fact, > > rather than having to face Belgium again! > > > If that's the sporting thing to do, consistent with the spirit of the > game, how come no one brags about such an accomplishment? I doubt that > another team that would have survived the round-robin but for the > deliberate loss would praise it either. > > As captain of a six-person team, I would hold out my strongest pair, > resting them, and tell the other four to play their hearts out. That's as > far as I would go. > > The organizers may be able to prevent this "problem," but it's too bad > they have to concern themeselves with it. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA australian organizers (camberra summer festival) seem to have strong views about this sort of tactics which were advocated in the daily bulletin n 11, p3 (the safety play). see: http://www.abf.com.au/events/not/2001/results/CONTSUM.HTM 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 Wed Feb 14 19:07:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E86eH03708 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:06:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E86Yt03704 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:06:35 +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 JAA10066; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:02:32 +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 JAA27478; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:06:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214090823.00844820@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:08:23 +0100 To: richard.hills@immi.gov.au, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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 14:31 14/02/01 +1000, you wrote: > >Anne Jones wrote: > >>"A player may not attempt to conceal >>an inadvertent infraction." >> >>So this is the law that allows the >>use of a Law 90 penalty. >>Anne > >L72 clearly refers to a player >concealing *their own* inadvertant >infraction. AG : sorry, I don't see the words *their own* in the laws. We're back into a recent case : if an opponent makes a revoke that doesn't change anything, do you *have to* call the TD and make him apply the penalty ? (or suggest waiving it, if you wish). I answer a firm yes. Stretching that law to >require prevention of an opponent's >infraction is both unLawful and >immoral. AG : this is not prevention, but mentioning it when it appears. Even if you deem it not compulsory, the defender did something that prevented the board from being played normally, and that is incorrect, according to L90B7. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 19:22:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E8M3I04964 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:22:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1E8Ltt04923 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:21:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-97-16.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.97.16]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA27893; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:21:26 GMT Message-ID: <004001c0965f$2dadd380$1061063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200102140012.QAA29669@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:09:07 -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 "From quiet homes and first beginning, Out to the undiscovered ends, There's nothing worth the wear of winning, But laughter and the love of friends." ~ Hilaire Belloc.. <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:12 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > > I agree that L9 and L11 haven't been violated. However, I'm not sure > you need to find a violation of another Law before applying Law 90. > L90A says the TD may assess PP's for any offense that "unduly delays > or obstructs the game, inconveniences other contestants, violates > correct procedure, or requires the award of an adjusted score at > another table." > +=+ I have followed this thread with interest. Let me put together my thoughts: 1. Law 9A does not make it a duty of a player aware of an irregularity to call attention to it. 2. Law 9B1(a) uses the phrase "attention is drawn"; attention is not drawn if a player exercises her right to remain silent. 3. The incident described falls under 12A2. 4. Law 12C1 is applied. I have difficulty with interpreting any player as "partially at fault" when that player has committed no infraction. 5. However, Law 12A2 refers us also to Law 88. In this Law I note the word 'choice'. The player has chosen not to draw attention to an irregularity of which she was aware, so perhaps the Law should be taken to disapply the 60% provision in Law 12C1. To give this player 40% means you think she is 'directly' at fault; this seems to me to stretch the meaning - the other side is 'directly' at fault having committed the infraction; at worst this lady has only shared in it. The word is 'directly', not 'wholly'. 6. Law 90B7 applies to the player who bid on the wrong hand. The opponent has committed no infraction and I do not see any authority for a PP on her in the absence of an offence. (I do not believe the game calls for the player to act as her brother's keeper. Whatever our emotional response, I do not think it would be improper if a player at the end of a tournament, opposed at the table to another contestant in direct contention, were to leave the opponent to stew in the juice of his own infraction. See Law 72A4.) ~ 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 Feb 14 19:52:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E8pab15283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:51:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E8pSt15241 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:51:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugdp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.65.185]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id DAA23292 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:51:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002501c0967c$71e33280$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010214085805.0083fc20@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 03:51:19 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "alain gottcheiner" To: "Rusty Court" ; Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:58 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > At 22:25 13/02/01 +0200, Rusty Court wrote: > > This happened last night but I received a telephone call this afternoon from > the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all along > that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, what should > he do? I advised him to leave the Av- for the declaring side, revert the > defenders > Av+ to average and award them a procedural penalty for not drawing attention > to this fact at the earliest opportunity. I believe that the board could > have been > salvaged if that had been done. (I think this fact came to light today) > > AG : note that it is only the *other* board that is deemed unplayable. The > actual board just has to be played in the contract named. Yes, it seems > ethic to penalize the defender (who choose a bad time to explain his > attitude on the board ...), but on which grounds ? > ??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the wrong board must be cancelled. LHO has called over the cancelled call and an artificial adjusted score must be awarded. 17D allows no other options, certainly not playing out the hand in the contract reached in this manner. The *other* board, from which the player drew the wrong hand, could be salvaged if the player repeated his call (s). > Yes, L90A seems the right point to begin from, and the etc. in L90B7 could > well include the present case. > Yes, L90 is referred to for penalizing the player who drew his cards from the wrong board, not an opponent. > Also, L74A3 could help us whenever anybody did something he shouldn't do > (or did anything he shuold). > Yes, but in this case the only player who violated procedure is the player who drew his cards from the wrong board. > According to L12C1, I would only give the defender a light penalty, ie 50% > on the board. (which is certainly less than he hoped) > > > A. > That sounds right. The other Laws mentioned would not apply to the defender, but only to the original offender. All of which leads back to a question that continues to bother me: If a player is not obligated to stop an opponent's infraction (and so far we have not come across a law that creates this obligation), is it proper to assign him partial blame for making the board unplayable at all? His opponent committed a clear infraction- he violated no Laws. What are his obligations under the Laws in this situation, that we will assign him partial blame for the unplayable board if he does not perform them? It feels right to assign partial blame, but is it actually correct? Regards, Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 20:28:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1E9R6Z22459 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:27:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1E9Qxt22424 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 20:26:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1E9QoZ23561 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:26:50 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 09:26 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: <001601c09671$794045a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> Just out of interest guys what law actually permits you to say anything when oppo takes a hand from the wrong board? The majority of the list were critical of Forrester (I think) in the Cap Gemini for not taking advantage of a revoke. That sentiment, together with the WBF's intended exhortation to be competitive would lead me to think that one should capitalise on such an error - not try to prevent it. It does not, to me, seem acceptable to say to players "There are some infractions by opponents you are obliged to penalise while others you must try to prevent." It is fine, IMO, to let players choose. 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 Feb 14 21:06:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EA32T23019 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:03:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EA2tt23015 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:02:56 +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 LAA00619; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:02:48 +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 LAA13994; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:02:36 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214110445.00850150@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:04:45 +0100 To: "Hirsch Davis" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability In-Reply-To: <002501c0967c$71e33280$0200000a@mindspring.com> References: <3.0.6.32.20010214085805.0083fc20@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 03:51 14/02/01 -0800, Hirsch Davis wrote: >??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the wrong >board must be cancelled. LHO has called over the cancelled call and an >artificial adjusted score must be awarded. 17D allows no other options, >certainly not playing out the hand in the contract reached in this manner. AG : this only applies to the case where the irregularity is discovered during the bidding (see the title). After the dummy is spread, the board is to be played. 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 Feb 14 21:13:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EAAnB23045 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:10:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EAAgt23040 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:10:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id LAA17658; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:06:39 +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 LAA19622; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:10:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214111232.008366c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:12:32 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:26 14/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <001601c09671$794045a0$0200000a@mindspring.com> >Just out of interest guys what law actually permits you to say anything >when oppo takes a hand from the wrong board? > >The majority of the list were critical of Forrester (I think) in the Cap >Gemini for not taking advantage of a revoke. That sentiment, together >with the WBF's intended exhortation to be competitive would lead me to >think that one should capitalise on such an error - not try to prevent it. > >It does not, to me, seem acceptable to say to players "There are some >infractions by opponents you are obliged to penalise while others you must >try to prevent." It is fine, IMO, to let players choose. AG : although it is not written as such in the laws, I think things would be much more fair and much more easy if we had those three principles to tell to all players : 1) you are compelled to act in all cases in accordance with the laws (72A1) 2) if somebody inadvertently does something else, he is liable to penalties (12 and others) 3) if your opponent did something incorrect, you have to call the TD as soon as you remark it (this would be the change). The harm this will cause to them is their own fault. As for the question, do I have to signal irregularities commited by my own side, the Code answers each case separately (the answer, for example, is 'no' for a revoke, and 'yes' for MI). Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 21:33:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EAWbg23105 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:32:37 +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-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 f1EAWVt23100 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 21:32:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-4-240.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.4.240]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1EAWQS04539 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:32:27 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A892A79.72BB6A77@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 13:37:13 +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] David Stevenson makes progress. 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: > > > Anyway, after eight days in two hospitals and an operation, I am as > weak as a kitten, feel extremely ill, but am back home. > Welcome back David. Dare we say we missed you ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 23:04:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EC3cR11866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:03:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EC3St11809 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:03:29 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1EC3KG19114 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:03:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: <3.0.6.32.20010214111232.008366c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> AG wrote > AG : although it is not written as such in the laws, I think things > would be much more fair and much more easy if we had those three > principles to tell to all players : > > 1) you are compelled to act in all cases in accordance with the laws > (72A1) > 2) if somebody inadvertently does something else, he is liable > to penalties (12 and others) > 3) if your opponent did something incorrect, you have to call the TD as > soon as you remark it (this would be the change). The harm this will > cause to them is their own fault. It is important to note that this would indeed be a change (and thus shouldn't influence our thinking on the current case). It has implications. 1) If you notice opponent's revoke you can't give them a chance to establish it. 2) if an opponent gives an incomplete/erroneous explanation to partner you must call the TD (legitimising the Kaplan/Kay question!). 3) If an opponent fails to pause sufficiently after a "stop" the TD must be called. These things are not necessarily bad but they should be considered. Finally you will get many difficult situations, particularly on revokes, when NO says (quite truthfully) "Well I thought that they had probably revoked but then I thought I might have miscounted." 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 Feb 14 23:04:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EC3bU11859 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:03:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EC3Rt11802 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:03:28 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1EC3Kh19101 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:03:20 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 12:03 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: <002501c0967c$71e33280$0200000a@mindspring.com> Hirsch wrote: > ??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the > wrong board must be cancelled. Wait a minute. 17D starts "If a player who has inadvertently picked up the cards..". Now I have had long discussions with various people on what "inadvertently" means. I accept that, in bridge law, it refers to mechanical rather than mental slips. So if the cards are withdrawn *thinking that this is the unplayed hand* it is not "inadvertent* in bridge terms. L17D will seldom apply. Of course in our collective Wonderland it may turn out that a word means exactly what we want it to mean. In any case I am not sure a law from the auction period can be applied once play has started. There is no direct provision and I seem to recall an interpretation that a "card left in the board is deemed to have belonged to the hand throughout the play period" - in this case all 13 of them. 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 Feb 14 23:49:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ECn4K28167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:49:04 +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 f1ECmut28121 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:48:56 +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 f1ECmpl57755 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:48:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010214074717.00b2d430@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, 14 Feb 2001 07:48:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:49 PM 2/11/01, richard.hills wrote: > World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning > isn't everything - it's the only thing.* Just FTR, there is some debate as to whether this well-known aphorism should be attributed to Red Sanders or Vince Lombardi (both were well-known American football coaches), but if Bobby Fischer ever said it, he was surely knowingly quoting it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 14 23:50:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ECntX28478 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:49:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1ECnmt28441 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 23:49:49 +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 f1ECnic98100 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 07:49:45 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010214074816.00ab2770@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, 14 Feb 2001 07:48:59 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 07:46 AM 2/12/01, David wrote: > I don't agree with the regulation myself. I think that if you perceive > it will further your goal of winning a tournament, you ought to be > allowed to lose a board or a match on purpose during that tournament. Even the requirement that you must play to try to win the tournament may not be appropriate in all circumstances, which is why the lawmakers have done well to not address this in the laws, but rather to leave it as a matter for individual CoCs. Consider an experienced partnership that wishes to try out a new bidding system. They know that by doing so they will be significantly reducing their chances of winning the event. Surely there are some events in which this would be an entirely appropriate thing to do. But at a high enough level it may not be appropriate, and we would want to allow a CoC that prohibits them from doing it. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 00:27:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EDQhQ03501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:26:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EDQbt03497 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:26:38 +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 f1EDQXb19864 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 08:26:33 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010214082222.00abc220@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, 14 Feb 2001 08:25:48 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu In-Reply-To: <003501c09600$12d6b040$c040063e@dodona> References: <3.0.6.32.20010213103956.00844750@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 03:00 PM 2/13/01, Grattan wrote: >p.s. taxed with 'Xanadu' my spellchecker >offers 'Landau'. That's reputation for you, >Eric. It must be a MicroSoft spellchecker. Their notion of reputation is such that if you look up "madonna" in their Encarta Encyclopedia, it displays a primary reference on the pop singer, with a link to a secondary reference on the mother of Jesus. 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 Feb 15 00:28:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EDSZZ03518 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:28:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EDSTt03513 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:28:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id OAA17747; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:24:27 +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 OAA15442; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:28:09 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214143017.008406f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:30:17 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:03 14/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010214111232.008366c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> >> 3) if your opponent did something incorrect, you have to call the TD as >> soon as you remark it (this would be the change). The harm this will >> cause to them is their own fault. > >It is important to note that this would indeed be a change (and thus >shouldn't influence our thinking on the current case). > >It has implications. AG : I'm fully aware of those, and I'd like to mention that some of these have already sprung out. Let's see the examples you give : >1) If you notice opponent's revoke you can't give them a chance to >establish it. AG : there have been cases where a declarer complained that a revoke made him play the hand backwards (ie changed more than the standard 1-trick or 2-trick penalty), and the TD answered 'but you should have known that somebody, at least, had revoked. Why didn't you ask ?', and refused to transfer more tricks. >2) if an opponent gives an incomplete/erroneous explanation to partner you >must call the TD (legitimising the Kaplan/Kay question!). AG : if you know it's incorrect, I think you should It happens when you know the opponents' system better that they do, and it happened to me several times. For example : West : opens 1C , alerted by East North : yes, please ? East : either 16-16 Nt or 21-22 NT or game force (Roman club) North : pass East : 1NT, alerted South (yours truly)(now that my turn to speak has come) : I don't understand. doesn't Roman Club also include sound 2-suiters including clubs ? East : ah, yes, but it happens so infrequently that I didn't know whether to mention it. South : Director, please ! could you tell these gentlemen they should explain their system fully. By the way, I had no interest in the sequence, so in the classical theory I shouldn't pip a word. >3) If an opponent fails to pause sufficiently after a "stop" the TD must >be called. AG : yes, of course. This is more than an innocent irregularity. Comments from blmlists are welcome, but I definitely think you should. >These things are not necessarily bad but they should be considered. AG : As you see, there is already a tendency to consider them. >Finally you will get many difficult situations, particularly on revokes, >when NO says (quite truthfully) "Well I thought that they had probably >revoked but then I thought I might have miscounted." AG : and you'll have to believe him. No infraction. He didn't notice the infraction, in a sense. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 00:34:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EDYev03535 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:34:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EDYYt03531 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:34:34 +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 OAA09109; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:34:26 +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 OAA20583; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:34:14 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214143622.0084e100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:36:22 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010214074717.00b2d430@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 07:48 14/02/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 09:49 PM 2/11/01, richard.hills wrote: > > > World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning > > isn't everything - it's the only thing.* > >Just FTR, there is some debate as to whether this well-known aphorism >should be attributed to Red Sanders or Vince Lombardi (both were >well-known American football coaches), but if Bobby Fischer ever said >it, he was surely knowingly quoting it. AG : mmph. PBNFL. Bobby Fischer didn't accord any attention to anything except chess, let alone baseball. And the sentence so nearly corresponds to his philosophy, that I'm pretty sure it was a re-discovery. 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 Feb 15 01:52:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EEpUs03813 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:51:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EEovt03808 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:50:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-124.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.124]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1EEop709417 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:50:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8A643B.5B590775@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:55:55 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@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: > > > A nice analysis. I'd say that Herman and I agree on the point I was > trying to make in the cited passage; we differ on the issue I raised > subsequently, which Herman has appropriately restated. > It's nice to see that we can agree on some points if not all. > When a player has UI, he "may not choose from among logical alternative > actions one that could demonstrably have been suggested..." So our > disagreement seems to hinge on the meaning of "actions" in the context > of L16. Guided by the words of the first paragraph, which says, "To > base a call or play on other extraneous information may be an > infraction of law," I interpret "actions" as "calls or > plays". Herman's contrary view is that taking a second look at one's > cards is an "action" covered by L16. But if this were true, it would > mean that when an opponent huddles and his partner then reexamines his > hand, we would be obliged by L16A2 to "summon the Director > forthwith". I don't read the law that way, and I suggest that the > footnote to L16A2 supports my interpretation. But I'm still listening > to the discussion. > I don't believe that we need to enlarge the meaning of "actions" in L16 to arrive at the conclusion I would like to draw. The framework I am setting is : UI => "actions" (1) => AI => "actions" (2) (1) not necessarily actions as in "calls or plays" (2) calls or plays Without the UI, the player might not have taken the actions (1) that have led him to discover the AI. This also means that without the UI, the player might not have taken the actions (2). When a player has UI and AI that provide the same suggested action, it is generally accepted that he is free to pursue that action. But when that AI is the direct consequence of (an action taken because of) some UI, it should not be allowed. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 02:12:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EFC5Z09771 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:12:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from midntprod03.minfod.com (al194.minfod.com [207.227.70.194] (may be forged)) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EFBwt09736 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 02:11:59 +1100 (EST) Received: by al194.minfod.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) id <1DBVQHHA>; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:22:03 -0500 Message-ID: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087C73@al194.minfod.com> From: John Nichols To: "'BLML '" Subject: RE: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:22:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Original Message----- From: Anne Jones To: BLML Sent: 2/13/01 8:14 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability --- snip ---- > 4. Concealing an Infraction > A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by > committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or > mixing the cards prematurely. ---- snip I have always thought that this applied to a player's own infraction (or his side's infraction) but never considered it regarding an opponents infraction. But, it really doesn't say that, does it? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 03:04:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EG43F17545 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:04:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EG3st17541 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:03:54 +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 QAA07384; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 16:59:52 +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 RAA08204; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:03:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214170544.0084d100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:05:44 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A8A643B.5B590775@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@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 11:55 14/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: >> >> >> A nice analysis. I'd say that Herman and I agree on the point I was >> trying to make in the cited passage; we differ on the issue I raised >> subsequently, which Herman has appropriately restated. >> > >It's nice to see that we can agree on some points if not >all. AG : so you two agree to say you don't agree. I'd appreciate if you endeavoured to go and negociate in the Middle East. They need you there. No, no smilie, i find it tragic. 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 Feb 15 03:09:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EG8tc17565 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:08:55 +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 f1EG8nt17561 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:08:50 +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 LAA17135 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:08:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id LAA11887 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:08:45 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:08:45 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102141608.LAA11887@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Anne Jones" > So I will ignore the example and suggest that Law 72 is the law to > apply. > > "A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction." Sorry, Anne, but I don't think this will do. There is a huge difference between taking positive action to conceal an infraction (as in the examples given) and simply failing to draw attention to an irregularity one has noticed. I'm with Adam: if you want to give a PP, L90 is all you need. If you don't think that's enough, then use 74A2, as someone else suggested. But why would you want to give a PP at all? (Of course if there's a regulation from the SO or if the player has previously been warned, a PP might be in order.) > From: "Hirsch Davis" > So, it becomes > a legitimate strategy for a player, coming against a better pair and > noticing a player take a hand from the wrong board, to sit silently and take > the Ave, which is a greater score than would have been expected against the > stronger pair. Yes. I don't much like it, but it seems legal absent a regulation. Nobody made the better player pull out the wrong cards, and taking advantage of opponents' carelessness is legitimate. (Good thing, too!) > Would a TD called to the > table in the situation where a player has taken out a hand from the wrong > board even think to ask the opponents if they had seen the player do it, Not until today! But now that we have had this discussion, TD's who read BLML should start asking. > Can the player > legally and ethically sit back, say nothing, and take the A+? I think it's unethical to lie to the TD, but no doubt some players will do it and not be caught. The effect will be to gain an avg+ instead of avg. I agree with Grattan: the word "choice" in L88 is enough to consider the "NOS" partially at fault. I would feel more comfortable about all this if there were SO regulations. But who would think to create them? Most people enter the event to play bridge, not to receive averages. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 03:32:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EGWQc17636 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:32:26 +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 f1EGWJt17632 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 03:32:20 +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 KAA19064 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:33:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 10:32:59 -0600 To: Bridge Laws From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A8A643B.5B590775@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@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 11:55 AM 2/14/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >When a player has UI and AI that provide the same suggested >action, it is generally accepted that he is free to pursue >that action. >But when that AI is the direct consequence of (an action >taken because of) some UI, it should not be allowed. I agree, _if the UI is relevant to the AI_, as I believe you suggested in an earlier post. In David Burn's example, where it is clear somehow that partner is thinking "how can he have so few keycards for his bidding", and I re-check my keycards and find I have misbid, then I agree that we have a clear case in which to correct my bid would be to use UI. But I am not comfortable with the idea that just because partner hesitates and gives me more time, then I am _ipso facto_ barred from finding my mistake and correcting it. Even if we extend the notion of UI to the act of re-counting one's keycards*, the UI must still demonstrably suggest that action. A hesitation, per se, does not. * Imagine, for example, that partner simply says "Are you sure you only have that many keycards?" I assume we agree that in this case I cannot now re-count my keycards and bid accordingly. >Herman DE WAEL Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 05:21:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EIKtC01199 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:20:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EIKmt01195 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:20:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-100-63.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.100.63]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA21794; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:20:19 GMT Message-ID: <000201c096b2$d79846c0$3f64063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010214074717.00b2d430@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:43:23 -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 "From quiet homes and first beginning, Out to the undiscovered ends, There's nothing worth the wear of winning, But laughter and the love of friends." ~ Hilaire Belloc.. <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu > At 09:49 PM 2/11/01, richard.hills wrote: > > > World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer said that, *Winning > > isn't everything - it's the only thing.* > > Just FTR, there is some debate as to whether this well-known aphorism > should be attributed to Red Sanders or Vince Lombardi (both were > well-known American football coaches), but if Bobby Fischer ever said > it, he was surely knowingly quoting it. > > Eric Landau elandau@cais.com > APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org > 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 > Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 > +=+ The record I have consulted states that, in an interview in 1962, Vincent Thomas Lombardi said "Winning isn't everything, but wanting to win is". I have no trace of the remark actually quoted but either Bobby Fischer or Red Sanders (or Zia) may well have made it ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 05:30:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EIUKK01229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:30:20 +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-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 f1EIUDt01225 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:30:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14T6gr-000KJJ-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:24:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <200102141608.LAA11887@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102141608.LAA11887@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200102141608.LAA11887@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Anne Jones" >> So I will ignore the example and suggest that Law 72 is the law to >> apply. >> >> "A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction." > >Sorry, Anne, but I don't think this will do. There is a huge >difference between taking positive action to conceal an infraction (as >in the examples given) and simply failing to draw attention to an >irregularity one has noticed. > >I'm with Adam: if you want to give a PP, L90 is all you need. If you >don't think that's enough, then use 74A2, as someone else suggested. >But why would you want to give a PP at all? (Of course if there's a >regulation from the SO or if the player has previously been warned, a >PP might be in order.) We're back to first principles again. law 1. .. Bridge is played with a pack of 52 cards. We didn't play bridge. Why? Someone sabotaged the hand by introducing some strangers. What do we do? Apply 12C1. No laws relating to bidding or play can be invoked if Law 1 is breached, as no bridge was played. We must rule, using laws 1-16 and 80-93. Whether or not I saw LOL not put back the hand from 15 and then bid board 16 with it is not relevant. The TD does not need to know this. (4 not's in two sentences is pretty Gratinesque - Gratin being my spell checkers offering in his case). "Hard cheese, 60/40", I say > >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> So, it becomes >> a legitimate strategy for a player, coming against a better pair and >> noticing a player take a hand from the wrong board, to sit silently and take >> the Ave, which is a greater score than would have been expected against the >> stronger pair. > >Yes. I don't much like it, but it seems legal absent a regulation. >Nobody made the better player pull out the wrong cards, and taking >advantage of opponents' carelessness is legitimate. (Good thing, too!) > >> Would a TD called to the >> table in the situation where a player has taken out a hand from the wrong >> board even think to ask the opponents if they had seen the player do it, > >Not until today! But now that we have had this discussion, TD's who >read BLML should start asking. > >> Can the player >> legally and ethically sit back, say nothing, and take the A+? > >I think it's unethical to lie to the TD, but no doubt some players will >do it and not be caught. The effect will be to gain an avg+ instead of >avg. I agree with Grattan: the word "choice" in L88 is enough to >consider the "NOS" partially at fault. > >I would feel more comfortable about all this if there were SO >regulations. But who would think to create them? Most people enter >the event to play bridge, not to receive averages. >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 15 05:33:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EIXhI01244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:33:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EIXat01239 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:33:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-101-229.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.101.229]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id SAA06920; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:33:08 GMT Message-ID: <001001c096b4$a20e4de0$3f64063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" , "Eric Landau" References: <3.0.6.32.20010213103956.00844750@pop.ulb.ac.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010214082222.00abc220@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:32:34 -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 "Weave a circle round him thrice, And close your eyes with holy dread, For he on honey-dew hath fed, And drunk the milk of Paradise." <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 1:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu > At 03:00 PM 2/13/01, Grattan wrote: > > >p.s. taxed with 'Xanadu' my spellchecker > >offers 'Landau'. That's reputation for you, > >Eric. > > It must be a MicroSoft spellchecker. Their notion of reputation is > such that if you look up "madonna" in their Encarta Encyclopedia, it > displays a primary reference on the pop singer, with a link to a > secondary reference on the mother of Jesus. > +=+ You mean they are distinguishable?+=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 05:49:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EImdC01275 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:48:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EImWt01271 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 05:48:33 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1EImPl25731 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:48:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 18:48 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt 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: <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Grant Sterling wrote: > * Imagine, for example, that partner simply says "Are you sure you > only have that many keycards?" I assume we agree that in this case I > cannot now re-count my keycards and bid accordingly. You may not assume. You are free examine your hand at any time, and to count your keycards in the process. Once you realise you have misbid there *may* be no LAs to going on. A waste of effort however, your partner's comment in this situation is *so* out of line that you are already heading for a zero on this board (or possibly for the door). We don't need L16 to enforce this. Tim West-Meads -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 06:04:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EJ3kJ01303 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:03:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EJ3dt01299 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:03:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from smui03.slb.mindspring.net (smui03.slb.mindspring.net [199.174.114.22]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA28143 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:03:36 -0500 (EST) From: hirsch_d@mindspring.com Received: by smui03.slb.mindspring.net id OAA0000014427; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:05:53 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 131.158.186.130 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner wrote: > At 03:51 14/02/01 -0800, Hirsch Davis wrote: >??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the wrong >board must be cancelled. LHO has called over the cancelled call and an >artificial adjusted score must be awarded. 17D allows no other options, >certainly not playing out the hand in the contract reached in this manner. AG : this only applies to the case where the irregularity is discovered during the bidding (see the title). After the dummy is spread, the board is to be played. A. +++ This sounds very wrong. One of us is not understanding 17D correctly. If a player makes a call based on cards from the wrong board, and LHO makes a call, the TD assigns an artificial adjusted score. That's it. Hand over. Nothing that occurs after that point matters. It makes no difference if Dummy has been spread or not, or even if the players have played the hand out. The TD must still go back and assign an artificial score. +++Note the difference between this and the case where a card has been left in the board. Here, the player is calling based on cards from the correct board (if not all of them). Those calls stand, and the card(s) left in the board can later be deemed to have been in the player's hand all along. +++I think you are confusing these very different situations. 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 Feb 15 06:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EJBaf01330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EJBUt01326 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 06:11:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:11:48 -0800 Message-ID: <003801c096b9$e0c50ba0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "John Nichols" , "'BLML '" References: <71511EA49014D41193890050DA6388CF087C73@al194.minfod.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 11:09:49 -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: "John Nichols" > From: Anne Jones > > > 4. Concealing an Infraction > > A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by > > committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or > > mixing the cards prematurely. > > ---- snip > > I have always thought that this applied to a player's own infraction (or his > side's infraction) but never considered it regarding an opponents > infraction. But, it really doesn't say that, does it? > It does to me. If we are going to get very technical instead of interpreting this Law in the way it was pretty obviously intended, I'll point out that there is no way to tell for sure whether an infraction was inadvertent, unless it's one's own. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 07:04:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EK3oE01482 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:03:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EK3dt01478 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:03:40 +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 PAA14614 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:09:35 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102142009.PAA14614@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] YAGNTS (Yet another Grand National Teams story) Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:09:34 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk With the discussion about "playing as good bridge as possible" and what that means coming up, I bring forward the following story as "for interest's sake": In the ACBL, we have a competition called the "Grand National Teams". There's 4 flights of competition; it's intended to be a "grassroots competition". All members of a team must be from the same District; the 26 District winners in each flight play at the Summer NABCs. The qualifying method usually runs as follows: Anyone can host a GNT qualifier. Those who qualify from there play in one (only) Unit qualifier, which qualifies a few teams to the District game. The lowest level qualifiers have very liberal qual. requirements (50% of matches won or top half of the field) - the idea is to qualify as many people as possible to the Unit, "to encourage participation" (money grab; and ego boost). So the situation at my GNT qualifier: in the first four rounds, the "J" team wins 4 matches, minimum margin +16 IMPs (7-board matches). So they have qualified by the dinner break. Then, for some reason, they lose the next two matches, by at least 20 IMPs. Then they get put in the three-way with two teams each with 2-4 records. Strangely enough, they lose both their matches in the three-way; and the winner of the third match qualifies (as they are 4-4). Is this illegal? Is this unfair? The match was designed precisely to qualify as much of the field as possible...Is it unfair to players who try to qualify in other games where the winners aren't as magnanimous? Michael (whose team qualified by 3 IMPs). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 07:14:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EKDqu01509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:13:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1EKDkt01505 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:13:47 +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 OAA18491 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:15:22 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010214141432.007dd320@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 14:14:32 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt 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 06:48 PM 2/14/2001 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> >Grant Sterling wrote: > >> * Imagine, for example, that partner simply says "Are you sure you >> only have that many keycards?" I assume we agree that in this case I >> cannot now re-count my keycards and bid accordingly. > >You may not assume. You are free examine your hand at any time, and to >count your keycards in the process. Once you realise you have misbid >there *may* be no LAs to going on. A waste of effort however, your I was secretly hoping someone would say this, because I'm really uncomfortable with the notion of stretching L16 to cover 'recount' situations. >partner's comment in this situation is *so* out of line that you are >already heading for a zero on this board (or possibly for the door). >We don't need L16 to enforce this. Ummm--what law do we need? L74c4? L73b1, and then L72b? [Since L73f doesn't seem to cover violations of L73 that don't involve deception or use of suggested LA's.] It seems that whatever law we apply here can be equally applied to hesitation cases _where the hesitation communicates the need to re-count to partner_. So it may be, indeed, that L16 is entirely irrelevant to all 'recount' cases. I hope so. >Tim West-Meads 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 Feb 15 09:04:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1EM3Tv01846 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:03:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1EM3Nt01842 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 09:03:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-49-98.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.49.98]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA04031 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:02:54 GMT Message-ID: <001901c096d1$f000f620$62317bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200102141608.LAA11887@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 22:00:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Weave a circle round him thrice, And close your eyes with holy dread, For he on honey-dew hath fed, And drunk the milk of Paradise." <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:08 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > I'm with Adam: if you want to give a PP, L90 is all you need. If you don't think that's enough, then use 74A2, as someone else suggested.But why would you want to give a PP at all? (Of course if there's a regulation from the SO or if the player has previously been warned, a PP might be in order.) > +=+ I do not understand all this talk about awarding a PP to a player who has exercised an option granted by the laws. This player is within the law, as 72A4 says. . ~ 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 Feb 15 10:11:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ENAVV01953 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:10:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1ENAPt01949 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:10:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP162.dialsprint.net [158.252.181.98]) by harrier.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01825 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:10:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200102141711200430.018909FB@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <200102142009.PAA14614@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> References: <200102142009.PAA14614@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 17:11:20 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] YAGNTS (Yet another Grand National Teams story) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >The qualifying method usually runs as follows: Anyone can host a GNT >qualifier. Those who qualify from there play in one (only) Unit >qualifier, which qualifies a few teams to the District game. The lowest >level qualifiers have very liberal qual. requirements (50% of matches >won or top half of the field) - the idea is to qualify as many people as >possible to the Unit, "to encourage participation" (money grab; and ego >boost). Qualification varies from District to District. Here in District 15 (Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and small parts of Arkansas and Texas) anyone who *plays* in a qualifying game is eligible for the Unit game; anyone who plays in a Unit game qualifies for the District game. Thus there is no incentive for sportsmanlike dumping. I'm told that some Districts simply have an all-comers game with no qualifying requirements. >Is this illegal? Is this unfair? The match was designed precisely to >qualify as much of the field as possible...Is it unfair to players who >try to qualify in other games where the winners aren't as magnanimous? No more than it's unfair to have different requirements from District to District. MHO, being at some remove from your situation, is that what one's competitors decide to do or not to is the rub o' the green. In your game, seems to me that since the objective for each player is to qualify to the next level, once a team has done so then requirements to "play good bridge" are off; winning the event is just gravy, but that's not why most folks are there. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 11:31:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F0TfR02119 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:29:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1F0TYt02115 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:29:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugs9.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.137]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA03419 for ; Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:29:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c801c096ff$7aa2f260$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:29:17 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim West-meads" To: Cc: Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:03 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > In-Reply-To: <002501c0967c$71e33280$0200000a@mindspring.com> > Hirsch wrote: > > > ??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the > > wrong board must be cancelled. > > Wait a minute. 17D starts "If a player who has inadvertently picked up > the cards..". Now I have had long discussions with various people on what > "inadvertently" means. I accept that, in bridge law, it refers to > mechanical rather than mental slips. So if the cards are withdrawn > *thinking that this is the unplayed hand* it is not "inadvertent* in > bridge terms. L17D will seldom apply. > I presume that when cards are pulled from the wrong board, the infraction was inadvertent. If I thought that intent existed to remove cards from the wrong board, A- and a PP would not be nearly enough to penalize the infraction. If the player thought he was pulling cards from the board in play, he was inadvertently pulling cards from the wrong board. I await explanation of why I am wrong. > Of course in our collective Wonderland it may turn out that a word means > exactly what we want it to mean. > > In any case I am not sure a law from the auction period can be applied > once play has started. There is no direct provision and I seem to recall > an interpretation that a "card left in the board is deemed to have > belonged to the hand throughout the play period" - in this case all 13 of > them. > > Tim West-Meads > The auction period never ended. Once a player made a call based on cards from the wrong board, and LHO called, an artificial score is required. That ends the hand, unless I am wrong in my reading of 17D. Any calls or plays after that is like the play after a claim...it is outside the law, and therefore for ruling purposes never happened. The card left in the board belonging to the hand throughout the play period occurs when a player is looking at the cards belonging to the correct board...just not all of them. 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 Feb 15 12:53:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F1qic02298 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:52:44 +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-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 f1F1qbt02293 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:52:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14TDaz-000DqW-0W for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:52:33 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:46:16 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <00c801c096ff$7aa2f260$0200000a@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <00c801c096ff$7aa2f260$0200000a@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <00c801c096ff$7aa2f260$0200000a@mindspring.com>, Hirsch Davis writes > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Tim West-meads" >To: >Cc: >Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:03 AM >Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > > snip >I presume that when cards are pulled from the wrong board, the infraction >was inadvertent. If I thought that intent existed to remove cards from the >wrong board, A- and a PP would not be nearly enough to penalize the >infraction. If the player thought he was pulling cards from the board in >play, he was inadvertently pulling cards from the wrong board. I await >explanation of why I am wrong. In the EBU when inadvertency is presumed, we award 60/40, as I think we're all agreed here, per 12C1. The only analogy I can find is use of illegal conventions where we would award 60/30. Players are responsible for knowing their methods are legal, and so an illegal method is not inadvertent. Given I have a yardstick for "advertent" infractions I can see little else to do but award 60/30. Elsewhere in this thread I pointed out we can only use Laws 1-16 and 80-93 when no bridge has been played, Law 1. Of course, law 17 covers this express point, but in a sense it is not needed. Laws 1 and 12a1, 12a2 and 12c1 are all we need, along with 90a, 90b7 perhaps. I don't think we can apply 72a4, for example, as it is in the context of playing bridge. > >> Of course in our collective Wonderland it may turn out that a word means >> exactly what we want it to mean. >> >> In any case I am not sure a law from the auction period can be applied >> once play has started. There is no direct provision and I seem to recall >> an interpretation that a "card left in the board is deemed to have >> belonged to the hand throughout the play period" - in this case all 13 of >> them. >> >> Tim West-Meads >> > >The auction period never ended. Once a player made a call based on cards >from the wrong board, and LHO called, an artificial score is required. That >ends the hand, unless I am wrong in my reading of 17D. Any calls or plays >after that is like the play after a claim...it is outside the law, and >therefore for ruling purposes never happened. > >The card left in the board belonging to the hand throughout the play period >occurs when a player is looking at the cards belonging to the correct >board...just not all of them. > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 15 13:45:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F2iek09054 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:44:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1F2iZt09050 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:44:35 +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 NAA15349 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:47:42 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:37:52 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] YAGNTS (Yet another Grand National Teams story) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:42:14 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/02/2001 01:42:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Brian Baresch wrote: [big snip] >In your game, seems to me that since the >objective for each player is to qualify to >the next level, once a team has done so then >requirements to "play good bridge" are off; >winning the event is just gravy, but that's >not why most folks are there. The iniquity of this situation is that a team mathematically certain to qualify can possibly be a kingmaker in deciding who else reaches the next stage. This is the fault of the SO's regs. It is no excuse that the SO might have determined that a carry-over reg would be undesirable for other reasons. If there is no carry-over, then the SO should promulgate this reg (suggested many years ago by Australia's Ron Klinger): *As soon as a team is mathematically certain to reach the next stage, it is excused from further participation in the qualifying event. (The first team excused gets the trophy and masterpoints for first place, the second team excused gets the awards for second place, and so on.)* 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 Feb 15 13:57:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F2upG09084 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:56:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1F2ukt09080 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:56:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from oemcomputer ([210.54.195.165]) by mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010215025633.DLMS779398.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@oemcomputer> for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:56:33 +1300 Message-ID: <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer> From: "Bruce.Small" To: "bridge-laws" Subject: [BLML] Penalty in teams Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:02:09 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi All Was running a teams tournament last weekend. Six teams per grade playing complete round robin. 12 board matches 6 against each half. No problems. 9:30am start and one player is absent. His partner rings and finds he is on his way. Arrives 20min late. We were allowing 40min per half match so informed him any boards not started by time would be penalized. He and his opponents are naturally quick players and had started 4th board by the end of the half round. At the end of match the scores on the two unplayed boards were cancelled from the other halves and three imps per board given to non offending side. 1) Is this correct? 2) Is this fair? 3) What if at the other table the non offending team had reached a thin slam and were allowed to make where the offenders wouldn't have i.e.there would have been a large swing to non offenders. 4) While not ethical could the non offenders play slow in order to gain best benefit? In theory they only needed to have started board three to be playing at average speed. Regards Bruce -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 15:41:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F4ehq25364 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:40:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1F4eat25321 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:40:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14TGDY-0002BL-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:40:32 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 04:39:11 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty in teams References: <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer>, Bruce.Small writes >Hi All > >Was running a teams tournament last weekend. Six teams per grade playing >complete round robin. 12 board matches 6 against each half. No problems. >9:30am start and one player is absent. His partner rings and finds he is on >his way. Arrives 20min late. We were allowing 40min per half match so >informed him any boards not started by time would be penalized. He and his >opponents are naturally quick players and had started 4th board by the end >of the half round. At the end of match the scores on the two unplayed boards >were cancelled from the other halves and three imps per board given to non >offending side. >1) Is this correct? It's pretty good. You shouldn't let the other table play the withdrawn boards however. EBU regs say "withdraw one board each seven minutes". Let's say you allowed 45 minutes for 6 boards, so playing time is 42 minutes of 45, so first board is withdrawn after 3+7 minutes. In effect one board can be played in zero to 7 minutes. Now you don't *have* to do this and if the opponents don't mind I don't do it as they're there to play bridge, but what you do is allow the other table to play half the boards and then wait, because if fewer than half the boards are played the match is conceded (We give 14-6 in VP Swiss in the UK). Now if the player arrives with at least 14-21 minutes left you get a 3-board match with a 9-imp fine. If he arrives before that he plays the three boards and you make up duplicate copies of 1 or two more boards which you put on both tables after the compulsory three are played. It's a bit of a pain, but works ok. We always make up 2 such pairs of boards before the event starts, using boards 31-32 (which are still in the box) 3 imps a board is correct for the withdrawn boards. >2) Is this fair? yes, and legal :)) >3) What if at the other table the non offending team had reached a thin slam >and were allowed to make where the offenders wouldn't have i.e.there would >have been a large swing to non offenders. rub of the green, it can go either way >4) While not ethical could the non offenders play slow in order to gain best >benefit? In theory they only needed to have started board three to be >playing at average speed. yes, but either they're happy to play as many as possible, or they'll settle for a board every 7, so this regulation defuses it. > >Regards well handled cheers john -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 15 17:11:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F6AEu09361 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:10:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1F69ut09357 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:09:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.e5.2593864 (4340) for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:09:33 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 01:09:32 EST Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_e5.2593864.27bccc9c_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_e5.2593864.27bccc9c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good point, Marv. Walt Flory ________ In a message dated 2/14/01 2:42:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > From: "John Nichols" > > > From: Anne Jones > > > > > 4. Concealing an Infraction > > > A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by > > > committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or > > > mixing the cards prematurely. > > > > ---- snip > > > > I have always thought that this applied to a player's own infraction (or > his > > side's infraction) but never considered it regarding an opponents > > infraction. But, it really doesn't say that, does it? > > > It does to me. If we are going to get very technical instead of > interpreting this Law in the way it was pretty obviously intended, I'll > point out that there is no way to tell for sure whether an infraction was > inadvertent, unless it's one's own. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > > --part1_e5.2593864.27bccc9c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Good point, Marv.

Walt Flory
________


In a message dated 2/14/01 2:42:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:


From: "John Nichols"

> From: Anne Jones
>
> > 4. Concealing an Infraction
> > A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by
> > committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or
> > mixing the cards prematurely.
>
> ---- snip
>
> I have always thought that this applied to a player's own infraction (or
his
> side's infraction) but never considered it regarding an opponents
> infraction.  But, it really doesn't say that, does it?
>
It does to me. If we are going to get very technical instead of
interpreting this Law in the way it was pretty obviously intended, I'll
point out that there is no way to tell for sure whether an infraction was
inadvertent, unless it's one's own.

Marv
Marvin L. French, ISPE
San Diego, CA, USA



--part1_e5.2593864.27bccc9c_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 Feb 15 17:55:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1F6scA09468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:54:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1F6sXt09463 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:54:33 +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 RAA13282 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:57:42 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:47:51 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] L6D2 and L79C To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 17:52:13 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 15/02/2001 05:52:45 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Does the time limit stated in L79C apply to L6D2? Given that there is no cross-reference from L6D2 to L79C, and the emphatic words "No result may stand" are used in L6D2, could the result of a session be thrown out under L6D2 at an indefinite later date? A few years ago, L6D2 computer-dealt boards were thrown out in the quarter-finals of Australia's National Open Teams. But tainted L6D2 boards from round-of-16 matches played the night before the glitch was discovered, were allowed to stand. 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 Feb 15 21:17:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FAFS228091 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:15:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1FAFLt28051 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:15:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id LAA11920; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:15:14 +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 LAA19957; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:15:03 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:17:11 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] mistimed double Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear blmlists, I was involved in a strange case on which I would very much appreciate your opinion. To put things mildly, the incident is not over now (1 week time). QJx Jx QJxx KJ9x 10xx K9x xx xxx 1098xx Kxx xxx Q108x A8xx AKQ10xx A Ax W N E S p 1C(1) 1S(2) D(3) 2D(4) X(5) p 3NT p 6H East dealer, N/S vul (1) strong or mini-NT (2) 3+ spades, 5+ minor (3) 7+ HCP, more or less balanced (4) P/C (5) takeout After the routine bidding sequence %-), West leads D10, small, small, Ace. South plays three trumps, then a spade towards QJ, looks a little bit surprised when the King takes the trick. East plays a spade back. Now, South takes in dummy, plays DQ, East plays low smoothly, South ruffs. One more trump (East discards her last spade), then the Ace of spades and a last trump. The situation is now : -- -- J KJx -- -- -- -- 98 K xx Q10x x x -- Ax As you can see, the four last tricks are South's, but he didn't notice the spade discard, and is still under the influence of the 1S bid. Now he thinks a long time before discarding from dummy. Reading South's tempo wrongly, East thinks South has Axx clubs as his remaining three cards, and sees the squeeze coming. But South discards the DJ. East now breathes a sigh of relief, discards the DK with a flourish, and turns to the Kibitz, exclaiming 'well, I should have doubled' (which was intended to send him ROTFL , since she had made on the previous deal a strange double that turned out well). Now, a disgusted South plays AC, club, and East shows that he will make one trick for one down. Everybody agrees to the fact that East's Papa-like behavior was improper, and that he didn't intend to deceive. But do you think it affected South's play ? Hypothesis #1 : South was still wondering whether his spade was good. East's remark conforted his feeling that it was not. She could have guessed that South's problem was about the status of the spade 4. Law 73F2 applies. Hypothesis #2 : South's timing and tempo are evidence that he didn't know the spade 4 was good. East's remark has no impact on the result. The link between the infraction to L74B2 and the result is non-existent. Note that South didn't claim #1, only that East's behavior made him lose whatever concentration was left. In the first case, one should adjust to 6S making, or a weighted score. In the second, one should not, but assess a PP if one feels like it. Comments welcome. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 15 21:24:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FAOFP01234 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:24:15 +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 f1FAO8t01192 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:24:09 +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 LAA15498; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:20:01 +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 LAA26938; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:23:45 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010215112553.00853830@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:25:53 +0100 To: hirsch_d@mindspring.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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 14:05 14/02/01 -0500, hirsch_d@mindspring.com wrote: > >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> At 03:51 14/02/01 -0800, Hirsch Davis wrote: >>??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the wrong >>board must be cancelled. LHO has called over the cancelled call and an >>artificial adjusted score must be awarded. 17D allows no other options, >>certainly not playing out the hand in the contract reached in this manner. > >AG : this only applies to the case where the irregularity is discovered >during the bidding (see the title). >After the dummy is spread, the board is to be played. > > A. > > >+++ This sounds very wrong. One of us is not understanding 17D correctly. If a player makes a call based on cards from the wrong board, and LHO makes a call, the TD assigns an artificial adjusted score. That's it. Hand over. Nothing that occurs after that point matters. It makes no difference if Dummy has been spread or not, or even if the players have played the hand out. The TD must still go back and assign an artificial score. AG : don't know who is wrong. But I learned about 15 years ago, from the great Nathalie Vandenbroeck, TD's teacher, that the cases where 3 hands are right and the other is not are to be treated according to L14B3. Somebody even got this at his exam. Since L17D now applies to the bidding, I thought the principle was still alive for a latter time. I'll investigate among my co-pupils. 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 Feb 15 21:43:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FAhao08161 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:43:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1FAhSt08126 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:43:29 +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 LAA25456; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:43:21 +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 LAA12005; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:43:10 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010215114518.0085f7c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:45:18 +0100 To: "Bruce.Small" , "bridge-laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty in teams In-Reply-To: <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 16:02 15/02/01 +1300, Bruce.Small wrote: >Hi All > >Was running a teams tournament last weekend. Six teams per grade playing >complete round robin. 12 board matches 6 against each half. No problems. >9:30am start and one player is absent. His partner rings and finds he is on >his way. Arrives 20min late. We were allowing 40min per half match so >informed him any boards not started by time would be penalized. He and his >opponents are naturally quick players and had started 4th board by the end >of the half round. At the end of match the scores on the two unplayed boards >were cancelled from the other halves and three imps per board given to non >offending side. >1) Is this correct? AG : the organizing body should have specified how the penalties are to be assessed. If it didn't, I think it's correct under L90B1 12C1, 81C4, 82B2 and 86A (go fetch those rare items, you all !). >2) Is this fair? AG : yes, except in the case you mentioned under #3 >3) What if at the other table the non offending team had reached a thin slam >and were allowed to make where the offenders wouldn't have i.e.there would >have been a large swing to non offenders. AG : I've seen some cases where the average expectancy of win on the board coming from the result at the first table was added to the 3 IMPs. This is, at least, fair. Let's suppose you consider plausible the slam would have been bid half the time, and won half the time it was bid. We average +11 (twice), 0 (once) and +14 (once) and get +9, to be added to the penalty. >4) While not ethical could the non offenders play slow in order to gain best >benefit? In theory they only needed to have started board three to be >playing at average speed. AG : no, they couldn't. L74B4 seems to apply, and since to play unduly slowly is an irregularity, you may use L72B1. They clearly knew it could advantage them. If only 2 boards were played, and if there was sound evidence that the slow tempo was the non-late-arrivers', I would assess as follows : 3 times +3/-3 (the normal penalty for 3 unplayed board) 1 time 0/0 (both sides are responsible for the unplayability of one board) 1 PP of 1-3 IMPs against the slow side Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 16 00:11:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FD89R24501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:08:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1FD7st24493 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:07:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.10]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1FD7n712022 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:07:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8BAF47.28CDCA3E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:28:23 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty in teams References: <006f01c096fb$b079bda0$a5c336d2@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Bruce.Small" wrote: > > Hi All > > Was running a teams tournament last weekend. Six teams per grade playing > complete round robin. 12 board matches 6 against each half. No problems. > 9:30am start and one player is absent. His partner rings and finds he is on > his way. Arrives 20min late. We were allowing 40min per half match so > informed him any boards not started by time would be penalized. He and his > opponents are naturally quick players and had started 4th board by the end > of the half round. At the end of match the scores on the two unplayed boards > were cancelled from the other halves and three imps per board given to non > offending side. > 1) Is this correct? I think it is. > 2) Is this fair? Maybe just cancelling the boards, without allowing them to play faster than they need is a bit more fair, but see my answer below. > 3) What if at the other table the non offending team had reached a thin slam > and were allowed to make where the offenders wouldn't have i.e.there would > have been a large swing to non offenders. Two answers : you should perhaps have cancelled the boards they could not possibly play at the other table as well; and then there is the general question of the calculation of Artificial scores in team play. My opinions on this are well-known. This is a more general problem than just in this occurence. > 4) While not ethical could the non offenders play slow in order to gain best > benefit? In theory they only needed to have started board three to be > playing at average speed. > There is no obligation on them to play any faster than they need to. But I would not allow them to play unduly slowly either. Another more general question : when playing against known fast players, is it acceptable to take even more time than usually, since you know there cannot be time penalties in any case. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 16 00:11:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FD83W24497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:08:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1FD7pt24491 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:07:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.10]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1FD7k711999 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:07:47 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8BAD6A.B8AF8B7B@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:20:26 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grant Sterling wrote: > > At 11:55 AM 2/14/2001 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >When a player has UI and AI that provide the same suggested > >action, it is generally accepted that he is free to pursue > >that action. > >But when that AI is the direct consequence of (an action > >taken because of) some UI, it should not be allowed. > > I agree, _if the UI is relevant to the AI_, as I believe you > suggested in an earlier post. In David Burn's example, where it is > clear somehow that partner is thinking "how can he have so few keycards > for his bidding", and I re-check my keycards and find I have misbid, then > I agree that we have a clear case in which to correct my bid would be to > use UI. But I am not comfortable with the idea that just because partner > hesitates and gives me more time, then I am _ipso facto_ barred from > finding my mistake and correcting it. Even if we extend the notion of > UI to the act of re-counting one's keycards*, the UI must still demonstrably > suggest that action. A hesitation, per se, does not. > > * Imagine, for example, that partner simply says "Are you sure you > only have that many keycards?" I assume we agree that in this case I > cannot now re-count my keycards and bid accordingly. > > >Herman DE WAEL > > Respectfully, > Grant Sterling > -- I can live with this distinction. As I've probably already said before. Can you agree with the following though : A player makes a slow sign-off. His partner uses the time offered to him to do a rethink, and he is now able to act in a flash. Without the slow sign-off, there is no reason for partner to rethink. Can you agree that the thinking of partner suggests the rethink ? -- 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 Feb 16 02:30:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FFSYv27219 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:28:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1FFSOt27214 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 02:28:25 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14TQKQ-000Oqi-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:28:18 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:26:49 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Reply-To: "John Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] mistimed double References: <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >I was involved in a strange case on which I would very much appreciate your >opinion. To put things mildly, the incident is not over now (1 week time). > > QJx > Jx > QJxx > KJ9x > > 10xx K9x > xx xxx > 1098xx Kxx > xxx Q108x > > A8xx > AKQ10xx > A > Ax > > W N E S > > p 1C(1) > 1S(2) D(3) 2D(4) X(5) > p 3NT p 6H > >East dealer, N/S vul > >(1) strong or mini-NT >(2) 3+ spades, 5+ minor >(3) 7+ HCP, more or less balanced >(4) P/C >(5) takeout > >After the routine bidding sequence %-), West leads D10, small, small, Ace. >South plays three trumps, then a spade towards QJ, looks a little bit >surprised when the King takes the trick. East plays a spade back. Now, >South takes in dummy, plays DQ, East plays low smoothly, South ruffs. One >more trump (East discards her last spade), then the Ace of spades and a >last trump. The situation is now : > > -- > -- > J > KJx > > -- -- > -- -- > 98 K > xx Q10x > > x > x > -- > Ax > >As you can see, the four last tricks are South's, but he didn't notice the >spade discard, and is still under the influence of the 1S bid. Now he >thinks a long time before discarding from dummy. Reading South's tempo >wrongly, East thinks South has Axx clubs as his remaining three cards, and >sees the squeeze coming. But South discards the DJ. East now breathes a >sigh of relief, discards the DK with a flourish, and turns to the Kibitz, >exclaiming 'well, I should have doubled' (which was intended to send him >ROTFL , since she had made on the previous deal a strange double that >turned out well). 72B1 "...could have known ... likely to damage...". is sufficient. I adjust. I think it's clear that declarer may well still go wrong, but might get it right 20% of the time. In the UK I award 30% 6H=, 70% 6H-1 cheers john > >Now, a disgusted South plays AC, club, and East shows that he will make one >trick for one down. > >Everybody agrees to the fact that East's Papa-like behavior was improper, >and that he didn't intend to deceive. But do you think it affected South's >play ? > >Hypothesis #1 : South was still wondering whether his spade was good. >East's remark conforted his feeling that it was not. She could have guessed >that South's problem was about the status of the spade 4. Law 73F2 applies. > >Hypothesis #2 : South's timing and tempo are evidence that he didn't know >the spade 4 was good. East's remark has no impact on the result. The link >between the infraction to L74B2 and the result is non-existent. > >Note that South didn't claim #1, only that East's behavior made him lose >whatever concentration was left. > >In the first case, one should adjust to 6S making, or a weighted score. In >the second, one should not, but assess a PP if one feels like it. > >Comments welcome. > >Regards, > > Alain. > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 16 06:53:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FJpk507372 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 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 cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1FJpdt07368 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 06:51:40 +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 OAA29273 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:51:36 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA23165 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:51:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 14:51:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102151951.OAA23165@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > ... that the cases where 3 hands are > right and the other is not are to be treated according to L14B3. I don't think that can be right. L14 deals with cards missing, but 'pulled out wrong hand' is different. Not only are there 13 missing cards, there are also 13 extra ones. L17D clearly applies. I suppose we could ask about the "mixed" case where a player gets some cards from the correct board and others from a wrong board. On most days, the total won't be 13, and the mistake will get sorted out before anything else happens, but I suppose some poor TD will some day have to deal with the "impossible." Maybe it won't happen in my lifetime. :-) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 16 07:01:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FK1es07397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:01:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1FK1Yt07393 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 07:01:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA29858 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:01:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA23185 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:01:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 15:01:31 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102152001.PAA23185@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty in teams X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: alain gottcheiner > AG : I've seen some cases where the average expectancy of win on the board > coming from the result at the first table was added to the 3 IMPs. This is, > at least, fair. Let's suppose you consider plausible the slam would have > been bid half the time, and won half the time it was bid. We average +11 > (twice), 0 (once) and +14 (once) and get +9, to be added to the penalty. Wait a minute. The +3 isn't a penalty, it's an artificial score awarded when no "real" (i.e, assigned) score can be determined. If you can determine a proper score to assign, then you just give it; you don't add three more IMPs. You might also give the OS a PP, but that won't in general benefit the NOS. A PP isn't a score adjustment. (And besides, a 3 IMP penalty is pretty severe.) As I understand it, though, custom and practice over here is to give an artificial score, even if that takes away a favorable result for the NOS. I'd be interested in comments. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 16 08:39:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1FLcsg16395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:38:54 +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 f1FLcnt16391 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:38:49 +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 IAA28326 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:41:58 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:32:05 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Xanadu To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:36:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 16/02/2001 08:36:59 AM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk And there were gardens bright with sinuous rills, Where blossomed many an incense-bearing tree ; And here were forests ancient as the hills, Enfolding sunny spots of greenery. One of the blossoms of the garden of bridge is that poor players have the right (L40A) to bid poorly against experts, and have the further right to score a frustratingly lucky result *because* of their poor bridge. This hand occurred at our club last night: 10x xx AKQ10xx xxx AQxx xxx KQ10x xxxx Jx xxx Qxx KJ10 KJxx AJx xx Axxx The auction illogically proceeded: SOUTH NORTH 1C 1D 1NT 2D 2NT 3D (break in tempo) 3NT Sitting West, I replied to the illogical auction with an equally illogical double of 3NT. On best defence the contract goes one down. But East had illogically insisted that we play count signals exclusively, so it was easy for declarer to successfully execute a Bath Coup. (Obviously none of the players at this table were experts :-)) Because of the break in tempo, the TD was summoned, and he adjusted the score to 3D +110. Some have argued that the ancient as hills policy of having ACs should be abolished, given the improvement in competence of TDs. (Indeed, our club TD was also CTD at the January Australian Summer Festival of Bridge.) Here, however, the AC proved useful. By careful questioning of South and North, it elicited a key fact. At least some of the time when North held a very weak hand with six or seven diamonds, North would pass 2NT instead of automatically converting to 3D. No expert would contemplate failing in 2NT, when 3D makes. But poor players are not required by Law to accurately evaluate their cards. Therefore, the AC ruled that North's tempo did not demonstrably suggest that she was thinking about bidding 3NT, since in the illogical partnership style North could have also been thinking about passing 2NT. So the AC correctly overruled the TD, and restored the table result of 550. 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 Feb 16 20:02:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1G90aI14557 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:00:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1G90Qt14497 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:00:27 +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 KAA18034; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:00:18 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA14768; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:00:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010216100215.00844680@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 10:02:15 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Penalty in teams In-Reply-To: <200102152001.PAA23185@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 15:01 15/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >> From: alain gottcheiner >> AG : I've seen some cases where the average expectancy of win on the board >> coming from the result at the first table was added to the 3 IMPs. This is, >> at least, fair. Let's suppose you consider plausible the slam would have >> been bid half the time, and won half the time it was bid. We average +11 >> (twice), 0 (once) and +14 (once) and get +9, to be added to the penalty. > >Wait a minute. The +3 isn't a penalty, it's an artificial score >awarded when no "real" (i.e, assigned) score can be determined. If you >can determine a proper score to assign, then you just give it; you >don't add three more IMPs. You might also give the OS a PP, but that >won't in general benefit the NOS. A PP isn't a score adjustment. (And >besides, a 3 IMP penalty is pretty severe.) AG : perhaps it wasn't very obvious to those who don't know me, but the sentence 'I've seen cases where ...' was intended to mean 'I can't see on which grounds one did ... but one did' Of course, arranging for the same limited number of boards to be played at both tables would solve the problem, but the question raised was 'what if they didn't, and if the result at the other table was a peculiar one ?'. The question isn't answered in the laws. Perhaps this is to be treated as a revoke : standard penalty is 3 IMPs ; if the NOS thinks the deal could have been more advantageous to them had it been played at the other table, they have to say it and the TD may give more than 3. One should remember that the idea to have created a huge plus result on an early deal (and it would be early, in the case of late arrivals), only to see it cancelled by a procedural problem, is absolutely destroying. I remember playing against a strong team, who at the first deal played 1NT redoubled on 23 HCP and a good diamond suit, only to discover that the deal wouldn't be played, because the opponents had 20 HCP between them (of course, that's why we allowed them to play there). There were two spade kings and no club 4 in the pack. How badly they played thereafter can't be described. When the responsibility for the cancellation of one's good deal is the opposing side, perhaps it shouldn't be cancelled. 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 Feb 16 20:36:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1G9aEn20944 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:36:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from technetium.cix.co.uk (technetium.cix.co.uk [194.153.0.53]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1G9a7t20935 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 20:36:07 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1G9Zx913061 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:35:59 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 09:35 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: <00c801c096ff$7aa2f260$0200000a@mindspring.com> Hirsch wrote: > > Wait a minute. 17D starts "If a player who has inadvertently picked > > up the cards..". Now I have had long discussions with various people > > on what "inadvertently" means. I accept that, in bridge law, it > > refers to mechanical rather than mental slips. So if the cards are > > withdrawn *thinking that this is the unplayed hand* it is not > > "inadvertent* in bridge terms. L17D will seldom apply. > > > > I presume that when cards are pulled from the wrong board, the > infraction was inadvertent. If I thought that intent existed to remove > cards from the wrong board, A- and a PP would not be nearly enough to > penalize the infraction. If the player thought he was pulling cards > from the board in play, he was inadvertently pulling cards from the > wrong board. I await explanation of why I am wrong. Because that is not what "inadvertent" means in bridge. If I bid 5C believing that it shows 0/3 aces and then realise that I should have bid 5D to show 0/3 my bid is not inadvertent and I will not be permitted to correct under 25a. The bid is "mistaken" not inadvertent. I see no reason why it should be different if I pull the cards from the wrong board *believing them to be from the right one*. Again it is mistaken rather than inadvertent. Inadvertent is limited to mechanical, not mental, errors. 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 Feb 16 21:20:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1GAJt229198 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:19:55 +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 f1GAJit29190 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:19:45 +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 LAA04873; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:15:43 +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 LAA16892; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:19:25 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010216112134.00844950@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:21:34 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:35 16/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: > >Because that is not what "inadvertent" means in bridge. If I bid 5C >believing that it shows 0/3 aces and then realise that I should have bid >5D to show 0/3 my bid is not inadvertent and I will not be permitted to >correct under 25a. The bid is "mistaken" not inadvertent. I see no >reason why it should be different if I pull the cards from the wrong board >*believing them to be from the right one*. Again it is mistaken rather >than inadvertent. Inadvertent is limited to mechanical, not mental, >errors. AG : that's true. That's why we make a lot of difference between a slip of the tongue (or of the finger) -which is inadvertent- and a bidding error. Same difference between letting a card slip out of your hand and leading out of turn Perhaps classifying events into inadvertent and mistaken, and saying once and for all that inadvertencies will be correctable, under little or no penalty, while mistaken actions will not, would help the players understand the laws. 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 Feb 17 00:05:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1GD4x226513 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:05:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1GD4qt26506 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:04:53 +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 f1GD4lX24591 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 08:04:48 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@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, 16 Feb 2001 08:04:05 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A8BAD6A.B8AF8B7B@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:20 AM 2/15/01, Herman wrote: >Can you agree with the following though : > >A player makes a slow sign-off. His partner uses the time >offered to him to do a rethink, and he is now able to act in >a flash. >Without the slow sign-off, there is no reason for partner to >rethink. > >Can you agree that the thinking of partner suggests the >rethink ? I cannot; I offer myself as a counter-example. When the action slows down at my table, my habit is to riffle through my hand thinking about the auction to that point and what might happen in the remainder of the auction and subsequent play. I often reevaluate my holding, occasionally even discovering that I've missed a card, or what have you, earlier on (I tend to bid quickly; it avoids overthinking but leads to the occasional over-hasty misbid). I can easily imagine a scenario in which I misrespond to Blackwood, then, while partner takes 30 seconds to decide on his next call, I notice I've missed a key card, so I decide to try to recover by raising partner's eventual bid. I probably wouldn't have noticed the original miscount had the bidding come back to me in three seconds, but I would have noticed it just as surely had it been an opponent who took the 30-second huddle. Partner's rethink provided the time for my recount, but not the incentive. This is not analogous to the case suggested by Grant, where partner makes a statement that directly suggests that I recount. The distinction is important, and we should be making it. If we don't, we are effectively making the huddle itself the infraction. Eric Landau elandau@cais.com APL Solutions, Inc. elandau@acm.org 1107 Dale Drive (301) 589-4621 Silver Spring MD 20910-1607 Fax (301) 589-4618 -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 17 04:58:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1GHvdU27420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:57:39 +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 ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1GHvUt27366 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 04:57:32 +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 MAA18277 for ; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:57:22 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id MAA00601 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:57:22 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:57:22 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102161757.MAA00601@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] L61B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 (Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, islands), and 8 (Africa, new zone). Any corrections to the above or definite information on other zones? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 17 11:40:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1H0dAf21330 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:39:10 +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-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 f1H0d1t21322 for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 11:39:03 +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 14TvOp-000EN6-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 00:38:57 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 22:49:20 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The Appeals from the EBU Summer Congress 2000 have been published. This is a first for the EBU! Initially the booklet has only been published on the web. Feedback is sought, whether good or bad, and whether from England or elsewhere! Whether a hard copy is published for purchase in the future, whether it is produced in future years and whether the style is right depend very much on comments received. The booklet contains details of where to send feedback. Commentary is by David Stevenson, England and Herman De Wael, Belgium, both of whom serve on World Bridge Federation Appeals Committees. Also included is official comments by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. To download your copy, please go to http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= 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 Feb 18 12:39:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1I1bYW19689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:37:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tst.dk ([147.29.107.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1I1bQt19685 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:37:28 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <119042>; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:37:11 +0100 Message-Id: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:28:24 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1I1bUt19686 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had this dilemma in the last stanza of the semifinal in the Danish KO Championship. In the contract of 6 Hearts I needed to pick up the the trumpsuit with no looser, missing 5 to the QJ. On the first round the J appeared to my left. I now had the choice of playing for QJ doubleton or finessing Qxxx in accordance with the theory of restricted choice. Trailing slightly, I needed a swing. Never the less, I decided to go with the odds, finessing. Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! I think I played that one badly, considering the state of the match. I would hate to see regulations forbidding the antipercentage play in that situation! Regards Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen Copenhagen Denmark >>> Jesper Dybdal 13-02-01 12:14 >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:20:33 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >>I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would >>always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my >>partner/teammates to do the same. >The question is whether "the best bridge" is the bridge >that wins the >hand or the bridge that wins the tournament. >Logically speaking, it should be the latter, but Marv's >point of view is >very consistent with what most of us tend to intuitively >consider "the >best bridge". >I believe that playing to win the tournament should be >legal. Many >players share Marv's point of view and will instead play >to win the >board. Regulations should allow both and should try to >make the >practical difference as small as possible. (I don't think >I've ever >encountered a difference in practice.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 18 12:39:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1I1bkI19696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:37:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tst.dk ([147.29.107.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1I1bdt19692 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 12:37:40 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <119043>; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:37:22 +0100 Message-Id: <01Feb18.023722cet.119043@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 02:27:27 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Vedr.: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1I1bgt19693 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I had this dilemma in the last stanza of the semifinal in the Danish KO Championship. In the contract of 6 Hearts I needed to pick up the the trumpsuit with no looser, missing 5 to the QJ. On the first round the J appeared to my left. I now had the choice of playing for QJ doubleton or finessing Qxxx in accordance with the theory of restricted choice. Trailing slightly, I needed a swing. Never the less, I decided to go with the odds, finessing. Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! I think I played that one badly, considering the state of the match. I would hate to see regulations forbidding the antipercentage play in that situation! Regards Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen Copenhagen Denmark >>> Jesper Dybdal 13-02-01 12:14 >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:20:33 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >>I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would >>always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my >>partner/teammates to do the same. >The question is whether "the best bridge" is the bridge >that wins the >hand or the bridge that wins the tournament. >Logically speaking, it should be the latter, but Marv's >point of view is >very consistent with what most of us tend to intuitively >consider "the >best bridge". >I believe that playing to win the tournament should be >legal. Many >players share Marv's point of view and will instead play >to win the >board. Regulations should allow both and should try to >make the >practical difference as small as possible. (I don't think >I've ever >encountered a difference in practice.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 18 13:37:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1I2b9919842 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:37:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1I2b2t19838 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 13:37:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from julie (p366-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.112]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with SMTP id PAA31028 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:36:57 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p366-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.193.112] claimed to be julie Message-ID: <000f01c09952$b4a2a5a0$70c1adcb@ihug.co.nz> From: "Julie Atkinson" To: "BLML" References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> Subject: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:30:03 +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 I disagree with the view that playing to win the tournament should always be legal. In the final round of our Zone Champs 2 years ago, we had 2 teams that only required 15 VPs to be their country's representatives playing against each other, which would then have them playing off in a final for the Zone Championship. Would they "legally" have been able to pass in every board at each table, ensuring their placement into the final? This is the same as throwing a match against a weak opponent to ensure a favourable draw in the next round of an event. Although this substantially improves your chances of winning, it is difficult to see how it could be the correct or ethical action. I agree you have an obligation to do your best in each round of an event to win, but not at the expense of the ethics of the game. People that try to win by all and any legal means can be extremely unpleasant and do little for the name of the game. Surely when interpreting the Laws and Regulations we should always keep in mind the spirit of the game. Julie >>> Jesper Dybdal 13-02-01 12:14 >>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:20:33 -0800, "Marvin L. French" wrote: >>I don't care what anyone, Kaplan or whoever, says on this subject, I would >>always play the best bridge I can possibly play and would expect my >>partner/teammates to do the same. >The question is whether "the best bridge" is the bridge >that wins the >hand or the bridge that wins the tournament. >Logically speaking, it should be the latter, but Marv's >point of view is >very consistent with what most of us tend to intuitively >consider "the >best bridge". >I believe that playing to win the tournament should be >legal. Many >players share Marv's point of view and will instead play >to win the >board. Regulations should allow both and should try to >make the >practical difference as small as possible. (I don't think >I've ever >encountered a difference in practice.) -- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 18 15:26:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1I4PmM20061 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:25:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp2.san.rr.com (smtp2.san.rr.com [24.25.195.39]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1I4Pgt20057 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:25:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([24.30.155.195]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:22:17 -0800 Message-ID: <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 20:23:03 -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: "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > I had this dilemma in the last stanza of the semifinal in the Danish KO Championship. In the contract of 6 Hearts I needed to pick up the the trumpsuit with no looser, missing 5 to the QJ. On the first round the J appeared to my left. I now had the choice of playing for QJ doubleton or finessing Qxxx in accordance with the theory of restricted choice. Trailing slightly, I needed a swing. Never the less, I decided to go with the odds, finessing. Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! > I think I played that one badly, considering the state of the match. I would hate to see regulations forbidding the antipercentage play in that situation! You have misunderstood the point to a degree that leaves me without words. Someone else explain, please. No, I'll try. We are not saying that anti-percentage actions ought to be barred. We are saying that taking anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You weren't trying to lose, were you? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 18 21:02:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1IA1de02561 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:01:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1IA1Ut02554 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:01:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-220.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.220]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1IA1NS10511; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:01:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8F9C58.AD26B78B@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:56:40 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Longueville Johan Subject: [BLML] Screens ? who needs them ! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The main culprit of this story is a director, as well ! Play offs from the Belgian second division, screens are in use. Director ! yes ? I've opened 1Di ! So ? It's not my turn ! So ? and the screen is still open ! This player was east, north was dealer, north and east are at the same side of the screen, and the opening flap is on the south-west side. I rule that west has joint responsibility for closing the screen, and that this will be ruled as if there were no screens. (After explaining the options, of course) I'm asking south if she accepts the call, and she doesn't. Now I close the screen, and ask North to bid. If he'd pass, nothing happens, and I see him wondering. He asks me "does the rule of 18 apply?" and I tell him it doesn't. He opens 1Di and now I'm telling East that if he bids any number of diamonds, his partner is barred for just the one round. He asks me (equally silently) "is he allowed to psyche ?", and I nod. He passes. This is the final bidding : W N E S 1Di not accepted 1Di pass 1Sp (obl. pass) 2Sp pass 4Sp (obl. pass) pass pass Oh, I haven't told you yet, EW are playing strong club, so 1Di is not natural. I had already told them about lead penalties and now I'm offering declarer south to prohibit one suit led from west, and she chooses clubs. The contract trickles 4 down, as the hands were : K 10 8 4 Q K 8 4 3 10 8 4 3 Q 9 2 5 J 9 4 2 A 10 6 Q 9 A J 10 6 5 2 K Q J 2 A 7 5 A J 7 6 3 K 8 7 5 3 7 9 6 Is there anything I've overlooked ? I did mention and dismiss L23. -- 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 Feb 18 21:55:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1IAtXF21253 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:55:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1IAtQt21221 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 21:55:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-49-133.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.49.133]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA10541 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 10:54:52 GMT Message-ID: <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 09:05:40 -0000 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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Please take note of the change in my 'gester' address. This second address is no longer with globalnet. The address is now:- gester@lineone.net <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:23 AM Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame > > From: "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > > > I decided to go with the odds, finessing. > Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! > > > I think I played that one badly, considering > > the state of the match. I would hate to see > > regulations forbidding the antipercentage > > play in that situation! > > You have misunderstood the point to a degree > that leaves me without words. > +=+ A little unkind, Marv. Language problems can obscure meaning. +=+ > > Someone else explain, please. > > No, I'll try. > > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You > weren't trying to lose, were you? > +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain an inferior result to opponents. Such a regulation does not rule out seating irregular partnerships, provided they then play the best bridge they can muster, nor does it affect tactical play designed to obtain a swing against the odds where this is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 02:56:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1IFtQ524256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:55:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp06.iafrica.com (smtp06.iafrica.com [196.2.51.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1IFtGt24200 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 02:55:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from l2k5q2 ([196.30.234.145]) by smtp06.iafrica.com (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.2000.03.23.18.03.p10) with SMTP id <0G8Y00MI1MUG2W@smtp06.iafrica.com> for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:54:26 +0200 (SAT) Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:55:00 +0200 From: Rusty Court Subject: Re [BLML] Degree of culpability To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <001d01c099c3$40cfb340$91ea1ec4@l2k5q2> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C099D3.E990BD20" X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Priority: 3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C099D3.E990BD20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi All, Thank you for your interesting input on this thread. It is obvious that the awarding of Ave+\Ave- is almost generally = accepted and that many support the concept of reducing the Ave+ to Ave=3D or Ave- for = some degree of culpability. The general concensus is that there is nothing in the Laws that provides = for=20 awarding a PP, even though many would like to do so because the = opportunity to achieve a valid bridge score on the hand was knowingly sabotaged. I can see that there are other situations that occur more frequently = where a player is under no obligation to inform an opponent of their error and which = will probably result in a better score for the non-offending side. The most obvious = being recognising that an opponent has revoked. There can be no penalty for this so why = should there be a PP for another situation of similar type from which they will benefit? = The only difference that I perceive is that this incident results in an artificial score = being awarded, not a valid bridge score, but then, I can accept that some number of tricks = transferred from one side to the other as a result of a revoke may not always result in a _normal_ = valid bridge score. In addition, it is seldom that any player will ever openly admit to such = an action, so how many similar incidents have gone totally unpunished except for the L12A = adjustment? Hirsch Davis made a valid point, one that had also occured to me, in = that it may be in the interests of a weaker pair playing against a strong pair to take = advantage of such a situation. In fact he almost got it 100% correct, except that it was one = of the strong players (she has represented South Africa internationally) who took the = action. I can't think why, but then I'm not a strong player. When I originally posted this = thread to the list, I did not know that this was the situation and I am as equally surprised as I = am sure many of you will be. Oh well, back to my hibernation. Rusty. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C099D3.E990BD20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi All,
 
Thank you for your interesting input on = this=20 thread.
 
It is obvious that the awarding of = Ave+\Ave- is=20 almost generally accepted and
that many support the concept of = reducing the Ave+=20 to Ave=3D or Ave- for some
degree of = culpability.
 
The general concensus is that there is = nothing in=20 the Laws that provides for
awarding a PP, even though many would = like to do so=20 because the opportunity
to achieve a valid bridge score on the = hand was=20 knowingly sabotaged.
 
I can see that there are other = situations that=20 occur more frequently where a player
is under no obligation to inform an = opponent of=20 their error and which will probably
result in a better score for the = non-offending=20 side. The most obvious being recognising
that an opponent has revoked. There can = be no=20 penalty for this so why should there be
a PP for another situation of similar = type from=20 which they will benefit? The only difference
that I perceive is that this incident = results in an=20 artificial score being awarded, not a valid
bridge score, but then, I can accept = that some=20 number of tricks transferred from one side
to the other as a result of a revoke = may not always=20 result in a _normal_ valid bridge score.
In = addition, it is=20 seldom that any player will ever openly admit to such an action, so=20 how
many similar incidents have gone = totally unpunished=20 except for the L12A adjustment?
 
Hirsch Davis made a valid point, one = that had also=20 occured to me, in that it may be in the
interests of a weaker pair playing = against a strong=20 pair to take advantage of such a
situation. In fact he almost got it = 100% correct,=20 except that it was one of the strong
players (she has represented South = Africa=20 internationally) who took the action. I can't think
why, but then I'm=20 not a strong player. When I originally posted this thread to the list, I = did
not know that this=20 was the situation and I am as equally surprised as I am sure many=20 of
you will be.
 
Oh well, back to my = hibernation.
 
Rusty.
------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C099D3.E990BD20-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 04:15:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1IHFCA00036 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:15:12 +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 f1IHF4t00032 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 04:15:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-212.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.212]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1IHEx721698 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:14:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 11:22:38 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@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: > > > > >Can you agree that the thinking of partner suggests the > >rethink ? > > I cannot; I offer myself as a counter-example. > > When the action slows down at my table, my habit is to riffle through > my hand thinking about the auction to that point and what might happen > in the remainder of the auction and subsequent play. I often > reevaluate my holding, occasionally even discovering that I've missed a > card, or what have you, earlier on (I tend to bid quickly; it avoids > overthinking but leads to the occasional over-hasty misbid). > > I can easily imagine a scenario in which I misrespond to Blackwood, > then, while partner takes 30 seconds to decide on his next call, I > notice I've missed a key card, so I decide to try to recover by raising > partner's eventual bid. I probably wouldn't have noticed the original > miscount had the bidding come back to me in three seconds, but I would > have noticed it just as surely had it been an opponent who took the > 30-second huddle. > > Partner's rethink provided the time for my recount, but not the > incentive. This is not analogous to the case suggested by Grant, where > partner makes a statement that directly suggests that I recount. The > distinction is important, and we should be making it. If we don't, we > are effectively making the huddle itself the infraction. > OK Eric, I agree with you, in theory. In practice however, and without mind-reading, there is no way to say whether or not you would have discovered the hand. Apart from providing you with the time to do so, any indication that partner is still thinking about something is an incentive to look at your hand again. So while you may not have used any UI, you are still in possession of some, and it suggests the action that you actually took, and there were LAs to it. Sounds a lot like L16 to me. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 09:26:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1IMPsA07993 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:25:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.volny.cz (smtp1.volny.cz [212.20.96.10]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1IMPjt07988 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:25:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from pj (datela-1-5-44.dialup.vol.cz [212.20.98.222]) by smtp1.volny.cz (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f1IMPYw66969; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:25:34 +0100 (CET) From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Marie_Jel=EDnkov=E1?= To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: "Jan Martynek" Subject: [BLML] Encrypted (?) relays Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 23:31:22 +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) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi all, there has been a thread about an interesting idea on exotic-systems recently. In short: one shows relay points (A=3,K=2,Q=1), then number of queens, and as long as the partnership is not missing 2 aces or 3 kings partner knows exact number of kings and aces as well and can ask for location. For opponents is (unfortunately) the information ambiguous. The ambiguity will deepen if subsequent asking bids vary in meaning according to number of shown honours. An example of my modification of the principle: West East 1C(3+ clubs) 1H(4+ hearts) 1N(12-15 PC) 2D(GF, relay) 2H(5 clubs) 2S(relay) 2N(2 diamonds) 3C(relay) 3D(7,9 or 11 RP) 3H(relay) 3N(9 RP) 4C(relay) 4D(0 or 3 queens) 4S(relay, I know how many queens you have) West can have facing East`s, say 1)AAA KKKQQQQ 2)AKKK AAAQQQQ 3)AAQQQ AAKKK 4)KKKQQQ AAAAQ Now 4S ask for 1) location of aces 2,4) location of kings 3) location of queens No need to emphasise that if East explains West`s 5C response as "the 3 honours I asked about are in C,H and S" North/South will call TD (a bit early, isn`t it? :-)) complaining about East/West`s failure to fully disclose the system.. The purpose of the method IS NOT to secure the information but to save the bidding space. I would like to give opponents (and not partner, of course - BTW he doesn`t it anyway) precise information even if it means revealing my hand a bit in order to be allowed to play it in competitions where encrypted bidding is not allowed. What is your solution? -- Petr Jelinek Prague, Czech Rep. Please, reply to: mailto:pje@seznam.cz -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 10:19:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1INJO508130 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 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 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 f1INJIt08126 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:19:18 +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 f1INJCp61919 for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:19:13 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@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, 18 Feb 2001 18:18:34 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 05:22 AM 2/18/01, Herman wrote: >Eric Landau wrote: > > > I can easily imagine a scenario in which I misrespond to Blackwood, > > then, while partner takes 30 seconds to decide on his next call, I > > notice I've missed a key card, so I decide to try to recover by raising > > partner's eventual bid. I probably wouldn't have noticed the original > > miscount had the bidding come back to me in three seconds, but I would > > have noticed it just as surely had it been an opponent who took the > > 30-second huddle. > > > > Partner's rethink provided the time for my recount, but not the > > incentive. This is not analogous to the case suggested by Grant, where > > partner makes a statement that directly suggests that I recount. The > > distinction is important, and we should be making it. If we don't, we > > are effectively making the huddle itself the infraction. > >OK Eric, I agree with you, in theory. > >In practice however, and without mind-reading, there is no >way to say whether or not you would have discovered the >hand. > >Apart from providing you with the time to do so, any >indication that partner is still thinking about something is >an incentive to look at your hand again. > >So while you may not have used any UI, you are still in >possession of some, and it suggests the action that you >actually took, and there were LAs to it. >Sounds a lot like L16 to me. And this is where we disagree. There's a line somewhere beyond which L16 no longer applies, lest anything short of absolute roboticism at the table be construed as giving rise to a possible offense, and I would argue that we're in danger of straying beyond it. I assume Herman, at least for the sake of arguing the key point here, accepts my argument that, on the original problem deal, passing 5S hoping to be off three key cards and just make would be silly enough to not be considered an LA, so there are no LAs to my action *based on the contents of my hand*. What Herman, and Mr. Gerard, argue is that partner's huddle suggested looking at my hand, to which I had the logical alternative of not looking at my hand, therefore I am prevented by L16 from gaining advantage by having looked at my hand. In my opinion, L16 is about bids and plays, making this argument just too much of a stretch. This isn't even one of those cases where we need be concerned about leaving a loophole for hanky-panky -- the sharpies have better use for their talents than worrying about dealing with miscounted key cards. No, this is some poor shmoe who miscounted his key cards, and just wants to try to recover from his error in the obvious way. His partner didn't do or say anything to directly suggest recounting, but did huddle, and he did look at his hand while partner was huddling. If he can't now recover, we can educate 'til we're blue in the face, but he'll never catch on that his partner did nothing wrong by huddling. Earlier I posed the question of whether if I raised after recounting my key cards during a 30-second huddle that took place behind a screen my score would or would not be subject to adjustment depending on whether it was my partner or his screenmate who had huddled. And what if they were equally slow? How many seconds must elapse before we start presuming that I didn't just notice my error immediately? Would it make any difference if we were not behind screens? Better, I think, to avoid the mind-reading in this case by simply presuming that the recount was something that occurred in the normal course of events, and that the connection to partner's tempo is just too tenuous to bring L16 into the picture. 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 Feb 19 10:48:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1INmBA08194 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:48:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from tst.dk (tst.tst.dk [147.29.107.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1INm4t08190 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:48:05 +1100 (EST) Received: by tst.tst.dk id <119042>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:47:51 +0100 Message-Id: <01Feb19.004751cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.4.1 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:41:32 +0100 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Flemming=20B=F8gh-S=F8rensen?=" To: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1INm7t08191 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I am releaved that I misunderstood the point! Brian Meadows wrote: >>"The failure to play anything less than as >> good bridge as possible is not permitted." >> (WBF Conditions of Contest) (snip) >There are a number of justifications for playing anti- >percentage lines, and on a strict reading of the CoC >above, they aren't permitted. Everyone knows what the >CoC *means* but it's equally obvious what they actually >*say*. My posting was an attempt to support this view. I take it, then, that the WBF CoC is not to be read strictly - apart from the obvious blunder in the wording, of course. Best regards Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen Copenhagen Denmark >>> "Grattan Endicott" 18-02-01 10:05 >>> Grattan Endicott Please take note of the change in my 'gester' address. This second address is no longer with globalnet. The address is now:- gester@lineone.net <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2001 4:23 AM Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame > > From: "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > > > I decided to go with the odds, finessing. > Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! > > > I think I played that one badly, considering > > the state of the match. I would hate to see > > regulations forbidding the antipercentage > > play in that situation! > > You have misunderstood the point to a degree > that leaves me without words. > +=+ A little unkind, Marv. Language problems can obscure meaning. +=+ > > Someone else explain, please. > > No, I'll try. > > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You > weren't trying to lose, were you? > +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain an inferior result to opponents. Such a regulation does not rule out seating irregular partnerships, provided they then play the best bridge they can muster, nor does it affect tactical play designed to obtain a swing against the odds where this is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 12:11:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B3A06684 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1ALt06537 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-11.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14UeqF-0005m6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:46:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Cap Gemini shows the way References: <200102020315.TAA14503@mailhub.irvine.com> <017a01c08cda$3da72fe0$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <005701c08e73$3afcc080$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <005701c08e73$3afcc080$70991e18@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 >> >> >There can hardly be "substantial reason to believe" until one has been >> >able to see the opponent's complete hand. I thought that was the reason >> >for the footnote, to clarify what can constitute sufficient evidence >for >> >reaching such a conclusion. >> > >> >In my mind the implication that someone may have made illegal use of >UI, >> >without seeing evidence that this is so, ought to be a Zero Tolerance >> >offense. Most people find the calling of the TD on mere suspicion to be >> >rather offensive. Count me as one of them. >> >> It can hardly be offensive, or at least you should not take it that >> way, if that is the method suggested by your SO. Many SOs consider that >> it is reasonable to call the TD, or reserve rights where that is >> allowed, once there has been a call that could be suggested by the UI. > >"Reserving rights," equivalent to getting agreement as to UI (since the TD >must be called if no agreement is reached), must be done at the time UI >seems to have been created, not when a later call seems suspicious. L16A2 >clearly (I thought) says that the appropriate time to call the TD is as >suggested in its footnote. > >> Put it another way, if the bidding goes 1S P 4S ..X P 5H to call >> the TD is merely establishing the facts in a position where UI could >> very well have been used. I can see no reason why this should be >> considered offensive. It seems an unnecessary denigration of the game >> to assume offence where none is intended, and there seems no reason to >> presume it in this case. > >It seems an unnecessary denigration of the game to call the TD when there >is no evidence of an infraction, in disregard of L16A2. Why do you suppose >that footnote was added, if not to make this clear? What on earth can the >TD do at an earlier time, other than stand around and wait to see the >results? He establishes the facts. Of course he does not stand around and wait for the results: why should he not do his job? If you wait until later the facts are more difficult to establish. There is evidence of an infraction when UI is given and a call is made that sounds as though it could be using UI. L16A1 requires a Director call now - unless the oppos agree the facts, and then no Director call is needed until later. >As to the ACBL option for L16A1, it has has gone beyond what is permitted >SOs by 16A1, whioh is only that an SO may prohibit the "reserving the >rights" announcement. There is no authority granted for negating L16A2 and >its footnote. -- 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 Feb 19 12:11:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1ApH06645 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AKt06529 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:21 +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 14UeqE-0007TK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:35:27 +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]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> <3A7BE215.77A25C69@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A7BE215.77A25C69@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 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". >> L75A. >> >> Note the word 'must'. >That one is easy to counter. > >I happen to believe that the emphasis in L75A is on "ALL" >not on "MUST". > >But the discussion is moot anyway. >We will not convince one another. I am trying to convince the other readers of BLML: I kknow you are not going to be convinced. >After all, we agree (do we ?) on one thing : there are two >laws at work here, and they tell a player to do exactly the >opposite. >We do agree on that one ? No. >Would you really, David, in a case such as this, give an >additional PP to a player who said "I did not alert because >I did not want to wake up partner" ? No, I would tell him not to do it again. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 12:11:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1Awa06668 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:59 +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 f1J1APt06556 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:26 +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 14UeqE-000O7D-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:41:33 +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> <4.3.2.7.1.20010131082410.00b49dc0@127.0.0.1> <002201c08c29$6f44c6e0$0200000a@mindspring.com> <3+tcuUATNwe6EwEZ@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <002d01c08e6d$9f9e3920$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <002d01c08e6d$9f9e3920$70991e18@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" > >> Now which do you want to do? Follow the Law as written, and finish >> with a flat board? Or refuse to follow the Law as written because of >> the protect-the-field thing [which I cannot find in my Law book] and >> give someone a bottom and someone a top, affecting every other table? >> >That is how some of us feel about the L12C3 goal of achieving "equity" for >the non-offenders, lest they get a windfall if L12C2 is applied. That too >smacks of "protect the field," besides requiring supernatural powers to >divine the weight to be assigned to each possible result. > >If "equity" is to be a consideration for one Law, it should be applicable >throughout the Laws, including the revoke Law. Either erase L12C3 or apply >its principle to all infractions: revokes, LOOTs, whatever. The Laws >should have a consistent philosophy. No. The Laws should be best for the game of bridge, not for abstruse theoretical considerations. It would be far too difficult for Club TDs to have to have a judgement ruling approach to simple errors. Apart from which, it is unnecessary. At the moment we have an acceptable mix. OK, so a little fine tuning is in order, but here is no need for a fundamental change. -- 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 Feb 19 12:11:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B1706676 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AUt06586 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14UeqN-000O7D-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:48:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] A new approach MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In the past I have worried a lot when writing on BLML about the lurkers, the people who do not post, but do read BLML. Every so often I get a nice email from one or other of them, which encourages me. When I answer a post on BLML I do not do so just because of the person who wrote the post. Primarily I do so because of *everyone* on BLML including the lurkers, and I have always felt that if there is something I consider I understand better than others, I *ought* to say so. As you probably realise, this has led to some upsets. When we had the recent thread on claims, I was accused [for example] of only bringing it up here because I had got it wrong on RGB, and knew I was wrong. I would have thought that no-one who knows me would accuse me of such dishonesty, but I am clearly wrong. The claims thread is interesting, and has led me to think. We have basically had the arguments I agree with that it cannot be right to rule against the spirit of the game because of a small problem in the wording: this was expressed forcefully and well by a couple of others as well as myself, allowing me to sit back from the argument. There is also the view that the wording is absolute, and nothing else matters. As you know, I think this an unfortunate method of ruling a game. Interestingly enough, I have had a correspondence with someone who thinks that way but admits he would rule differently! And then there are the few people to whom DWS-baiting is a sport. I have decided to change my approach. Whether good or bad for the list, I shall leave to others to decide. In future I shall not answer offensive posts, even when I know they are wrong, and can explain why. I get far too upset by doing so. I have been advised by a few people on occasions not to answer in such circumstances, and I now intend to follow their advice. This means that you cannot in future assume I agree with an approach because I fail to disagree with it. I am going to cut retaliation down. This will have the secondary effect of making my own posts friendlier: not unnaturally my most vitriolic posts have been born out of annoyance at someone else. This will also mean that I shall let ride posts that get under my skin but where the writer did not intend to do so. These have also led to unfriendly replies in the past. So, expect friendlier posts from me, and do not assume I accept anything which might be considered offensive in any way if I do not reply: if you really want to know my views on something I have not commented on please ask. Finally, it is my decision that in future, once someone has been unnecessarily offensive to me twice, I shall cease to read *any* of his posts. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to arrange a killfile but I shall take the trouble to delete such people unread. -- 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 Feb 19 12:11:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B3r06681 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AQt06567 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:27 +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 14UeqL-0005m7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:42:10 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@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 >Ed Reppert wrote: > > Marv wrote: >> >Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the >partnership. >> >One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the >> >other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would >have >> >no pity. >> No pity, indeed. You would turn permission to ask a question of >> partner into a requirement that the question be asked. >*Non sequitur* > >If the option isn't exercised, that's fine, but don't expect a lot of pity >if failing to exercise it results in partner's established revoke. Rubbish. You have an option. Because of the ethical implications this question is not one that is approved of in much of the world. If you decide it is better not to create ethical difficulties then for a Director to rule against you in such a fashion because *he* believes you should ask is totally unacceptable. And what has this to do with anything? The question came from Zone 1, where you are not allowed to ask partner because of the ethical implications. Either the player has the right to see the last trick or he has not, but I do not see what your dislike of ethical players has to do with it. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 12:12:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1Av606663 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AOt06550 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:25 +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 14UeqI-000O7C-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:53:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@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 >Ed Reppert wrote: >> Marv wrote: >> >In a case like this, I think the TD should just say "Play on!" >> In effect, isn't this the same as the TD saying to the player who may >> have revoked "your revoke, if you revoked, is not yet established, >> and under the laws you would be allowed to correct it, but I'm not >> going to let you do that - I'm going to require that the revoke, if >> it happened, become established, and then you may not correct it, but >> must suffer the penalty for an established revoke"? >> >> Seems a bit unfair, to me. >Not with so much blame to be attached to both members of the partnership. >One hasn't paid sufficient attention to the game (see L74B1), and the >other hasn't asked about a possible revoke, if there was one. I would have >no pity. > >I assume we are talking about players who are not new to the game. You are also assuming that it is played in Zones 2, 7 or 8, and that revoker is a defender. OK, so what is the ruling if one of your assumptions does not hold true? Remember the original problem came from Zone 1 where defenders are not allowed to ask each other. When a player draws attention to a possible irregularity I do not believe the requirements of L81C6 are covered by the TD saying "Play on". -- 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 Feb 19 12:11:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B5R06691 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AXt06600 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:34 +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 14UeqO-0005m6-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:29 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:50:54 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: [BLML] My future MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk My future is looking extremely bleak. Perhaps it is the effect of this long and enervating illness, but things looked good in 2000: they look horrible in 2001. Owing to one thing or another, I used to play, play as a professional, sit on appeals or direct on about 35 weekends a year. This year it looks like about 12. Apart from my work in bridge I have no other income and no other job: a very empty future lies ahead. I had great hopes of being asked to direct, or sit on Appeals Committees, in Sorrento for the European Bridge League, but it is too late now, so presumably I am not going there. The EBU give me a reasonable number of appointments a year, but not enough to keep me going. I have no complaints: they have fifty TDs, and treat me as well as any of them. In the case of the WBU, I do not understand the politics: one person did not like what I did, someone else believed everything he said, and suddenly I have no appointments from them. OK, I have been asked to do some directing by three of the four Welsh Areas, and my local County, but it adds up to so little. After last year in Australia, I thought they might invite me back for one or other event, but no such luck. Maybe they will in future years. There are still a few other oddments: I am invited each year to Denmark, for example. Anyway, I am writing this to ask all of you: is there any way you can find work for me as a TD where you are? I am quite happy to work for local rates, and pay my own transport, so for example, if I was invited to direct in Amsterdam, I would not expect to be paid to go to the Netherlands, only once I reached there, and then just as an ordinary Dutch TD. Unfortunately, I only speak English, and a little French. I am not quite rusty, but may get so soon if I do not get some more directing: please help if you can: the money is not the important thing: the experience and the work is! -- 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 Feb 19 12:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B1b06677 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AJt06524 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:21 +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 14UeqD-0005m7-0B for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 15:33:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim when outstanding trump References: <3.0.6.32.20010131180904.008227b0@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 David Stevenson writes > Interesting. I am also agnostic, but swearing to a lie on the bible >[or the Koran, or whatever] would feel very wrong to me. I must have been feeling *very* ill when I wrote this. I am atheist not agnostic. I must buy a new battery for my brain! -- 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 Feb 19 12:12:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1B8N06706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1J1AWt06594 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:33 +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 14UeqN-0007TK-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 01:10:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 00:43:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Roger Pewick writes >If the outcome of the hand is to be based upon what players do during the >hand, and if they quit their cards saying they are done with the trick it >makes good sense that they are done. So a player quits his card and later >thinks he may have revoked, yes he is permitted to review his card without >revealing it to other players and he is not permitted to refresh his memory- >but he is permitted to correct his play without refreshing his memory. Of >course there is danger if he has to guess the suit led, but remember, he has >quitted his card. What justification is there for such an approach? It >makes mute the questions raised above if quitted cards are exposed for all >to see. Where in the Laws does it say that a trick containing three cards should be quitted? -- 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 Feb 19 12:42:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J1fST16875 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:41:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1J1fLt16835 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:41:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:41:42 -0800 Message-ID: <001801c09a15$037eb480$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 17:32:27 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > From: "Flemming Bøgh-Sørensen" > > > I decided to go with the odds, finessing. > Sure enough, QJ doubleton to my left! > > > I think I played that one badly, considering > > the state of the match. I would hate to see > > regulations forbidding the antipercentage > > play in that situation! > > You have misunderstood the point to a degree > that leaves me without words. > +=+ A little unkind, Marv. Language problems can obscure meaning. +=+ > Okay, I apologize. It didn't look like a language problem to me. +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain an inferior result to opponents. Such a regulation does not rule out seating irregular partnerships, provided they then play the best bridge they can muster, nor does it affect tactical play designed to obtain a swing against the odds where this is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Exactly my thinking, thank you. Your opinion carries a lot of weight, especially when it agrees with mine. :)) Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 17:17:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J6Gql05520 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:16:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1b.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1J6Gkt05516 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:16:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1b.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:17:07 -0800 Message-ID: <007e01c09a3b$7dfaa4a0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] A new approach Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 22:07:40 -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 David Stevenson wrote: > > In future I shall not answer > offensive posts, even when I know they are wrong, and can explain why. > I get far too upset by doing so. Good idea, I think I'll do the same. Life is too short to waste on such aggravations. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 19 19:31:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J8ULm08768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:30:21 +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 f1J8UDt08730 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:30:14 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA17207; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:30:10 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Feb 19 09:33:08 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 <01K0AFPO0DXM002TJY@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:29:39 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:24:48 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:29:33 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] A new approach To: "'David Stevenson'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AD@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: > Finally, it is my decision that in future, once someone has been > unnecessarily offensive to me twice, I shall cease to read > *any* of his > posts. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to arrange a killfile > but I shall take the trouble to delete such people unread. I don't know why you wrote this message. Wasn't it possible to ask my advise? I would have told you not to change your approach of answering, reacting and bringing in problems. You are for sure a very valuable and therewith important contributor to this group. Don't demand from a Dutchman (me)for example to behave civilized (we had too many wars against England a couple of centuries ago), we (I) can't. May be you should seek the problem within yourself, being too sensible for remarks. I dare to say that almost none of us ever has the intention to hurt. On the other hand I know that we sometimes do. I remember that you once told me I did. I hope I convinced you that I never had that intention. And you should not get upset or punish people just because they don't fit in your gentil way of expressing your opinion. So forget about your letter, your message being given and understood. The idea to delete some of the messages unread is one I could have given you a long time ago, giving food to those who think that I am unnecessary rude myself. 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 Feb 19 19:45:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J8jG414069 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:45:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1J8j8t14028 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:45:09 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id JAA05200; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:45:05 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Feb 19 09:47:48 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 <01K0AG8TWGM0003GVP@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:44:19 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:39:28 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 09:44:16 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B To: "'Steve Willner'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@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 > Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? > > My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 > (Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, > islands), and 8 (Africa, new zone). > > Any corrections to the above or definite information on other zones? I just returned from the zonal championship in zone 8 (Africa) and as far as I know defenders there are not allowed to ask each other. That is how we conducted the game. Asking about the possible decision by the zone to allow questioning nobody remembered such a decision being made. Talking about it later Egypt considered following the WBF approach to be better than deviating, with which I fully agreed. And I ruled twice that an established revoke occurred after such a question. This was not in the championship but in the festival organized in the second week. I gave some lectures about the laws, informing TD's from Egypt of this discussion group, so hopefully their contribution rises. 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 Feb 19 20:54:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1J9rnF09082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:53:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1J9rdt09030 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:53:41 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:51:07 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Subject: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:50:50 +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 South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? -- 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 Mon Feb 19 21:31:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JAUsp22360 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:30:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JAUjt22309 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:30:46 +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 f1JAUbf24731; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:37 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1JAUZB19770; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:36 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:34 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 KAA01393; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:34 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA28591; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:33 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:30:33 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102191030.KAA28591@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Martin@spase.nl Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 > at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? > We've had this before. This is my solution. South's choice is first to accept the LOOT or not. If South accepts the lead, South can choose to be dummy or to be declarer. East decides which of S5 or H10 to lead, dummy's hand is put down. If East leads S5, H10 is a MPC; if East leads H10 having indended to lead S5, S5 is a MPC; if East leads H10 having indended to lead H10, S5 is a mPC. If South does not accept the lead, the two cards (S5 and H10) are MPCs. South can require a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or South can require a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or South can prohibit a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or South can prohibit a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or South can prohibit a major suit lead, H10 and S5 are picked up; or South can allow West to lead anything. Any remaining penalty cards East has not picked up are major, to be played at the first opportunity and West may be subject to lead penalties at subsequent tricks is the penalty cards have not been played. 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 Feb 19 22:14:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JBDdZ05110 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:13:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JBDVt05060 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:13:32 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:11:11 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:10:47 +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 Robin Barker wrote" >South's choice is first to accept the LOOT or not. >If South accepts the lead, South can choose to be dummy or to be declarer. >East decides which of S5 or H10 to lead, dummy's hand is put down. >If East leads S5, H10 is a MPC; >if East leads H10 having indended to lead S5, S5 is a MPC; >if East leads H10 having indended to lead H10, S5 is a mPC. So if East leads H10, then S5 is a mPC. For how are you going to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always say that he intended the H10... -- 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 Mon Feb 19 22:15:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JBFqp05865 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:15:52 +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.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JBFit05816 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:15:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-76.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.76]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1JBFbS21396 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:15:38 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@village.uunet.be> Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:39:08 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions > > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking > > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort > > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You > > weren't trying to lose, were you? > > > +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a > stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain > an inferior result to opponents. Such a > regulation does not rule out seating > irregular partnerships, provided they then > play the best bridge they can muster, nor > does it affect tactical play designed to > obtain a swing against the odds where this > is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > It seems to be accepted by all that line-up is an acceptable way of tactics. Lining up your weakest pair against weakest (or strongest) opposition is accepted by all. Yet is too is a form of not playing to your best to win a particular part of a tournament, in order to achieve maximum chances of doing as well as possible in the total event. If one such tactic is accepted, then why are we talking about this in general ? Unless someone can find a definition of which tactics are acceptable and which are not, then all tactics that aim for the best possible result in the total event ought to be accepted. If this leads to unfair advantages to opponents who have the chance of playing against people who choose to lose, then that just means that there is not enough incentive to win. Which is why regulations ought to be well thought-out, so as to make the practice non-existant. And then the WBF guideline can be read, "players must at all times strive to the best possible final result". -- 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 Feb 19 23:08:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JC80B22907 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:08:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JC7qt22863 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:07:52 +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 f1JC7lf06932; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:48 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1JC7k703259; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:46 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:45 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 MAA01489; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:44 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id MAA28627; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:43 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:43 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102191207.MAA28627@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Martin@spase.nl Subject: RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > So if East leads H10, then S5 is a mPC. For how are you going > to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always > say that he intended the H10... > I knew I didn't want to mention the intent bit. According to the "official" EBU interpretation, and others on this list, we have to determine intent to apply L50B. You may not agree (I may not agree) but the concensus is that we need to know intent, and if it is not obvious, we must ask the player away from the table. As a practical matter, I don't think players will always say they intended to play the honour card: they don't understand why the TD is asking, and even players who routinely lie if it is to their advantage will tell the truth here. 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 Feb 19 23:41:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JCenb04211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:40:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from xion.spase.nl (router.spase.nl [213.53.246.249]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JCeet04169 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:40:42 +1100 (EST) Received: by XION with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:58 +0100 Message-ID: From: Martin Sinot To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:26:40 +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 Robin Barker wrote: >I knew I didn't want to mention the intent bit. All right, I knew that the S5 should have been S10 :) The real reason for the original question (South is declarer. East leads S5 and H10, both cards visible. What do you do?) is a different one. Do you first ask South whether he wants to accept the lead and, if he does, let East decide which card he wants to play? Or do you first ask East which card he intended to lead, and then ask South whether he wants to accept that lead? In other words: do you first apply L54 or L58B2? -- 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 Mon Feb 19 23:59:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JCwqq10551 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:58:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JCwit10512 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:58:45 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA14724; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:58:40 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Mon Feb 19 14:01:53 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 <01K0AP2W6LVY003H69@AGRO.NL>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:57:37 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:52:46 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:57:19 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards To: "'Martin Sinot'" , "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7B2@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 Good educational question for those who have some knowledge of the laws already. Almost of it covered by the laws. Difficulties caused by the complexity. As in more of those situations the main question is where to begin. In the given solution I missed that consideration. Should we start south giving the option to accept or east telling which of the two he wanted to lead (of course informing him about the m and M penalty card)? South might say that his answer depends on this knowledge (I would). So my choice is to start with east. Try this one: south dealer, but east and west simultaneously call OOT. It better never happens. ton > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Martin Sinot [mailto:Martin@spase.nl] > Verzonden: maandag 19 februari 2001 10:51 > Aan: Bridge Laws (E-mail) > Onderwerp: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards > > > South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 > at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? > > -- > 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/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 00:17:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JDHFw17021 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:17:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub2.qub.ac.uk (jeremiah.qub.ac.uk [143.117.14.29]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JDH8t16987 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:17:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from fujin.qub.ac.uk by mailhub2.qub.ac.uk with SMTP-QUB (XT-PP) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:16:28 +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 NAA09577; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:16:28 GMT From: Alan Hill To: Robin Barker Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Martin@spase.nl Subject: Re: RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards In-Reply-To: <200102191207.MAA28627@tempest.npl.co.uk> Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:14:16 +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 With luck in most cases the player's normal leading practice will give the answer as to which card was intended. Alan Hill On Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:07:43 GMT Robin Barker wrote: > > > > > So if East leads H10, then S5 is a mPC. For how are you going > > to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always > > say that he intended the H10... > > > I knew I didn't want to mention the intent bit. > > According to the "official" EBU interpretation, and others > on this list, we have to determine intent to apply L50B. > You may not agree (I may not agree) but the concensus is > that we need to know intent, and if it is not obvious, we > must ask the player away from the table. > > As a practical matter, I don't think players will always say > they intended to play the honour card: they don't understand > why the TD is asking, and even players who routinely lie if > it is to their advantage will tell the truth here. > > Robin > ---------------------- 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 Tue Feb 20 00:45:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JDiM026589 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:44:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JDiEt26544 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:44:15 +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 OAA27332; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:43:57 +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 OAA00868; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:43:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010219144601.00855d40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:46:01 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> References: <3A8BAD6A.B8AF8B7B@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@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 08:04 16/02/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: I offer myself as a counter-example. > >When the action slows down at my table, my habit is to riffle through >my hand thinking about the auction to that point and what might happen >in the remainder of the auction and subsequent play. I often >reevaluate my holding, occasionally even discovering that I've missed a >card, or what have you, earlier on (I tend to bid quickly; it avoids >overthinking but leads to the occasional over-hasty misbid). > >I can easily imagine a scenario in which I misrespond to Blackwood, >then, while partner takes 30 seconds to decide on his next call, I >notice I've missed a key card, so I decide to try to recover by raising >partner's eventual bid. I probably wouldn't have noticed the original >miscount had the bidding come back to me in three seconds, but I would >have noticed it just as surely had it been an opponent who took the >30-second huddle. AG : Allow me to offer myself as another example. I'm quite long-sighted, which gives me a tendency to missort the cards, especially diamonds and hearts. Alex, my usual partner, is a slow bidder, who disciplined himself to the point of bidding slowly even in obvious cases, thus giving very little UI. Say my hand is 3532, but I sorted it as 3352 and opened 1D. Thereafter the bidding creeps something like : 1D-1H-2H (we do it on 3 cards)-4D-4S(cue)-4NT-5D. Now partner take as long a time as usual, or perhaps even longer, and bids 6D. If in the meantime I've discovered my real pattern, surely I'm allowed to convert to 6H. Of course I've discovered it by myself ; how can partner's slow bid help me in discovering my error, except of course giving me time to do so ? Now if my error was only that I didn't see an ace, and partner huddles as usual and bids 5H, why am I not allowed to bid 6 ? After all, he bid quite strongly, and the mere fact that he now signs off should alert me, huddle or not. Also, his only problem could have been between passing and bidding 5H, and we are still missing two aces (although, playing Roman BW, it is not likely : he woulsd have understood my response as 4 Aces, of course). I don't think anyone could consider those cases as very different. So, why disallow the re-copsideration of the hand in the second case ? Also, what do you think of the following mention on the CC (I've seen it once) : "we always take a little time after the response to BW or GSF" ? If it is accurate, this means there is no more slow BW problem ... Reagards, 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 Feb 20 01:08:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JE7u503103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:07:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JE7mt03098 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:07:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.3]) by guppy.vub.ac.be (8.9.1b+Sun/3.17.0.ap (guppy)) id PAA09886; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:07:37 +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 PAA19247; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:07:28 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010219150943.0085be60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:09:43 +0100 To: "Julie Atkinson" , "BLML" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame In-Reply-To: <000f01c09952$b4a2a5a0$70c1adcb@ihug.co.nz> References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 15:30 18/02/01 +1300, Julie Atkinson wrote: >I disagree with the view that playing to win the tournament should always be >legal. > >In the final round of our Zone Champs 2 years ago, we had 2 teams that only >required 15 VPs to be their country's representatives playing against each >other, which would then have them playing off in a final for the Zone >Championship. > >Would they "legally" have been able to pass in every board at each table, >ensuring their placement into the final? > >This is the same as throwing a match against a weak opponent to ensure a >favourable draw in the next round of an event. AG : IBTD. That a top-level pair plays volontary badly in the second case is a decision they made personally, and it would be very difficult to *prove* they made errors on purpose. After all, they were playing the last match of a long round robin, against strong opposition, and after having celebrated their already ensured victory the usual way (I mean, with vodka). In the case you mention, it needs a collusion between players of both teams ; this is simply cheating, as much as it is to change the result of a match after it has been established. YMMV, but I think the deontological frontier runs somewhere between the two cases. 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 Feb 20 01:17:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JEGpq05665 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:16:51 +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 f1JEGht05617 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:16:44 +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 PAA13680; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:16:32 +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 PAA26718; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:16:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010219151837.0085a640@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:18:37 +0100 To: Steve Willner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B In-Reply-To: <200102161757.MAA00601@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 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? > >My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 >(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, >islands), AG : including Britain then, or has the Channel suddenly dried up :-)) and 8 (Africa, new zone). AG : I've not read that it is disallowed in European zone, only that doing so makes the revoke established. 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 Feb 20 01:24:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JEOKA08214 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:24:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JEO9t08160 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:24:10 +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 PAA16925; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:23:56 +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 PAA03034; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:23:47 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010219152601.0085c100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:26:01 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws , Longueville Johan From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Screens ? who needs them ! In-Reply-To: <3A8F9C58.AD26B78B@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 10:56 18/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >The main culprit of this story is a director, as well ! AG : I guess I know his name ... But directors are people, after all. Yes they are. > 1Di not accepted > 1Di pass 1Sp > (obl. pass) 2Sp pass 4Sp > (obl. pass) pass pass > >The contract trickles 4 down, as the hands were : > > K 10 8 4 > Q > K 8 4 3 > 10 8 4 3 > Q 9 2 5 > J 9 4 2 A 10 6 > Q 9 A J 10 6 5 2 > K Q J 2 A 7 5 > A J 7 6 3 > K 8 7 5 3 > 7 > 9 6 > >Is there anything I've overlooked ? >I did mention and dismiss L23. Ag : you've forgotten at least one thing. Telling us how the contract went down four ... More than two down would be strange, on any lead. This would not be a catastrophic result for N/Q, since their oppoennts can make a partscore in diamonds (I guess the final contract would have been either 3S -1 or 4D = after 'normal' bidding). 4H is a possible contract, but difficult to reach. A. > >-- >Herman DE WAEL >Antwerpen Belgium >http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 02:07:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JF66o12265 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:06:06 +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 f1JF5st12261 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:05:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Ursr-0009aq-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:05:49 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:04:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B References: <200102161757.MAA00601@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010219151837.0085a640@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010219151837.0085a640@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <3.0.6.32.20010219151837.0085a640@pop.ulb.ac.be>, alain gottcheiner writes >At 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >>Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? >> >>My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 >>(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, >>islands), > >AG : including Britain then, or has the Channel suddenly dried up :-)) 1950s: Newspaper Headline: "Fog In Channel, Continent Cut Off" We are (only for convenience of course) sadly part of Europe. We are not empowered to ask "Having None?" in the UK. > > and 8 (Africa, new zone). > >AG : I've not read that it is disallowed in European zone, only that doing >so makes the revoke established. > > 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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 02:09:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JF9L612285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:09:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JF9Dt12281 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:09:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14Urw6-000AJ8-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:09:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:08:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@village.uunet.be> In-Reply-To: <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@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 <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@village.uunet.be>, Herman De Wael writes >Grattan Endicott wrote: >> >> > >> > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions >> > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking >> > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort >> > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You >> > weren't trying to lose, were you? >> > >> +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a >> stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain >> an inferior result to opponents. Such a >> regulation does not rule out seating >> irregular partnerships, provided they then >> play the best bridge they can muster, nor >> does it affect tactical play designed to >> obtain a swing against the odds where this >> is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >> > > >It seems to be accepted by all that line-up is an acceptable >way of tactics. Lining up your weakest pair against weakest >(or strongest) opposition is accepted by all. > >Yet is too is a form of not playing to your best to win a >particular part of a tournament, in order to achieve maximum >chances of doing as well as possible in the total event. > >If one such tactic is accepted, then why are we talking >about this in general ? > >Unless someone can find a definition of which tactics are >acceptable and which are not, then all tactics that aim for >the best possible result in the total event ought to be >accepted. > >If this leads to unfair advantages to opponents who have the >chance of playing against people who choose to lose, then >that just means that there is not enough incentive to win. > >Which is why regulations ought to be well thought-out, so as >to make the practice non-existant. > >And then the WBF guideline can be read, "players must at all >times strive to the best possible final result". > The Laws, Regulations and CoC are all part of any contest. Players *should* take all these things into account when playing. If this requires that a player should dump a match, then this is what the player *should* do. Anything else means that they are not following the Law, Regulations and CoC. cheers john > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 02:21:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JFLRS12324 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:21:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JFLLt12319 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:21:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Us7m-000NBq-0K; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:21:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:19:42 +0000 To: Martin Sinot Cc: "Bridge Laws (E-mail)" From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards 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 , Martin Sinot writes >South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 >at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? > Difficult. The player leading out of turn must designate which one is intended (let's not discuss what his original intent was - that's its own can of worms). We now have a normal (O)LOOT and declarer has the normal options, (including if it's an OLOOT, which hand is dummy). Let's assume he does not accept the (O)LOOT. We now have two major penalty cards and the option to insist on, or preclude the lead of those suit(s) (with the card picked up) or lead anything, retaining the penalty cards, ... etc. If he accepts the (O)LOOT then if the remaining card is the S5 it's a minor penalty card, but the H10 would be major. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 02:22:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JFMkO12340 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:22:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JFMdt12335 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:22:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14Us95-000NPp-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:22:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:21:31 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards References: <200102191030.KAA28591@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200102191030.KAA28591@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 <200102191030.KAA28591@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> >> South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 >> at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? >> > >We've had this before. This is my solution. > >South's choice is first to accept the LOOT or not. >If South accepts the lead, South can choose to be dummy or to be declarer. >East decides which of S5 or H10 to lead, dummy's hand is put down. >If East leads S5, H10 is a MPC; >if East leads H10 having indended to lead S5, S5 is a MPC; >if East leads H10 having indended to lead H10, S5 is a mPC. Don't like this. I can't accept a LOOT if I don't know what it is. The card intended must be designated first. Then we can get onto whether it's accepted. > >If South does not accept the lead, the two cards (S5 and H10) are MPCs. >South can require a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or >South can require a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or >South can prohibit a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or >South can prohibit a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or >South can prohibit a major suit lead, H10 and S5 are picked up; or >South can allow West to lead anything. > >Any remaining penalty cards East has not picked up are major, to be >played at the first opportunity and West may be subject to lead >penalties at subsequent tricks is the penalty cards have not been played. > >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 02:44:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JFheA12397 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:43:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JFhSt12393 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:43:29 +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 f1JFhOf03105; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:24 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1JFhNw29975; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:23 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:22 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 PAA01887; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:22 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id PAA28766; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:21 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:43:21 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102191543.PAA28766@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, john@asimere.com Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Don't like this. I can't accept a LOOT if I don't know what it is. The > card intended must be designated first. Then we can get onto whether > it's accepted. [If you don't know what it is you don't accept it.] I can live with requiring LOOTer to choose first, BUT 1) the card designated does not have to be the card originally intended; 2) if the lead is not accepted, the two cards are treated the same (both are MPCs) for the purposes of lead penalties on leader. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 02:52:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JFqWu12439 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:52:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.51]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JFqPt12433 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:52:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from ATT ([12.78.218.56]) by mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net (InterMail vM.4.01.03.10 201-229-121-110) with SMTP id <20010219155217.DFCW6882.mtiwmhc26.worldnet.att.net@ATT>; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:52:17 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c09aa4$e48f8960$38da4e0c@NET.ATT.NET> From: "JOAN GERARD" To: "Kooijman, A." , "'David Stevenson'" , References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] A new approach Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:50:52 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi Ton, Well said - David: You must not take people too seriously. Your opinion and efforts are valued by all. Best regards, Joan ----- Original Message ----- From: Kooijman, A. To: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 12:29 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] A new approach > > > David Stevenson: > > > Finally, it is my decision that in future, once someone has been > > unnecessarily offensive to me twice, I shall cease to read > > *any* of his > > posts. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to arrange a killfile > > but I shall take the trouble to delete such people unread. > > > I don't know why you wrote this message. Wasn't it possible to ask my > advise? I would have told you not to change your approach of answering, > reacting and bringing in problems. You are for sure a very valuable and > therewith important contributor to this group. Don't demand from a Dutchman > (me)for example to behave civilized (we had too many wars against England a > couple of centuries ago), we (I) can't. May be you should seek the problem > within yourself, being too sensible for remarks. I dare to say that almost > none of us ever has the intention to hurt. On the other hand I know that we > sometimes do. I remember that you once told me I did. I hope I convinced you > that I never had that intention. And you should not get upset or punish > people just because they don't fit in your gentil way of expressing your > opinion. > > So forget about your letter, your message being given and understood. The > idea to delete some of the messages unread is one I could have given you a > long time ago, giving food to those who think that I am unnecessary rude > myself. > > 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 Tue Feb 20 03:15:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGEIr13643 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:14:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JGE8t13594 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:14:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (pm17d477.iae.nl [212.61.5.223]) by mail.iae.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 1814720F92 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:13:44 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <002f01c09a8f$0cb89c80$df053dd4@default> From: "Ben Schelen" To: "bridge-laws" References: <200102191030.KAA28591@tempest.npl.co.uk> Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:13:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk The TD adresses himself to east and asks him what happened;. what was his intention, which card is the lead. This is necessary in order to distinguish later S5 as a mPC or a MPC. After that south can choice one of the well known options. If H10 is the lead and he accepts this lead, maybe S5 is a mPC depending upon the answer of east and the decision of the TD. If S5 is the lead and he accepts this lead, H10 is a MPC. If he decides that west has to lead both cards are MPCs. Ben ---- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Barker" To: ; Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards > > > > > South is declarer in some contract. East leads (OOT) S5 and H10 > > at the same time, both cards visible. How do you handle this? > > > > We've had this before. This is my solution. > > South's choice is first to accept the LOOT or not. > If South accepts the lead, South can choose to be dummy or to be declarer. > East decides which of S5 or H10 to lead, dummy's hand is put down. > If East leads S5, H10 is a MPC; > if East leads H10 having indended to lead S5, S5 is a MPC; > if East leads H10 having indended to lead H10, S5 is a mPC. > > If South does not accept the lead, the two cards (S5 and H10) are MPCs. > South can require a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or > South can require a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or > South can prohibit a Heart lead, H10 is picked up; or > South can prohibit a Spade lead, S5 is picked up; or > South can prohibit a major suit lead, H10 and S5 are picked up; or > South can allow West to lead anything. > > Any remaining penalty cards East has not picked up are major, to be > played at the first opportunity and West may be subject to lead > penalties at subsequent tricks is the penalty cards have not been played. > > Robin > > -- > Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk > CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 > National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 03:16:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGG0c14223 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:16:00 +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 f1JGFnt14169 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:15:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14UsyM-000D0S-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:15:35 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 16:14:03 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] A new approach References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AD@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <000901c09aa4$e48f8960$38da4e0c@NET.ATT.NET> In-Reply-To: <000901c09aa4$e48f8960$38da4e0c@NET.ATT.NET> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <000901c09aa4$e48f8960$38da4e0c@NET.ATT.NET>, JOAN GERARD writes >Hi Ton, > >Well said - > >David: You must not take people too seriously. Your opinion and efforts are >valued by all. Best regards, Joan > snaaarrrrlllllll ... even I appreciate you David :)) I think you should continue to post forcefully I think you should expect the occasional flaming I think you've enough to offer to be able to handle them appropriately (posting to the effect _ "I won't continue this discussion - I find it upsetting" would be appropriate) as indeed would be to ignore them entirely. -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 03:46:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGji019495 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjZt19484 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.103]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjUS07765 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:45:31 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A910533.4A36DBD@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:36:19 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Alert or Not References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <99vl92AIKud6EwdG@blakjak.demon.co.uk> <3A77D1A1.133AED92@village.uunet.be> <3A7BE215.77A25C69@village.uunet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson wrote: > > Herman De Wael writes > > >After all, we agree (do we ?) on one thing : there are two > >laws at work here, and they tell a player to do exactly the > >opposite. > >We do agree on that one ? > > No. > David, you dissappoint me. "A player whose partner has given a mistaken explanation may not correct the error before the final pass, nor may he indicicate in any manner that a mistake has been made; a defender may not correct the error until play ends." How you cannot interpret this to mean that a player must act as I propose is beyond me. I'm willing to agree that there may be a second set of laws that tells the player to do exactly the opposite, but surely you cannot state that the above is untrue ! Well yes, of course, you can, but then you are just being stubborn. -- 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 Feb 20 03:46:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGjrG19502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjft19491 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.103]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjaS07812; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:45:36 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A910B2D.416526F5@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:01:49 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marie =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jel=EDnkov=E1?= , Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted (?) relays References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marie Jelínková wrote: > > Hi all, > there has been a thread about an interesting idea on exotic-systems > recently. In short: one shows relay points (A=3,K=2,Q=1), then number of > queens, and as long as the partnership is not missing 2 aces or 3 kings > partner knows exact number of kings and aces as well and can ask for > location. For opponents is (unfortunately) the information ambiguous. The > ambiguity will deepen if subsequent asking bids vary in meaning according to > number of shown honours. > > An example of my modification of the principle: > West East > 1C(3+ clubs) 1H(4+ hearts) > 1N(12-15 PC) 2D(GF, relay) > 2H(5 clubs) 2S(relay) > 2N(2 diamonds) 3C(relay) > 3D(7,9 or 11 RP) 3H(relay) > 3N(9 RP) 4C(relay) > 4D(0 or 3 queens) 4S(relay, I know how many queens you have) > > West can have facing East`s, say > 1)AAA KKKQQQQ > 2)AKKK AAAQQQQ > 3)AAQQQ AAKKK > 4)KKKQQQ AAAAQ > > Now 4S ask for > 1) location of aces > 2,4) location of kings > 3) location of queens > > No need to emphasise that if East explains West`s 5C response as "the 3 > honours I asked about are in C,H and S" North/South will call TD (a bit > early, isn`t it? :-)) complaining about East/West`s failure to fully > disclose the system.. > > The purpose of the method IS NOT to secure the information but to save the > bidding space. I would like to give opponents (and not partner, of course - > BTW he doesn`t it anyway) precise information even if it means revealing my > hand a bit in order to be allowed to play it in competitions where encrypted > bidding is not allowed. > > What is your solution? > Seems to me that if you reply to opponents : "if he has three queens, the honours are in ..., but if he has none, they are in ..." They have all the info they need. There are many "cryptic" systems out there, not all of them as difficult as what you describe above. Mind you, I believe the WBF regulation prohibits cryptic signalling, not bidding ! -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 03:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGk1R19506 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:46:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjnt19500 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.103]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjeS07831 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:45:42 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A911986.3E00C129@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:03:02 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] DwS - one more try Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Stevenson's message (the one in which he said he did not agree with me that L75D2 actually tells the player to give MI) surprised me so much that I want to try once more. Let's invent some auction W - N - E - S 1NT - 2Cl - pass - 2Di pass - 3Cl - pass - 3Di pass - 3He - pass - 4He - all pass 2Cl is alerted and explained as Landy 2Di is alerted and explained as equal length 3Cl is alerted and explained as cue 3Di is alerted and explained as cue 3He and 4He are normal Before the opening lead, North calls the director. He says he is not certain of their system. He was under the impression they were playing Astro. He re-explains the auction under that system and the hand is played. North turns out to have 5 hearts and 6 clubs (doubleton spade) 2Cl was intended as Astro (9 in hearts and a minor) 2Di then means less than 3 hearts, at least 2 diamonds, nf 3Cl shows 5 (probably 6) clubs 3Di would probably be trying to sign-off 3He is normal with void in diamonds Of course the opponents have an undiscovered spade fit and 4Sp would be a better contract than 4He. How would be rule ? First of all we would need to look at the UI. North is under the impression that he is playing Astro, and although he explains 2Di as "equal majors", he must bid according to Astro, in this case showing his minor. He must interpret 3Di as within Astro. Let's assume that he has fulfilled his obligations opposite UI. Then we need to rule on the MI. For that, we need to establish what the system actually is. If NS can prove they are actually playing Landy, then all explanations were correct, and there is no MI. If they cannot prove Landy, then the TD will assume MI. Quite probably the spade fit would be discovered and an AS of 4Sp, making whatever, will be given. Now we come to North's "infraction" of giving MI. Since we are assuming MI, the explanation of 2Di as "equal length" is incorrect. Yet it is completely in accordance with the hand of South. 3 Diamonds shows a six card suit, but if North explains this like that to opponents, he is in fact telling them something untrue, because South was merely showing the Ace. So, while North has given MI in the legal sense of the word, he has correctly informed the opponents of what South was trying to express to him. It is hard to see how EW can claim damage from this particular MI. Ah, but he was deliberately giving MI, some might say. To which North replies the following: I am fairly certain we are in fact playing Landy. My partner is usually not wrong about such things. I thought it was on our convention card but apparently we forgot to bring the correct one and now we cannot prove that this is the correct explanation. I have not used the MI my partner has given me, and I believe I have bid within the Astro that I was originally thinking I was playing. I accept that you now have to rule MI, but I do not believe that I have acted in any unfair manner. After all, I did explain my partner's hand perfectly, didn't I ? I did not know what to do when they asked me to explain 2Di, and I thought that if I told them what it would mean in Astro, my partner would realise I held clubs in stead of spades. I know I am not supposed to correct my partner's explanation, so I continued my explanation as of Landy. Do you really believe you can give this person some additional PP's ? I don't want to do so. I believe here is a player who has tried his hardest to avoid making use of UI that he has, and to avoid giving his partner UI. In the meantime, he has given MI to opponents, but only in a technical sense of the word, not in any "real" sense, as he's correctly described partner's intention and hand. I don't think this player is guilty of anything more than forgetting to bring a CC to the table. Now as I have often stated, this is not the DwS. I am not advocating that we rule this matter in any different way. It is very difficult to create a case like this, and we should not be bothered with the details. We all know the standard to apply to the MI, and what AS to give (4SpX= or something - south has to double when believing north has majors) I am merely concerned with the advice we give to players about how to react after their Astro has been explaned as Landy. We need to tell them that they should bid on in Astro. But how should they explain partner's bidding ? I believe they should be allowed to say "Landy". It is what they would -correctly- answer if the system indeed is Landy. Why should they not be allowed to say it also when the system turns out to be Astro after all ? Or even when they are absolutely certain that it is indeed Astro ? When ruling on the UI between the partners, we don't care if the explanation accords to the system or not. When explaining to players that they should bid as in Astro, we can add that they must do this regardless of whether they are actually playing Astro or Landy (or even transfer 2Cl). Why then should we make it more difficult on them in our advice about how to explain it. The DwS says : regardless of whether you are actually playing Astro or Landy, you always explain as in Landy. The RotW says : explain Landy if it's Landy, Astro if it's Astro. To which some player will undoubtedly ask : and if I am uncertain, what then ? Which is why I believe the DwS advice makes a lot of sense. One more thought struck me. South explains "Landy" and bids 2Di. North alerts (as he should in both Landy and Astro) EW don't ask anything, because they know what 2Di means over Landy. Where's the MI now ? Why should the case be any different when they do ask ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 03:46:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JGjoC19501 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjct19486 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:45:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-0-103.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.0.103]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1JGjXS07797 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:45:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A91077F.21B73177@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:46:07 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@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: > > > > >So while you may not have used any UI, you are still in > >possession of some, and it suggests the action that you > >actually took, and there were LAs to it. > >Sounds a lot like L16 to me. > > And this is where we disagree. There's a line somewhere beyond which > L16 no longer applies, lest anything short of absolute roboticism at > the table be construed as giving rise to a possible offense, and I > would argue that we're in danger of straying beyond it. I assume > Herman, at least for the sake of arguing the key point here, accepts my > argument that, on the original problem deal, passing 5S hoping to be > off three key cards and just make would be silly enough to not be > considered an LA, so there are no LAs to my action *based on the > contents of my hand*. I do indeed agree on that part. > What Herman, and Mr. Gerard, argue is that > partner's huddle suggested looking at my hand, to which I had the > logical alternative of not looking at my hand, therefore I am prevented > by L16 from gaining advantage by having looked at my hand. > Well, you had the logical alternative of not looking and therefor passing. I believe passing to be a logical alternative. It is what a substantial minority would do (they would not look, assume they had counted correctly and pass). > In my opinion, L16 is about bids and plays, making this argument just > too much of a stretch. > Not this one, but perhaps another. > This isn't even one of those cases where we need be concerned about > leaving a loophole for hanky-panky -- the sharpies have better use for > their talents than worrying about dealing with miscounted key > cards. No, this is some poor shmoe who miscounted his key cards, and > just wants to try to recover from his error in the obvious way. His > partner didn't do or say anything to directly suggest recounting, but > did huddle, and he did look at his hand while partner was huddling. If > he can't now recover, we can educate 'til we're blue in the face, but > he'll never catch on that his partner did nothing wrong by huddling. > This may well be a good argument why we don't need to be very severe. > Earlier I posed the question of whether if I raised after recounting my > key cards during a 30-second huddle that took place behind a screen my > score would or would not be subject to adjustment depending on whether > it was my partner or his screenmate who had huddled. And what if they > were equally slow? How many seconds must elapse before we start > presuming that I didn't just notice my error immediately? Would it > make any difference if we were not behind screens? > > Better, I think, to avoid the mind-reading in this case by simply > presuming that the recount was something that occurred in the normal > course of events, and that the connection to partner's tempo is just > too tenuous to bring L16 into the picture. > I believe that the point at which we disagree is whether or not the UI suggests the action. In the sense that the huddle does not in itself suggest the relooking at the hand, you may well be right. But look at it this way. Partner asks for aces and you look at your hand, and count your aces. You make a response and put your hand down. You now expect partner to make the final call and set the contract. Only when he asks for kings do you need to look at your hand again, in all other cases there is nothing more for you to do. Why then should you look at your hand ? Perhaps because partner is thinking ? OK, it may well be a case where the AC will question the player more thoroughly as to the reasons for his recount, but I would not say it is impossible that the huddle be brought into account. But I agree with you that it is far closer than the automatic that I thing Gerard was referring to. Thanks for educating us as to the questions that we need to ask. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 05:11:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JIAVt13166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:10:31 +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 (f78.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.78]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JIANt13132 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:10:24 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:10:15 -0800 Received: from 172.143.79.243 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:10:15 GMT X-Originating-IP: [172.143.79.243] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:10:15 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2001 18:10:15.0399 (UTC) FILETIME=[35793F70:01C09A9F] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >At 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > >Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? > > > >My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 > >(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, > >islands), Hmmm, I see it happening with some frequency here in the ACBL and it's supposed to be illegal? Less often than dummy asking declarer, but still some frequency. -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 Tue Feb 20 05:24:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JIO5P17955 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:24:05 +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 f1JINwt17917 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:23:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:20:32 -0800 Message-ID: <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:23:23 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Kooijman, A." < > Steve Willner wrote Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 12:44 AM Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B > > Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? > > > > My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 > > (Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, > > islands), and 8 (Africa, new zone). > > > > Any corrections to the above or definite information on other zones? > > I just returned from the zonal championship in zone 8 (Africa) and as far as > I know defenders there are not allowed to ask each other. That is how we > conducted the game. Asking about the possible decision by the zone to allow > questioning nobody remembered such a decision being made. Talking about it > later Egypt considered following the WBF approach to be better than > deviating, with which I fully agreed. And I ruled twice that an established > revoke occurred after such a question. This was not in the championship but > in the festival organized in the second week. > > I gave some lectures about the laws, informing TD's from Egypt of this > discussion group, so hopefully their contribution rises. At first thought it seems extremely strange that the Laws include an option for a ZO to permit one defender to help the other in this way, or that any ZO would elect to adopt that option. The ACBL elected to do so, and the reasoning is fairly obvious: If dummy can ask declarer, why shouldn't a defender be allowed to do the same? I am guessing that the answer is that UI may be transmitted by selective questioning. If the out-show is questioned only when partner's failure to follow suit is a surprise, then the questionee can infer shortness in partner's hand. If that is the case, it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy also. Alternatively, but probably unenforceable, would be a requirement that "Having none?" be required for defenders in every instance. The ACBL should either adopt such a regualation or go along with the rest of the world. Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, when defenders don't have this right? Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why not remove it from the Laws? Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 05:58:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JIwKq29970 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:58:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JIwDt29933 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 05:58:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:54:47 -0800 Message-ID: <003f01c09aa5$dd5fd360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Mon, 19 Feb 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: "Herman De Wael" > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions > > > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking > > > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort > > > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You > > > weren't trying to lose, were you? > > > > > +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a > > stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain > > an inferior result to opponents. Such a > > regulation does not rule out seating > > irregular partnerships, provided they then > > play the best bridge they can muster, nor > > does it affect tactical play designed to > > obtain a swing against the odds where this > > is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > It seems to be accepted by all that line-up is an acceptable > way of tactics. Lining up your weakest pair against weakest > (or strongest) opposition is accepted by all. > > Yet it too is a form of not playing to your best to win a > particular part of a tournament, in order to achieve maximum > chances of doing as well as possible in the total event. > > If one such tactic is accepted, then why are we talking > about this in general ? > There is a big difference between "playing your best" (i.e., when bidding or playing your cards) and "doing your best" in the event. Both can be accommodated without conflict if it is recognized that the former requirement dominates strategies aimed at the latter goal. You put in your weakest pair for strategical reasons, but they play their best for ethical reasons. All in the spirit of the game. I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In American football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players in the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or owners aim for that when having a bad season. They might rest some good players, or give some untried players a chance to play, but everyone does their best to win the games. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 06:29:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JJSc110768 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:28:38 +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 f1JJSVt10721 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:28:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:25:04 -0800 Message-ID: <007201c09aaa$188bb220$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:18:33 -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: "Todd Zimnoch" > >At 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > >Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? > > > > > >My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 > > >(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, > > >islands), > > Hmmm, I see it happening with some frequency here in the ACBL and it's > supposed to be illegal? Less often than dummy asking declarer, but still > some frequency. > It's legal in ACBL-land, Todd, a permissible deviation from L61B's wording, adopted by the ACBL (see back of the American Laws). Don't know why this unnecessary difference in the Laws should be available to a Zonal Organization. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 06:31:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JJV8t11634 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:31:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JJUxt11592 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:31:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 8FBB2D7C89 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:30:52 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:30:52 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> 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 f1JJV3t11614 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Sun, 18 Feb 2001 18:18:34 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >What Herman, and Mr. Gerard, argue is that >partner's huddle suggested looking at my hand, to which I had the >logical alternative of not looking at my hand, therefore I am prevented >by L16 from gaining advantage by having looked at my hand. > >In my opinion, L16 is about bids and plays, making this argument just >too much of a stretch. I agree completely with that. When somebody at the table thinks, it is natural to also think about the auction and to look at your hand while you do so. The result should not be UI just because it happens to be partner's thinking that provides the time. In a different context [discovering what your own call was by looking at it when partner surprisingly alerts] some time ago I argued that information that is legally available to you just by asking or looking should never be considered UI, no matter how you actually receive it (though partner's giving the information is sometimes an infraction, possibly resulting in a L72B1 adjustment). This seems to me to be more or less the same situation: the information would be available to the player if he simply took a little time himself. Trying to determine why a player suddenly decided to look at his hand is IMO going much too far - the partner is allowed to think, the player is allowed to know his own hand, and I don't see why it should be a problem that he might not have looked at his hand if partner had not paused (or if a beautiful girl had passed by or if he had spent the time drinking his beer or ...). Time is not information; simply being given time is not UI. (Always assuming, of course, that there was nothing but time in the pause: if the pausing partner looked puzzled, for instance, that would be UI.) -- Jesper Dybdal, Denmark . http://www.dybdal.dk (in Danish). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 06:41:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JJfaV15266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:41:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JJfSt15223 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:41:29 +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 LAA17322; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:41:23 -0800 Message-Id: <200102191941.LAA17322@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:51:49 PST." <003f01c09aa5$dd5fd360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:41:22 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In American > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players in > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or owners > aim for that when having a bad season. Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson and Olajuwon). That's when the NBA decided to institute a lottery, so that all the teams that missed the playoffs would have a random drawing to decide which of them would get the first, second, etc., picks, instead of the worst team always getting the first pick. (I'm not an expert on this; my apologies if I got any details wrong.) -- 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 Feb 20 06:55:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JJsxw19400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:55:00 +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 (f5.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JJsst19396 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:54:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:54:47 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:54:46 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 11:54:46 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Feb 2001 19:54:47.0120 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFB5ED00:01C09AAD] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "Marvin L. French" >From: "Todd Zimnoch" > > >At 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: > > > >Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible >revoke? > > > > > > > >My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 > > > >(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New >Zealand, > > > >islands), > > > > Hmmm, I see it happening with some frequency here in the ACBL and it's > > supposed to be illegal? Less often than dummy asking declarer, but >still > > some frequency. > > >It's legal in ACBL-land, Todd, a permissible deviation from L61B's >wording, adopted by the ACBL (see back of the American Laws). Yes. I had skimmed and missed "; legal in". Sorry about that. Mea culpa. >Don't know why this unnecessary difference in the Laws should be available >to a Zonal Organization. That different zones have taken different options may be sufficient reason. There is no concensus, so offer choice. -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 Tue Feb 20 07:00:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JK0Jb19420 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:00:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JK0Ct19416 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:00:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id PAA24121 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:00:03 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id PAA09605 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:00:03 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:00:03 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > I just returned from the zonal championship in zone 8 (Africa) and as far as > I know defenders there are not allowed to ask each other. Thanks, Ton. Based on some later information, I now understand asking has been legal in South Africa and illegal in Egypt, both in Zone 8. Apparently the ZO hasn't met and taken a formal decision yet. This technically means, I suppose, that asking is illegal in Zone 8. I am informed that asking is illegal in Japan, which is in Zone 6. Anybody know for sure about Zones 3, 4, or 5? As to the reasons (which Marv asks for): from memory, asking used to be legal everywhere. There was sentiment to make asking illegal (in the 1987 Laws?), but the ACBL representatives were strongly opposed, so the compromise was to make it a zonal option. No doubt Grattan knows more -- and quite possibly I have some of this wrong -- but he may not feel free to comment on the deliberations. I'm fairly sure the ACBL used to have a rule that you must ask always or never; not some times and not others. Whether that regulation is still in force or not, I do not know. It certainly should be! In practice, good players follow it. Poor players sometimes don't. The same regulation ought to be in effect for dummy's asking declarer, but I don't think it ever was. My impression is that there is not likely to be worldwide uniformity any time soon. Each side thinks the other's position is not only inferior but downright crazy. But perhaps I'm wrong about that, too. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 07:15:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JKFMa19450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:15:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from sm8.texas.rr.com (sm8.texas.rr.com [24.93.35.220]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JKFFt19446 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:15:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from kevins (cs162127-108.austin.rr.com [24.162.127.108]) by sm8.texas.rr.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with SMTP id f1JKBKM16409 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:11:20 -0600 Message-ID: <000d01c09ab0$b2ed6d80$6c7fa218@austin.rr.com> From: "Kevin Perkins" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A911986.3E00C129@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] DwS - one more try Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:15:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I understand both the DwS and the DWS position on this. The only question I have about the DwS is, can it be right to use the UI given by partner in the first place? That seems to be the source of the disagreement. I have always believed that any alert or failure to alert or explaination by partner should be treated as not heard until the auction ( and possibly play, if defender) is over. If possible, bridge would be played where this information would only be transmitted to the opponents during the auction. I do have sympathy for the position that using the UI to try to prevent MI may actually benifit the opponents. Kevin Perkins ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:03 AM Subject: [BLML] DwS - one more try > David Stevenson's message (the one in which he said he did > not agree with me that L75D2 actually tells the player to > give MI) surprised me so much that I want to try once more. > > Let's invent some auction > W - N - E - S > 1NT - 2Cl - pass - 2Di > pass - 3Cl - pass - 3Di > pass - 3He - pass - 4He - all pass > > 2Cl is alerted and explained as Landy > 2Di is alerted and explained as equal length > 3Cl is alerted and explained as cue > 3Di is alerted and explained as cue > 3He and 4He are normal > > Before the opening lead, North calls the director. > He says he is not certain of their system. He was under the > impression they were playing Astro. He re-explains the > auction under that system and the hand is played. > > North turns out to have 5 hearts and 6 clubs (doubleton > spade) > 2Cl was intended as Astro (9 in hearts and a minor) > 2Di then means less than 3 hearts, at least 2 diamonds, nf > 3Cl shows 5 (probably 6) clubs > 3Di would probably be trying to sign-off > 3He is normal with void in diamonds > > Of course the opponents have an undiscovered spade fit and > 4Sp would be a better contract than 4He. > > How would be rule ? > > First of all we would need to look at the UI. > North is under the impression that he is playing Astro, and > although he explains 2Di as "equal majors", he must bid > according to Astro, in this case showing his minor. He must > interpret 3Di as within Astro. > Let's assume that he has fulfilled his obligations opposite > UI. > > Then we need to rule on the MI. > > For that, we need to establish what the system actually is. > If NS can prove they are actually playing Landy, then all > explanations were correct, and there is no MI. > > If they cannot prove Landy, then the TD will assume MI. > Quite probably the spade fit would be discovered and an AS > of 4Sp, making whatever, will be given. > > Now we come to North's "infraction" of giving MI. Since we > are assuming MI, the explanation of 2Di as "equal length" is > incorrect. Yet it is completely in accordance with the hand > of South. 3 Diamonds shows a six card suit, but if North > explains this like that to opponents, he is in fact telling > them something untrue, because South was merely showing the > Ace. > > So, while North has given MI in the legal sense of the word, > he has correctly informed the opponents of what South was > trying to express to him. > > It is hard to see how EW can claim damage from this > particular MI. > > Ah, but he was deliberately giving MI, some might say. > > To which North replies the following: > > I am fairly certain we are in fact playing Landy. My > partner is usually not wrong about such things. I thought > it was on our convention card but apparently we forgot to > bring the correct one and now we cannot prove that this is > the correct explanation. > I have not used the MI my partner has given me, and I > believe I have bid within the Astro that I was originally > thinking I was playing. > I accept that you now have to rule MI, but I do not believe > that I have acted in any unfair manner. > After all, I did explain my partner's hand perfectly, didn't > I ? > I did not know what to do when they asked me to explain 2Di, > and I thought that if I told them what it would mean in > Astro, my partner would realise I held clubs in stead of > spades. I know I am not supposed to correct my partner's > explanation, so I continued my explanation as of Landy. > > Do you really believe you can give this person some > additional PP's ? > I don't want to do so. I believe here is a player who has > tried his hardest to avoid making use of UI that he has, and > to avoid giving his partner UI. In the meantime, he has > given MI to opponents, but only in a technical sense of the > word, not in any "real" sense, as he's correctly described > partner's intention and hand. > I don't think this player is guilty of anything more than > forgetting to bring a CC to the table. > > Now as I have often stated, this is not the DwS. I am not > advocating that we rule this matter in any different way. > It is very difficult to create a case like this, and we > should not be bothered with the details. We all know the > standard to apply to the MI, and what AS to give (4SpX= or > something - south has to double when believing north has > majors) > > I am merely concerned with the advice we give to players > about how to react after their Astro has been explaned as > Landy. > We need to tell them that they should bid on in Astro. > But how should they explain partner's bidding ? > I believe they should be allowed to say "Landy". > It is what they would -correctly- answer if the system > indeed is Landy. > Why should they not be allowed to say it also when the > system turns out to be Astro after all ? > Or even when they are absolutely certain that it is indeed > Astro ? > > When ruling on the UI between the partners, we don't care if > the explanation accords to the system or not. > When explaining to players that they should bid as in Astro, > we can add that they must do this regardless of whether they > are actually playing Astro or Landy (or even transfer 2Cl). > Why then should we make it more difficult on them in our > advice about how to explain it. The DwS says : regardless of > whether you are actually playing Astro or Landy, you always > explain as in Landy. > The RotW says : explain Landy if it's Landy, Astro if it's > Astro. To which some player will undoubtedly ask : and if I > am uncertain, what then ? > Which is why I believe the DwS advice makes a lot of sense. > > One more thought struck me. > South explains "Landy" and bids 2Di. > North alerts (as he should in both Landy and Astro) > EW don't ask anything, because they know what 2Di means over > Landy. > Where's the MI now ? > Why should the case be any different when they do ask ? > > -- > Herman DE WAEL > Antwerpen Belgium > http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html > > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 07:16:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JKGC219597 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:16:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hunter2.int.kiev.ua (hunter2.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.101]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id f1JKG2t19540 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:16:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marina (ppp02.int.kiev.ua [195.123.4.102]) by hunter2.int.kiev.ua (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA09064 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:18:55 +0200 (EET) Message-ID: <007501c09ab0$f3c269a0$67047bc3@marina> From: "Sergey Kapustin" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:13:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Many thanks to David and Herman for the useful, interesting and valuable work they have done. Sergey Kapustin. > > The Appeals from the EBU Summer Congress 2000 have been published. > This is a first for the EBU! Initially the booklet has only been > published on the web. Feedback is sought, whether good or bad, and > whether from England or elsewhere! Whether a hard copy is published for > purchase in the future, whether it is produced in future years and > whether the style is right depend very much on comments received. The > booklet contains details of where to send feedback. > > Commentary is by David Stevenson, England and Herman De Wael, Belgium, > both of whom serve on World Bridge Federation Appeals Committees. Also > included is official comments by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee. > > To download your copy, please go to > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec > > -- > David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > 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 Tue Feb 20 07:38:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JKbiq27096 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:37:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1JKbYt27044 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:37:35 +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 MAA18730; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:37:29 -0800 Message-Id: <200102192037.MAA18730@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:00:03 EST." <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:37:29 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I'm fairly sure the ACBL used to have a rule that you must ask always > or never; not some times and not others. Whether that regulation is > still in force or not, I do not know. It certainly should be! I assume that by "always" you mean "unless partner previously showed out in the suit led"? I'd hope that there isn't a regulation that says that if declarer plays in spades and runs six rounds of trumps to squeeze us, that I have to ask "no spades, partner?" five times, if I ask at all. [This seems like a silly point, but some people tend to take laws and regulations hyper-literally on this list and don't allow for common-sense exceptions.] In practice, I try to ask always, other than the above, and except that I don't always ask if all thirteen cards in a suit have been visible to everyone. Thus, if we're on defense and we take the first three rounds of a suit, with everyone following to all three rounds, and then I lead the thirteenth, I won't ask anything when partner shows out. Again, this would seem like a silly time to ask, and I'd hope that no regulations would require that I ask a question in this situation. -- 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 Feb 20 07:38:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JKcHi27282 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:38:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cyberus.ca (mail.cyberus.ca [209.195.95.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JKbJt26963 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:37:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from etm1 (ip116.ts17-2.mn.dialup.ottawa.cyberus.ca [209.195.66.116]) by cyberus.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3/Cyberus Online Inc.) with SMTP id PAA12398 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:37:06 -0500 (EST) Reply-To: From: "Glen Ashton" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:34:57 -0500 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <200102191941.LAA17322@mailhub.irvine.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Also in hockey the same thing occurred the first year the Ottawa Senators played. At the hockey draft the then owner of the team revealed to the press in a off-the-record chat that he wanted the team to finish last in order to pick the most highly rated player, Alexandre Daigle. This turned stupid for two reasons. First, the reporters ignored the off-the-record rule and printed the story, causing the owner to get fined and the NHL to implement a draft lottery. Second, the number one pick, Alex Daigle, was a great bust, while the number two pick is one of the MVPs of the league. Alex was quoted at the draft that he was happy he was picked number one since nobody remembers the number two player. End of this sportsdesk update and now back to the regular program after this short commercial: Btw I will have an interview with Eric Rodwell about bidding and such posted at my web site later this week. Glen Ashton My bridge stuff: www.bridgematters.com Today's joke & news: www.fastnewsdigest.com -----Original Message----- From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au [mailto:owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au]On Behalf Of Adam Beneschan Sent: February 19, 2001 2:41 PM To: Bridge Laws Cc: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Marvin wrote: > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In American > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players in > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or owners > aim for that when having a bad season. Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson and Olajuwon). That's when the NBA decided to institute a lottery, so that all the teams that missed the playoffs would have a random drawing to decide which of them would get the first, second, etc., picks, instead of the worst team always getting the first pick. (I'm not an expert on this; my apologies if I got any details wrong.) -- 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 Tue Feb 20 08:09:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JL9TR08213 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:09:29 +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 f1JL9Mt08174 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:09:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:05:55 -0800 Message-ID: <00a401c09ab8$2f5f2b40$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" Cc: References: <200102191941.LAA17322@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 13:01:42 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Adam Beneschan" > Marvin wrote: > > > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In American > > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players in > > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or owners > > aim for that when having a bad season. > > Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a > suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years > in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson > and Olajuwon). Surely there is no one who defends what they did, if it's true. I didn't mean "all other sports and games," a possible inference. I just hate to see bridge played in the way that the Houston Rockets (perhaps) played basketball in your example. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 09:00:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JLx6C25922 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:59:06 +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 f1JLx0t25894 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:59:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.12]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA01700 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:59:00 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010220085841.01307340@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:58:41 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Markus Buchhorn Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Majordomo thinks Grattan's header is a request to change, rather than informational :-) -Markus] Grattan Endicott To: Bridge Laws Sent: 18 February 2001 17:39 Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame > Grattan Endicott wrote: > > > > > > > > We are not saying that anti-percentage actions > > > ought to be barred. We are saying that taking > > > anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort > > > to lose is not in the spirit of the game. You > > > weren't trying to lose, were you? > > > > > +=+ The subject has to do with intent, over a > > stanza/session/set of boards, to obtain > > an inferior result to opponents. Such a > > regulation does not rule out seating > > irregular partnerships, provided they then > > play the best bridge they can muster, nor > > does it affect tactical play designed to > > obtain a swing against the odds where this > > is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > If one such tactic is accepted, then why are we talking > about this in general ? > +=+ I have refrained and will refrain from commenting on the whys and wherefores. The WBF took the view that such a regulation is desirable after the Yokohama championships, as I recall. I do not understand how Edgar - closely consulted - accepted the text in its existing form. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 09:01:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JM0sk26613 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:00:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from acsys.anu.edu.au (acsys [150.203.20.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JM0nt26583 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:00:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from accordion (accordion.apac.edu.au [150.203.56.12]) by acsys.anu.edu.au (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA01727 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:00:48 +1100 (EST) Message-Id: <3.0.32.20010220090028.013005e0@acsys.anu.edu.au> X-Sender: markus@acsys.anu.edu.au X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:00:29 +1100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au (by way of Markus Buchhorn ) Subject: Re: [BLML] A new approach Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk [Another Grattan one - I've modified the filter, so hopefully I don't have to keep doing this, and Grattan doesn't have to obfuscate his header -Markus] Grattan Endicott To: 'David Stevenson' ; Sent: 19 February 2001 08:29 Subject: RE: [BLML] A new approach > I don't know why you wrote this message. Wasn't > it possible to ask my > advise? I would have told you not to change your > approach of answering, > reacting and bringing in problems. You are for > sure a very valuable and > therewith important contributor to this group. > +=+ I fully support what ton says in this message. If I have one thought it is that I find it helps to count to ten..... that is, not to comment except on purely factual matters until ten other people have already made contributions. Perhaps if everyone were to adopt this practice blml would notice the beneficial effects [ :-)) ]. +=+ > ----------------- \x/ ---------------- > Don't demand from a Dutchman > (me)for example to behave civilized (we had too > many wars against England a couple of centuries > ago), we (I) can't. > +=+ Our ancestors have a lot to answer for. But I do think one might add there were also wars in which we were allied. Amongst small nations like us quite petty squabbles became 'wars'. ~ 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 Feb 20 10:32:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JNV4k21325 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:31:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JNUut21277 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:30:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-93-90.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.93.90]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA09296 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:30:24 GMT Message-ID: <000201c09acc$01ed2ae0$5a5d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:29:01 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott Please take note of the change in my 'gester' address. This second address is no longer with globalnet. The address is now:- gester@lineone.net <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:00 PM Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B ----------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > As to the reasons (which Marv asks for): from memory, asking used to be > legal everywhere. There was sentiment to make asking illegal (in the > 1987 Laws?), but the ACBL representatives were strongly opposed, so the > compromise was to make it a zonal option. No doubt Grattan knows more > -- and quite possibly I have some of this wrong -- but he may not feel > free to comment on the deliberations. > ------------------- \x/ --------------------- +=+ I have not been to my file to check details. However, my 'sure' recollection 'off the top of my head', is that Geoffrey Butler (British) originally put this forward in connection with the 1975 Laws (he was then Chairman of the WBF International Laws Commission). The proposal was not adopted and went into hibernation. In the lead-up to the 1987 Laws it was the ACBL party that brought the suggestion back to the table. Their recommendation was generally welcomed and it was written into the new Code (without any option*). For a while that was it, but then we learnt that the ACBL had been forced early to give way to strong opposition from its players - I do not know how they handled that exactly - and they wanted to undo what they themselves had proposed and done. By this time the practice was established in Europe and the EBL element was not willing to go back. The introduction of the option was agreed. There is one further mention of the item in WBFLC minutes. In 1994 at Albuquerque referring to the final sentence of Law 61B, by that time worded as now, the committee minuted: "It was agreed not to change this Law; ACBL members present felt there was a prospect that over an extended period they could introduce the 'European' treatment into their highest level competitions (as they have done in trials) and gradually extend its scope to progressively lower levels." Geoffrey Butler's original aim was to stop players using the enquiry, made in tones of surprise, to draw partner's attention to an unexpected number of the suit with declarer or whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ { * "Defenders may ask declarer but not one another." } -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 10:39:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JNdIu24196 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:39:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JNdAt24192 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:39:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-32-246.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.32.246]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA13972; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:38:04 GMT Message-ID: <001001c09acd$13f26600$5a5d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Markus Buchhorn" Cc: References: <3.0.32.20010220085841.01307340@acsys.anu.edu.au> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:33:25 -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 <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Markus Buchhorn To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 9:58 PM Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame > > [Majordomo thinks Grattan's header is a request to change, rather than > informational :-) -Markus] > +=+ Oh dear. Apologies. It has gone now. +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 10:55:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1JNtSe24229 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:55:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1JNtLt24225 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:55:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-69-5.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.69.5]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA23029 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:54:51 GMT Message-ID: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: Fw: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:54:31 -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 "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans." - Prince Otto von Bismarck <==-==> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Steve Willner > To: > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:00 PM > Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B > > ----------------------- \x/ -------------------- > > > > As to the reasons (which Marv asks for): from memory, asking used > to be > > legal everywhere. There was sentiment to make asking illegal (in > the > > 1987 Laws?), but the ACBL representatives were strongly opposed, > so the > > compromise was to make it a zonal option. No doubt Grattan knows > more > > -- and quite possibly I have some of this wrong -- but he may not > feel > > free to comment on the deliberations. > > > ------------------- \x/ --------------------- > +=+ I have not been to my file to check details. > However, my 'sure' recollection 'off the top of my > head', is that Geoffrey Butler (British) originally > put this forward in connection with the 1975 > Laws (he was then Chairman of the WBF > International Laws Commission). The proposal > was not adopted and went into hibernation. > In the lead-up to the 1987 Laws it was the > ACBL party that brought the suggestion back > to the table. Their recommendation was > generally welcomed and it was written into the > new Code (without any option*). For a while that > was it, but then we learnt that the ACBL had > been forced early to give way to strong > opposition from its players - I do not know how > they handled that exactly - and they wanted > to undo what they themselves had proposed > and done. By this time the practice was > established in Europe and the EBL element > was not willing to go back. The introduction of > the option was agreed. > There is one further mention of the item > in WBFLC minutes. In 1994 at Albuquerque > referring to the final sentence of Law 61B, by > that time worded as now, the committee > minuted: "It was agreed not to change this > Law; ACBL members present felt there was > a prospect that over an extended period they > could introduce the 'European' treatment > into their highest level competitions (as they > have done in trials) and gradually extend its > scope to progressively lower levels." > Geoffrey Butler's original aim was to stop > players using the enquiry, made in tones of > surprise, to draw partner's attention to an > unexpected number of the suit with declarer > or whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > { * "Defenders may ask declarer but not > one another." } > > > > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 11:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K0qcb24329 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:52:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K0qWt24325 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:52:32 +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 TAA15642 for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:52:28 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id TAA10049 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:52:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:52:27 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102200052.TAA10049@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Adam Beneschan > I assume that by "always" you mean "unless partner previously showed > out in the suit led"? I don't have the text of the regulation, but I'd assume it means only once in each suit. After all, if partner revoked the first time, it's too late! > ...except > that I don't always ask if all thirteen cards in a suit have been > visible to everyone. I believe it is correct to ask even in that case; I certainly do so. I will have a problem if I ever have the pleasure of playing outside Zone 2 or 7. It has been a bit of an effort to train myself to _always_ ask, and I'm not sure how easy it will be to refrain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 11:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K0suk24352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:54:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.172]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K0snt24348 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:54:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from modem-207.elrohir.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.187.207] helo=default) by cmailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14V14m-0004X6-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:54:45 +0000 Message-ID: <000901c09ad7$e9af4d80$cfbb883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:55:35 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In UK, I use the "simple" format.........declarer can ask anybody, and anybody can ask declarer ( if they are stupid enough ( as defenders)) Larry ----- Original Message ----- From: Grattan Endicott To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 11:54 PM Subject: Fw: [BLML] L61B | Grattan Endicott | "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will | come out of some damned silly thing in the | Balkans." - Prince Otto von Bismarck | <==-==> | > | > ----- Original Message ----- | > From: Steve Willner | > To: | > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 8:00 PM | > Subject: RE: [BLML] L61B | > | > ----------------------- \x/ -------------------- | > > | > > As to the reasons (which Marv asks for): from memory, asking | used | > to be | > > legal everywhere. There was sentiment to make asking illegal | (in | > the | > > 1987 Laws?), but the ACBL representatives were strongly opposed, | > so the | > > compromise was to make it a zonal option. No doubt Grattan | knows | > more | > > -- and quite possibly I have some of this wrong -- but he may | not | > feel | > > free to comment on the deliberations. | > > | > ------------------- \x/ --------------------- | > +=+ I have not been to my file to check details. | > However, my 'sure' recollection 'off the top of my | > head', is that Geoffrey Butler (British) originally | > put this forward in connection with the 1975 | > Laws (he was then Chairman of the WBF | > International Laws Commission). The proposal | > was not adopted and went into hibernation. | > In the lead-up to the 1987 Laws it was the | > ACBL party that brought the suggestion back | > to the table. Their recommendation was | > generally welcomed and it was written into the | > new Code (without any option*). For a while that | > was it, but then we learnt that the ACBL had | > been forced early to give way to strong | > opposition from its players - I do not know how | > they handled that exactly - and they wanted | > to undo what they themselves had proposed | > and done. By this time the practice was | > established in Europe and the EBL element | > was not willing to go back. The introduction of | > the option was agreed. | > There is one further mention of the item | > in WBFLC minutes. In 1994 at Albuquerque | > referring to the final sentence of Law 61B, by | > that time worded as now, the committee | > minuted: "It was agreed not to change this | > Law; ACBL members present felt there was | > a prospect that over an extended period they | > could introduce the 'European' treatment | > into their highest level competitions (as they | > have done in trials) and gradually extend its | > scope to progressively lower levels." | > Geoffrey Butler's original aim was to stop | > players using the enquiry, made in tones of | > surprise, to draw partner's attention to an | > unexpected number of the suit with declarer | > or whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ | > | > { * "Defenders may ask declarer but not | > one another." } | > | > | > | > | | -- | ======================================== ================================ | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 20 13:20:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K2HSk24487 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:17:28 +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 f1K2HIt24468 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:17:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14V2MZ-000MJw-0V; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:17:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 02:15:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Cc: NAKATANI Tadayoshi From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B References: <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner writes >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> I just returned from the zonal championship in zone 8 (Africa) and as far as >> I know defenders there are not allowed to ask each other. > >Thanks, Ton. > >Based on some later information, I now understand asking has been legal >in South Africa and illegal in Egypt, both in Zone 8. Apparently the >ZO hasn't met and taken a formal decision yet. This technically means, >I suppose, that asking is illegal in Zone 8. > >I am informed that asking is illegal in Japan, which is in Zone 6. > I have this from Nakatani-san, General Sec of the JCBL when I was enquiring about the Japanese Ladies game. He commented that revoke enquiries were not permitted in Japan, same as Europe. cheers john >Anybody know for sure about Zones 3, 4, or 5? copy Nakatani-san for information and perhaps comment -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 14:02:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K32FQ26059 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1K329t26055 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:02:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14V341-000JCe-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:02:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:01:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B References: <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <200102192000.PAA09605@cfa183.harvard.edu>, Steve Willner > writes >>> From: "Kooijman, A." >>> I just returned from the zonal championship in zone 8 (Africa) and as far as >>> I know defenders there are not allowed to ask each other. >> >>Thanks, Ton. >> >>Based on some later information, I now understand asking has been legal >>in South Africa and illegal in Egypt, both in Zone 8. Apparently the >>ZO hasn't met and taken a formal decision yet. This technically means, >>I suppose, that asking is illegal in Zone 8. >> >>I am informed that asking is illegal in Japan, which is in Zone 6. >> >I have this from Nakatani-san, General Sec of the JCBL when I was >enquiring about the Japanese Ladies game. He commented that revoke >enquiries were not permitted in Japan, same as Europe. > >cheers john >>Anybody know for sure about Zones 3, 4, or 5? > >copy Nakatani-san for information and perhaps comment Further and better information re Zone 6. I attach a response received from Nakatani-san within 1/2 an hour of posting the above. [start quote] Hi John, Thank you for the interesting information. As far as Zone 6 (PABF-Pacific Asia Bridge Federation) is concerned, at the Zonal Conference held in Hangzhou, China in 1999, Zone 6 has RECONFIRMED its position concerning the revoke inqury by defenders; 1. At Zone 6 Championships, defenders are not allowed to ask each other. 2. NCBOs in Zone 6 may designate otherwise at its discretion. In most Zone 6 countries, asking is illegal, but I am not surprised to find some NCBOs where asking is legal (I have not investigated so I don't know if such NCBO(s) exist). Regards, Nakatani Tadayoshi JCBL [end quote] -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 20 14:36:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K3ZgE04379 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:35:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r01.mx.aol.com (imo-r01.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K3Zat04348 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:35:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id b.b3.753888e (6622); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:35:14 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:35:13 EST Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame To: mlfrench@writeme.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b3.753888e.27c33ff1_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 352 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_b3.753888e.27c33ff1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While the objective to finish last in the league was not widely defended, it was suggested then [as has been suggested here] that it is reasonable to write the rules so that doing what is in your own best interest is in accordance with the rules and also in accordance with what is considered to be ethical. In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were changed to make it in the best interests of any team to finish as high as possible in the league standings. I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with this objective in mind. Walt Flory ________ In a message dated 2/19/01 4:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > From: "Adam Beneschan" > > > Marvin wrote: > > > > > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In > American > > > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players > in > > > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or > owners > > > aim for that when having a bad season. > > > > Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a > > suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years > > in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson > > and Olajuwon). > > Surely there is no one who defends what they did, if it's true. > > I didn't mean "all other sports and games," a possible inference. I just > hate to see bridge played in the way that the Houston Rockets (perhaps) > played basketball in your example. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > --part1_b3.753888e.27c33ff1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit While the objective to finish last in the league was not widely defended, it
was suggested then [as has been suggested here] that it is reasonable to
write the rules so that doing what is in your own best interest is in
accordance with the rules and also in accordance with what is considered to
be ethical.

In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were changed to
make it in the best interests of any team to finish as high as possible in
the league standings.

I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with this
objective in mind.

Walt Flory
________


In a message dated 2/19/01 4:37:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:


From: "Adam Beneschan"

> Marvin wrote:
>
> > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In
American
> > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players
in
> > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or
owners
> > aim for that when having a bad season.
>
> Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a
> suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years
> in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson
> and Olajuwon).

Surely there is no one who defends what they did, if it's true.

I didn't mean "all other sports and games," a possible inference. I just
hate to see bridge played in the way that the Houston Rockets (perhaps)
played basketball in your example.

Marv
Marvin L. French, ISPE
San Diego, CA, USA


--part1_b3.753888e.27c33ff1_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 15:16:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K4GGV13311 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:16:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1K4GAt13275 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:16:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:12:43 -0800 Message-ID: <00e801c09af3$cff5d960$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:14:56 -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: "Grattan Endicott" > Geoffrey Butler's original aim was to stop > > players using the enquiry, made in tones of > > surprise, to draw partner's attention to an > > unexpected number of the suit with declarer > > or whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > There is a second objection to the practice: One doesn't help partner during the bidding or play (L16), and the inquiry does just that. Once it is denied defenders for two reasons, it should be denied dummy even if one of those reasons doesn't apply. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 15:26:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K4QQo13433 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:26:26 +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 f1K4QKt13429 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:26:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:22:52 -0800 Message-ID: <010201c09af5$3abb6ac0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:17:23 -0800 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk From: "Grattan Endicott" > > There is one further mention of the item > > in WBFLC minutes. In 1994 at Albuquerque > > referring to the final sentence of Law 61B, by > > that time worded as now, the committee > > minuted: "It was agreed not to change this > > Law; ACBL members present felt there was > > a prospect that over an extended period they > > could introduce the 'European' treatment > > into their highest level competitions (as they > > have done in trials) and gradually extend its > > scope to progressively lower levels." To my knowledge, there has been no such effort to introduce the "European" treatment in ACBL-land. Helping partner is contrary to the spirit of the game (and to L16), and any Law that allows it, even as an option, should be changed. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 15:36:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K4ZsZ13453 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1K4Zmt13449 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:35:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:32:21 -0800 Message-ID: <011801c09af6$8e0fb400$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: Cc: References: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 20:35:23 -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 Walt Flory wrote: > While the objective to finish last in the league was not widely defended, it > was suggested then [as has been suggested here] that it is reasonable to > write the rules so that doing what is in your own best interest is in > accordance with the rules and also in accordance with what is considered to > be ethical. > > In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were changed to > make it in the best interests of any team to finish as high as possible in > the league standings. > > I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with this > objective in mind. Of course. But nobody would, I hope, condone the deliberate loss of games before those rules were in place. The new rules did not say deliberately losing was okay, they just made it unprofitable to do so. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 16:04:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K544L23174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:04:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r14.mx.aol.com (imo-r14.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.68]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K53ot23099 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:03:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from Howardpup@aol.com by imo-r14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.c5.e251c1c (7381) for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:03:29 -0500 (EST) From: Howardpup@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:03:29 EST Subject: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 127 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk If this is an inappropriate forum for my questiion, please ignore it, or refer me elsewhere. Today, playing in the first round of a very heterogenous ACBL "sectional" open pairs, I pick up Axx, Axx, K, AQxxxx. Playing old-fashioned Blue Team, I judge this not to meet our "17 point hand that we like" criterion for opening one club, so I open 2C (11-16 HCP, typically six good clubs.) Partner bids 2D, artificial, asking. I bid 2NT showing two side suits stopped. Partner asks with 3D and I show both majors with 3NT. After a 5-minute huddle, partner -- a conservative expert who doesn't take wild shots in weak fields -- bids 6C. Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the hesitation imply? My thought was that the 6C bid (when 4C would have been forcing), showed the diamond ace (since I could have two losing diamonds in the suit likely to be led), probably both major suit kings, and maybe queens, since my stopper in either major could be Qxx, plus the club king. This makes 7C easy, and I bid it. At no previous point in our auction could I have described extra values. If he had taken a shot with KQxx, KQxx, x, Kxxxx, I'd go down. this is the only hand type I can think of where I wouldn't have a very odds-on play for seven. Later, I asked one of the opponents (a pro and occasional teammate) if he thought 7C was clear and he responded that without the hitch, he would bid 7C without much thought; but, if the hesitation might have indicated a decision between bidding 6 and trying for 7, he would pass. Partner held Q, KQx, Axxx, KJxxx. Not that it's relevant, but he says his thoughts were whether to pass 3NT, try for slam, or bid 6C. Finally, he decided we would make anytime I held three spades, and took his shot. Could this be one of those cases where the hesitation could be the problem, no matter what I do? If I pass, couldn't one argue that the hesitation might have indicated a wild shot, on something like KQx, KQxx, x, KJxxx? If so, should I then be forced to bid 7, since he might have held his actual hand? Thanks in advance for your input. Ed Shapiro -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 16:43:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K5gxt09841 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:42:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1K5gpt09807 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:42:52 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-38ldlcn.dialup.mindspring.com [209.86.213.151]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA28152 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:42:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A92054F.ACA8D245@mindspring.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:49:03 -0800 From: "John R. Mayne" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Howardpup@aol.com wrote: > > If this is an inappropriate forum for my questiion, please ignore it, or > refer me elsewhere. Try rec.games.bridge for straight-ahead questions of this ilk. Not that you won't get opinions, even on the easy ones, here. And I think this is likely easy. > > Today, playing in the first round of a very heterogenous ACBL "sectional" > open pairs, I pick up Axx, Axx, K, AQxxxx. > > Playing old-fashioned Blue Team, I judge this not to meet our "17 point hand > that we like" criterion for opening one club, so I open 2C (11-16 HCP, > typically six good clubs.) Partner bids 2D, artificial, asking. I bid 2NT > showing two side suits stopped. Partner asks with 3D and I show both majors > with 3NT. After a 5-minute huddle, partner -- a conservative expert who > doesn't take wild shots in weak fields -- bids 6C. > > Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the hesitation > imply? Without knowing more about your partnership -- and I'd ask some questions -- here's my take. The hesitation tells you that partner does not have a clear-cut decision. A 5-minute huddle is extraordinary, and indicates partner has an unusually difficult decision, probably choice of both strain and level problems. What call does the hesitation suggest? I submit -- and believe we will likely get a tremendous majority, if not unanimity on this position -- that there's no way in hell you can figure out what partner is thinking about. There's no means of differentiating whether he's overreached already or was thinking about a grand. > > My thought was that the 6C bid (when 4C would have been forcing), showed the > diamond ace (since I could have two losing diamonds in the suit likely to be > led), probably both major suit kings, and maybe queens, since my stopper in > either major could be Qxx, plus the club king. This makes 7C easy, and I bid > it. I wouldn't have, but I think 6C should be pass-or-die on this sequence. C'est la vie. At no previous point in our auction could I have described extra values. > If he had taken a shot with KQxx, KQxx, x, Kxxxx, I'd go down. I can't imagine he'd have this even with one fewer major suit card. Surely you've got some better asking methods for aces. How about KQJx KQ ATxxx Jx? this is the > only hand type I can think of where I wouldn't have a very odds-on play for > seven. > > Later, I asked one of the opponents (a pro and occasional teammate) if he > thought 7C was clear and he responded that without the hitch, he would bid 7C > without much thought; but, if the hesitation might have indicated a decision > between bidding 6 and trying for 7, he would pass. > > Partner held Q, KQx, Axxx, KJxxx. Not that it's relevant, but he says his > thoughts were whether to pass 3NT, try for slam, or bid 6C. Finally, he > decided we would make anytime I held three spades, and took his shot. > > Could this be one of those cases where the hesitation could be the problem, > no matter what I do? If I pass, couldn't one argue that the hesitation might > have indicated a wild shot, on something like KQx, KQxx, x, KJxxx? If so, > should I then be forced to bid 7, since he might have held his actual hand? No, you have to determine that the hesitation suggests one alternative over another. Here, about the only thing that might be barred is some sort of wandering try for NT or another suit (6H, say), but my rudimentary knowledge of Blue Club indicates even that's a weak case. Hope this helps. --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 Feb 20 17:32:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K6Vff19109 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:31:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K6VZt19105 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:31:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.55.73] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14V6Kg-0004Ra-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:31:31 +0000 Message-ID: <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:31:15 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper wrote: > Time is not information; simply being given time is not UI. > > (Always assuming, of course, that there was nothing but time in the > pause: if the pausing partner looked puzzled, for instance, that would > be UI.) But (at least in the better circles), when someone bids Blackwood, one expects him to know what he is going to do over the various responses that he might receive - he will sign off in tempo if there are not enough key cards, he will bid on if there are. Thus, when a player signs off slowly, there is *always* the inference that he has been surprised by the response (unless he is using Hesitation Blackwood, in which case his side is cheating anyway). This inference is UI, and may not be used for any purpose, as Jesper correctly points out. Suppose this communication took place between partners: "How many aces do you have?" "None." "Are you sure? I'd have thought you had at least one for your bidding. Look at your hand again." "Oh, sorry - I do have one after all." Now, if this conversation were actually to occur, I do not think that there is anyone who would regard it as legal. But when a player bids Blackwood, gets a no-ace response, signs off slowly, and gets a one-ace continuation, this conversation has for practical purposes actually taken place. 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 Feb 20 17:56:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K6uJY19148 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:56:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from imo-r18.mx.aol.com (imo-r18.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.72]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1K6uDt19144 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:56:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from WSFlory@aol.com by imo-r18.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v29.5.) id 7.f6.77b618a (4404); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:55:54 -0500 (EST) From: WSFlory@aol.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 01:55:53 EST Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_f6.77b618a.27c36ef9_boundary" Content-Disposition: Inline X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 357 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk --part1_f6.77b618a.27c36ef9_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Marv, I have great empathy for your position. However, all of us want to win, and I for one do not relish having to decide whether or not to give up a legal advantage which a competitor is free to use. I do not want to take unfair advantage of an opponent; I routinely go the extra mile in providing full disclosure of all partnership agreements. If someone has a physical or mental handicap that contributes to their dropping a card, by all means I am fully in favor of leniency and not taking unfair advantage of the situation. But, let's try to write the laws in such a way that no one routinely has to do more than the laws require in order to be or feel ethical. The laws should be written so that following them involves ethical dilemmas as seldom as humanly possible. Walt Flory ________ In a message dated 2/19/01 11:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, mfrench1@san.rr.com writes: > > Walt Flory wrote: > > > > > While the objective to finish last in the league was not widely > defended, it > > was suggested then [as has been suggested here] that it is reasonable to > > write the rules so that doing what is in your own best interest is in > > accordance with the rules and also in accordance with what is considered > to > > be ethical. > > > > In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were > changed to > > make it in the best interests of any team to finish as high as possible > in > > the league standings. > > > > I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with > this > > objective in mind. > > Of course. But nobody would, I hope, condone the deliberate loss of games > before those rules were in place. The new rules did not say deliberately > losing was okay, they just made it unprofitable to do so. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > --part1_f6.77b618a.27c36ef9_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Marv, I have great empathy for your position. However, all of us want to win,
and I for one do not relish having to decide whether or not to give up a
legal advantage which a competitor is free to use.

I do not want to take unfair advantage of an opponent; I routinely go the
extra mile in providing full disclosure of all partnership agreements.

If someone has a physical or mental handicap that contributes to their
dropping a card, by all means I am fully in favor of leniency and not taking
unfair advantage of the situation.

But, let's try to write the laws in such a way that no one routinely has to
do more than the laws require in order to be or feel ethical. The laws should
be written so that following them involves ethical dilemmas as seldom as
humanly possible.

Walt Flory
________



In a message dated 2/19/01 11:56:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mfrench1@san.rr.com writes:



Walt Flory wrote:



> While the objective to finish last in the league was not widely
defended, it
> was suggested then [as has been suggested here] that it is reasonable to
> write the rules so that doing what is in your own best interest is in
> accordance with the rules and also in accordance with what is considered
to
> be ethical.
>
> In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were
changed to
> make it in the best interests of any team to finish as high as possible
in
> the league standings.
>
> I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with
this
> objective in mind.

Of course. But nobody would, I hope, condone the deliberate loss of games
before those rules were in place. The new rules did not say deliberately
losing was okay, they just made it unprofitable to do so.

Marv
Marvin L. French, ISPE
San Diego, CA, USA


--part1_f6.77b618a.27c36ef9_boundary-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 18:59:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K7wrX19236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:58:53 +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 f1K7wkt19231 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:58:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-50-68.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.50.68]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id HAA29234; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:58:14 GMT Message-ID: <003401c09b12$f3d7d9e0$44327bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "John R. Mayne" Cc: References: <3A92054F.ACA8D245@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 07:57:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans." - Prince Otto von Bismarck <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: John R. Mayne Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 5:49 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? > > > Howardpup@aol.com wrote: > > > > > Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the > > hesitation imply? > > Without knowing more about your partnership -- and I'd ask some > questions -- here's my take. > > The hesitation tells you that partner does not have a clear-cut > decision. A 5-minute huddle is extraordinary, and indicates > partner has an unusually difficult decision, probably choice of > both strain and level problems. > > What call does the hesitation suggest? I submit -- and believe we > will likely get a tremendous majority, if not unanimity on this > position -- that there's no way in hell you can figure out what > partner is thinking about. There's no means of differentiating > whether he's overreached already or was thinking about a grand. > +=+ My early reaction is to agree. In which case h-pup has no UI that suggests one call over another and may do what he likes. [I would fear an AC might follow the 'if there's a hesitation shoot it' trend.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ p.s. have not counted to ten because I am going on a trip today. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 20:42:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1K9gCu19369 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:42:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1K9g5t19365 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:42:05 +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 KAA11248; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:38:04 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id KAA05842; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:41:45 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010220104400.0083b270@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:44:00 +0100 To: "David Burn" , "Bridge Laws Discussion List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:31 20/02/01 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Suppose this communication took place between partners: > >"How many aces do you have?" >"None." >"Are you sure? I'd have thought you had at least one for your bidding. >Look at your hand again." >"Oh, sorry - I do have one after all." > >Now, if this conversation were actually to occur, I do not think that >there is anyone who would regard it as legal. But when a player bids >Blackwood, gets a no-ace response, signs off slowly, and gets a one-ace >continuation, this conversation has for practical purposes actually >taken place. AG : perhaps you are right on the principle, but I find the argument misguided. Let me mimic it, using as much as possible : Suppose this communication took place between partners : "Do you have 4 hearts ?" "Nope" "Do you have 4 spades, then ?" "Hmm, yes, I have them" Now, if this conversation were were actually to occur, I do not think that there is anyone who would regard it as legal. But when a player uses Romex-Puppet, and bids 2NT-3C-3D-3H-3S, this conversation has for practical purposes actually taken place. If one were to follow your argument, using relay bidding would be illegal. Note that, on these precise grounds, some early experts suggested the banishment of Blackwood and Aking Bids. I repeat, this does not mean that the case is the same, only that I can't accept the argument. Regards, Alain. >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 Tue Feb 20 21:30:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KAUP619437 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:30:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KAUEt19433 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:30:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.96.93] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14VA3d-00024S-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:30:10 +0000 Message-ID: <02c201c09b28$14045800$334c01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3.0.6.32.20010220104400.0083b270@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:29:58 -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 Alain wrote: > AG : perhaps you are right on the principle, but I find the argument > misguided. > Let me mimic it, using as much as possible : > > Suppose this communication took place between partners : > > "Do you have 4 hearts ?" > "Nope" > "Do you have 4 spades, then ?" > "Hmm, yes, I have them" > > Now, if this conversation were were actually to occur, I do not think that > there is anyone who would regard it as legal. > But when a player uses Romex-Puppet, and bids 2NT-3C-3D-3H-3S, this > conversation has for practical purposes actually taken place. > > If one were to follow your argument, using relay bidding would be illegal. Not at all. The flaw in your analogy is that a certain type of communication between partners is legal - in fact, precisely that communication which can be effected entirely by means of calls or plays. If all of an imaginary "conversation" will translate into calls or plays that are made without inflection and in unvarying tempo, then that "conversation" is permitted. Hence: "How many aces do you have?" "None." is a permissible conversation provided that it is carried out in these terms: "4NT" "5C" (devotees of Edwin Kantar may substitute "5D" in the above.) Similarly: "do you have hearts?"; "no"; "do you have spades?"; "yes"; is a conversation that can be carried out in these terms: "3C"; "3D"; "3H"; 3S"; and is therefore legal. What is not legal in the example under discussion is: "4NT" ( = "aces?") "5C" (= "none") Pause (= "are you sure about that?") followed by "5H" ( = "what a shame") "6H" ( = "just as well you gave me another chance to check my hand, partner") The reason that this is illegal, obviously, is that the third message is communicated other than by means of a call or play. One of the reasons why this question has engendered considerable discussion is that people have insisted upon the (rather trivial) point that the contents of one's hand can never be UI. That may very well be true, but it is not relevant. The matter has little to do with whether the contents of one's hand are UI, but with whether illegal communication between partners has taken place, and whether the partnership has derived advantage therefrom. 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 Feb 20 21:34:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KAXuS19457 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:33:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KAXnt19453 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:33:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-229.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.229]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1KAXh712033 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:33:44 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A915197.D98102F7@village.uunet.be> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 18:02:15 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Screens ? who needs them ! References: <3.0.6.32.20010219152601.0085c100@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 10:56 18/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >The main culprit of this story is a director, as well ! > > AG : I guess I know his name ... But directors are people, after all. > Yes they are. > No, I don't think you do - this was against Forum. It was Stan from Uzbekistan, but you won't know that nickname. > > 1Di not accepted > > 1Di pass 1Sp > > (obl. pass) 2Sp pass 4Sp > > (obl. pass) pass pass > > > > >The contract trickles 4 down, as the hands were : > > > > K 10 8 4 > > Q > > K 8 4 3 > > 10 8 4 3 > > Q 9 2 5 > > J 9 4 2 A 10 6 > > Q 9 A J 10 6 5 2 > > K Q J 2 A 7 5 > > A J 7 6 3 > > K 8 7 5 3 > > 7 > > 9 6 > > > >Is there anything I've overlooked ? > >I did mention and dismiss L23. > > Ag : you've forgotten at least one thing. > Telling us how the contract went down four ... > More than two down would be strange, on any lead. > Then please don't talk about the deal to a certain husband and wife team that you know well. > This would not be a catastrophic result for N/Q, since their oppoennts can > make a partscore in diamonds (I guess the final contract would have been > either 3S -1 or 4D = after 'normal' bidding). 4H is a possible contract, > but difficult to reach. > The man you thought was this, was at the other table in 3Di making 4. -- 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 Feb 20 21:57:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KAulM19749 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:56:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KAuft19716 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:56:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.96.93] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14VATE-0001y5-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:56:36 +0000 Message-ID: <02ee01c09b2b$c5a99c20$334c01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> <003401c09999$49bf6560$1b41063e@dodona> <3A9008BC.FA16F9E2@village.uunet.be> <003f01c09aa5$dd5fd360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:56:24 -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 > There is a big difference between "playing your best" (i.e., when bidding > or playing your cards) and "doing your best" in the event. Quite so. The following politically incorrect anecdote illustrates the difference very well. Husband, returning home at three in the morning: "Pack your bags, wife, I've just lost you in a bridge game." Wife: "How could you do such a thing?" Husband: "It wasn't easy. I had to pass out a hand with thirteen spades." 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 Feb 20 22:59:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBxBJ06125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:11 +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-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 f1KBx0t06112 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:01 +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 14VBPU-00005d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:22:21 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <000b01c095fb$47cb2740$8cb01fc4@l2k5q2> In-Reply-To: <000b01c095fb$47cb2740$8cb01fc4@l2k5q2> 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 f1KBx6t06117 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rusty Court writes > This is my annual crawling out of my lurkers hidey-hole. >   > The bidding has been completed, the lead faced and dummy has been > spread. > It now becomes obvious that someone has incorrect cards. It turns > out that > declarer has a hand from the other board (two board rounds). The TD > rules that the board is unplayable (L12A2) and awards an ArtAS of > Av+\Av- > in terms of L12C1. >   > This happened last night but I received a telephone call this > afternoon from > the TD to say that one of the defenders had said that she knew all > along > that the offending player had taken cards from the wrong board, > what should > he do? I advised him to leave the Av- for the declaring side, > revert the defenders > Av+ to average and award them a procedural penalty for not drawing > attention > to this fact at the earliest opportunity. I believe that the board > could have been > salvaged if that had been done. (I think this fact came to light > today) >   > Now that I have had time to look at the FLB, I believe that this is > the correct > course. The board has become unplayable (L12A2) and warrants as > ArtAS > (L12C1) but what about the defenders, specifically the defender who > was > aware of the situation? >   > Although L9A1 only says "....any player *may* call attention to an > irregularity..." > (my emphasis), it does not specifically require it. L9B1a says > that "The Director > must be summoned at once when attention has been drawn to an > irregularity." > I don't want to get drawn into the semantics of "...when attention > has been...", > but obviously an irregularity had come to this defenders attention > and that player > is guilty of not calling the Director and so defenders are liable > to forfeiture of their > rights, L11A. Not true. L9A1 does not require anyone to draw attention to an irregularity. Would you refuse to give a revoke penalty because the player did not mention it at the time? No, and there is an enormous amount of case law to prove that L9A1 not only does not say you have to call the Director but also means it. L11A does not seem relevant either. It is always interpreted to act as a method of stopping people from gaining from knowledge of the Law when an irregularity is known: that is not the case here. > L11C talks about the Directors right to assess a procedural > penalty. This law > does not specify the recipient of the penalty but, presumably, it > is intended > for an offender, not a non-oiffender(!), so I would use L90A to > issue a procedural > penalty, and quite a substantial one, to the defenders, for several > of the reasons > suggested in that law. Why? What has the player done wrong? In many situations a player can gain from allowing his opponents to fall foul of the Law. In every other situation we permit it - in this specific case you want to make it illegal. why? When someone did not try to gain from the Law at Cap Gemini many people on this list were scathing: here you do not like it where someone has tried to gain. Let's be consistent! -- 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 Feb 20 22:59:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBx4Q06116 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:04 +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-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 f1KBwvt06108 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:58:58 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBPd-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:03 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:43:33 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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 >alain gottcheiner wrote: >> At 03:51 14/02/01 -0800, Hirsch Davis wrote: >>??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the wrong >>board must be cancelled. LHO has called over the cancelled call and an >>artificial adjusted score must be awarded. 17D allows no other options, >>certainly not playing out the hand in the contract reached in this manner. > >AG : this only applies to the case where the irregularity is discovered >during the bidding (see the title). >After the dummy is spread, the board is to be played. It does not say that in my Law book. The title is "Cards from Wrong Board" which still applies after play has started. Nowhere in L17D does it refer to whether play has started. -------- Tim West-meads writes >Because that is not what "inadvertent" means in bridge. If I bid 5C >believing that it shows 0/3 aces and then realise that I should have bid >5D to show 0/3 my bid is not inadvertent and I will not be permitted to >correct under 25a. The bid is "mistaken" not inadvertent. I see no >reason why it should be different if I pull the cards from the wrong board >*believing them to be from the right one*. Again it is mistaken rather >than inadvertent. Inadvertent is limited to mechanical, not mental, >errors. Why? If I draw cards from the wrong board, are you telling me I intended to draw them from the wrong board? if not it is inadvertent. Even if what you said was right as far as English goes, do you really believe that the Lawmakers put L17D in to be used only in these strange cases where you think it applies, and in no other case - and provided no Law for the other cases? You would not be trying to wind BLML up deliberately, would you now, Tim? -------- Hirsch Davis writes >All of which leads back to a question that continues to bother me: If a >player is not obligated to stop an opponent's infraction (and so far we have >not come across a law that creates this obligation), is it proper to assign >him partial blame for making the board unplayable at all? His opponent >committed a clear infraction- he violated no Laws. What are his obligations >under the Laws in this situation, that we will assign him partial blame for >the unplayable board if he does not perform them? > >It feels right to assign partial blame, but is it actually correct? No, why? Do you assign partial blame to someone who sees a revoke but waits for it to be established before drawing attention? -- 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 Feb 20 23:00:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBx1K06113 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:01 +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 f1KBwit06106 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:58:54 +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 14VBPh-00005d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:05 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:53:29 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] mistimed double References: <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be> In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010215111711.0084ede0@pop.ulb.ac.be> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk alain gottcheiner writes >Dear blmlists, > >I was involved in a strange case on which I would very much appreciate your >opinion. To put things mildly, the incident is not over now (1 week time). > > QJx > Jx > QJxx > KJ9x > > 10xx K9x > xx xxx > 1098xx Kxx > xxx Q108x > > A8xx > AKQ10xx > A > Ax > > W N E S > > p 1C(1) > 1S(2) D(3) 2D(4) X(5) > p 3NT p 6H > >East dealer, N/S vul > >(1) strong or mini-NT >(2) 3+ spades, 5+ minor >(3) 7+ HCP, more or less balanced >(4) P/C >(5) takeout > >After the routine bidding sequence %-), West leads D10, small, small, Ace. >South plays three trumps, then a spade towards QJ, looks a little bit >surprised when the King takes the trick. East plays a spade back. Now, >South takes in dummy, plays DQ, East plays low smoothly, South ruffs. One >more trump (East discards her last spade), then the Ace of spades and a >last trump. The situation is now : > > -- > -- > J > KJx > > -- -- > -- -- > 98 K > xx Q10x > > x > x > -- > Ax > >As you can see, the four last tricks are South's, but he didn't notice the >spade discard, and is still under the influence of the 1S bid. Now he >thinks a long time before discarding from dummy. Reading South's tempo >wrongly, East thinks South has Axx clubs as his remaining three cards, and >sees the squeeze coming. But South discards the DJ. East now breathes a >sigh of relief, discards the DK with a flourish, and turns to the Kibitz, >exclaiming 'well, I should have doubled' (which was intended to send him >ROTFL , since she had made on the previous deal a strange double that >turned out well). > >Now, a disgusted South plays AC, club, and East shows that he will make one >trick for one down. > >Everybody agrees to the fact that East's Papa-like behavior was improper, >and that he didn't intend to deceive. But do you think it affected South's >play ? > >Hypothesis #1 : South was still wondering whether his spade was good. >East's remark conforted his feeling that it was not. She could have guessed >that South's problem was about the status of the spade 4. Law 73F2 applies. I cannot believe this! Consider what it means: East makes the remark, knowing it could work to his advantage. You really think East knows South is playing out a hand with all top tricks? >Hypothesis #2 : South's timing and tempo are evidence that he didn't know >the spade 4 was good. East's remark has no impact on the result. The link >between the infraction to L74B2 and the result is non-existent. Exactly. PP if you like, but no adjustment. -- 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 Feb 20 23:00:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBxeF06154 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KBxHt06130 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:17 +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 14VBOz-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:22 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:20:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) References: <200102091619.LAA16375@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102091619.LAA16375@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 >I think the law he may be looking for is 73B1, but I'm not sure. To >take a possibly clearer example, suppose we have an ordinary auction, >and in the middle of it, North says to South "Stay awake over there; >I'm about to start cue bidding." This sounds like some kind of >infraction to me, although it isn't clear how we would adjust the >score. The one thing I am sure of is that L16 isn't involved because >North hasn't given any real information about his own hand. (Assume >that the auction alone will make it obvious that North's next bid is a >cue and not something else.) > >How would people approach this infraction, aside from the obvious PP? >And in the "hesitation Blackwood with miscounted aces" case, are we >willing to make the hesitation itself the infraction? L73C covers it nicely [as so often in UI 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 Tue Feb 20 23:00:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBxUG06143 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KBxAt06122 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:10 +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 14VBP5-00005e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:30 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:20:24 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] multiple irregularities References: <200102051243520300.008D3972@mail.earthlink.net> <3.0.2.32.20010206040452.0101a378@pop3.norton.antivirus> In-Reply-To: <3.0.2.32.20010206040452.0101a378@pop3.norton.antivirus> 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 >At 01:26 PM 05-02-01 -0600, you wrote: >>From: Brian Baresch >>| Under current ACBL regs I don't think it's wrong. the regulation effective >>| this year reads: >>| >>| "Players must choose a call before touching any card in the >>| box. A call is considered made when a bidding card is >>| removed from the bidding box and held touching or nearly >>| touching the table or maintained in such a position to >>| indicate that the call has been made." >>THis sounds vaguely familiar except 'it' is not spelled 't-h-e c-a-l-l' and >>'played' is not spelled 'm-a-d-e'. >the dutch regulation is: (translated) >a call is made if the bidding cards are removed from the box with the >knowing intend of making a bid (but l25 can be applied) As I have pointed out on RGB, England changed their bidding box regs to agree with this a few years back. The main reason we did was because everyone else seemed to have agreed, and we did not want to be different. Some of us think the previous arrangement was better [the call was made when placed on the table] but that put us out of step with the rest of the world. So I think it unfortunate, and a backward step, if the ACBL has now changed their regs so that they are now out of step with the rest of the world. -------- alain gottcheiner writes >AG : I didn't beleive it, but the French version says the cards must have >been put on the table ! >This needs to be fixed. We Belgians need this as a hole in the head. TDs >may be asked to rule in English, Dutch or French. That the ruling may be >different in each case could be enough to make the Federation explode (no >smilie here, I'm frightfully serious) Good gracious! You mean it used to be that the English and the French agreed? No wonder we changed! :)) -------- Gelders Hans writes >Did you take in consideration my heart-condition >when you wrote these lines? Do you seriously mean >that there are such differences between the Dutch and French >translations of the laws? And can't we fix that asap? >Most of us are fluent in Dutch, French and English, so >comparing the different versions can not be such a problem. Bidding boxes are covered by the regs of the SO, not by 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 Feb 20 23:01:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC0kM06217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KBxnt06166 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBPy-00005d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:09:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Martin Sinot writes >Robin Barker wrote" > >>South's choice is first to accept the LOOT or not. >>If South accepts the lead, South can choose to be dummy or to be declarer. > >>East decides which of S5 or H10 to lead, dummy's hand is put down. >>If East leads S5, H10 is a MPC; >>if East leads H10 having indended to lead S5, S5 is a MPC; >>if East leads H10 having indended to lead H10, S5 is a mPC. > >So if East leads H10, then S5 is a mPC. For how are you going >to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always >say that he intended the H10... No, he won't. Most bridge players are honest people, and would not lie to a TD. Of course, some players will say HT. But does it matter? What else do you do? -- 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 Feb 20 23:01:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC0pj06221 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KC01t06179 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:05 +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 14VBPu-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:19 +0000 Message-ID: <9GjVzxHf7kk6EwWu@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:02:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Encrypted (?) relays References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1KC0Bt06187 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marie Jelínková writes >Hi all, >there has been a thread about an interesting idea on exotic-systems >recently. In short: one shows relay points (A=3,K=2,Q=1), then number of >queens, and as long as the partnership is not missing 2 aces or 3 kings >partner knows exact number of kings and aces as well and can ask for >location. For opponents is (unfortunately) the information ambiguous. The >ambiguity will deepen if subsequent asking bids vary in meaning according to >number of shown honours. > >An example of my modification of the principle: >West East >1C(3+ clubs) 1H(4+ hearts) >1N(12-15 PC) 2D(GF, relay) >2H(5 clubs) 2S(relay) >2N(2 diamonds) 3C(relay) >3D(7,9 or 11 RP) 3H(relay) >3N(9 RP) 4C(relay) >4D(0 or 3 queens) 4S(relay, I know how many queens you have) > >West can have facing East`s, say >1)AAA KKKQQQQ >2)AKKK AAAQQQQ >3)AAQQQ AAKKK >4)KKKQQQ AAAAQ > >Now 4S ask for >1) location of aces >2,4) location of kings >3) location of queens > >No need to emphasise that if East explains West`s 5C response as "the 3 >honours I asked about are in C,H and S" North/South will call TD (a bit >early, isn`t it? :-)) complaining about East/West`s failure to fully >disclose the system.. > >The purpose of the method IS NOT to secure the information but to save the >bidding space. I would like to give opponents (and not partner, of course - >BTW he doesn`t it anyway) precise information even if it means revealing my >hand a bit in order to be allowed to play it in competitions where encrypted >bidding is not allowed. > >What is your solution? Are you sure there are places where encrypted bidding is disallowed? After all, simple Roman Blackwood used to be very common, and it might be considered encrypted: so long as the partnership has at least three aces, then the two ace responses Colour, Rank, Odd tell pd which two aces are held but not the oppos. -- 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 Feb 20 23:01:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC0rB06222 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KC09t06188 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBPt-00005e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:17 +0000 Message-ID: <5WjU3tHe4kk6Ew3u@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:59:42 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Re [BLML] Degree of culpability References: <001d01c099c3$40cfb340$91ea1ec4@l2k5q2> In-Reply-To: <001d01c099c3$40cfb340$91ea1ec4@l2k5q2> 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 f1KC0Gt06199 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Rusty Court writes > It is obvious that the awarding of Ave+\Ave- is almost generally > accepted and > that many support the concept of reducing the Ave+ to Ave= or Ave- > for some > degree of culpability. >   > The general concensus is that there is nothing in the Laws that > provides for > awarding a PP, even though many would like to do so because the > opportunity > to achieve a valid bridge score on the hand was knowingly > sabotaged. That is putting a bit of a slant on it that may be grossly unfair. She thought that not pointing an irregularity out might be to her advantage, which is both legal and ethical. that doe snot necessarily mean she knew what would happen. nor does it mean that what happened was what she intended. A little sympathy for a non-offender, please! > I can see that there are other situations that occur more > frequently where a player > is under no obligation to inform an opponent of their error and > which will probably > result in a better score for the non-offending side. The most > obvious being recognising > that an opponent has revoked. There can be no penalty for this so > why should there be > a PP for another situation of similar type from which they will > benefit? The only difference > that I perceive is that this incident results in an artificial > score being awarded, not a valid > bridge score, but then, I can accept that some number of tricks > transferred from one side > to the other as a result of a revoke may not always result in a > _normal_ valid bridge score. > In addition, it is seldom that any player will ever openly admit to > such an action, so how > many similar incidents have gone totally unpunished except for the > L12A adjustment? Normally it is not considered necessary to punish people who have done no wrong, and people who have done no wrong are not normally too shy about admitting what they have done. > Hirsch Davis made a valid point, one that had also occured to me, > in that it may be in the > interests of a weaker pair playing against a strong pair to take > advantage of such a > situation. In fact he almost got it 100% correct, except that it > was one of the strong > players (she has represented South Africa internationally) who took > the action. I can't think > why, but then I'm not a strong player. The fact that she took a different legal action from one that you would have taken might be considered of interest, but really good and bad players do so many strange things where the Laws are concerned. > When I originally posted > this thread to the list, I did > not know that this was the situation and I am as equally surprised > as I am sure many of > you will be. Not me! > Oh well, back to my hibernation. Sweet dreams. -- 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 Feb 20 23:01:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC1Pd06244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:01:25 +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 f1KC0Gt06201 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBPt-000066-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:16 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:53:22 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame References: <01Feb18.023711cet.119042@tst.tst.dk> <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <021801c09962$d021e1a0$c39b1e18@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 alain gottcheiner writes >AG : IBTD. That a top-level pair plays volontary badly in the second case >is a decision they made personally, and it would be very difficult to >*prove* they made errors on purpose. After all, they were playing the last >match of a long round robin, against strong opposition, and after having >celebrated their already ensured victory the usual way (I mean, with vodka). First, we need to know what is legal, permissible, ethical or whatever - and that is far from agreed in dumping issues. Only then need we worry about what to do about it - or how to do something about it. --------- Marvin L. French writes >You have misunderstood the point to a degree that leaves me without words. Really, Marv? >Someone else explain, please. > >No, I'll try. > >We are not saying that anti-percentage actions ought to be barred. We are >saying that taking anti-percentage actions in a deliberate effort to lose >is not in the spirit of the game. You weren't trying to lose, were you? No, not really! :)) --------- Marvin L. French writes >From: "Grattan Endicott" > is what the side needs. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ >Exactly my thinking, thank you. Your opinion carries a lot of weight, >especially when it agrees with mine. :)) Now that's what I call a compliment! :)) -- 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 Feb 20 23:02:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC2G906257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:16 +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 f1KC29t06252 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:10 +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 14VBOf-00005e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:00 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:58:59 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim 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 >If I may be excused for extracting one sentence from the writeup that >caught my attention: > >Charlie McCracken is quoted as saying > >> >Recently the claim laws >> >were changed to allow even more equitable decisions (i.e., allowing >> declarer >> >to repeat a successful finesse). > >I sincerely hope a) that he is wrong and b) that there is an editorial >insertion in the casebook explaining that there is a flaw in the >reasoning. I can't see any basis for allowing claimer to repeat a >successful finesse without a statement unless one of the opponents has >shown out (or one opponent is out of the suit but hasn't shown out and >declarer has indicated he has a complete count.) It is perfectly normal >for a defender holding Kxx (or even Kx if he's daring) behind AQJ to let >the J win the first round of the suit. Even in a situation where it would >have been bizarre and foolish (but not physically impossible) for the >defense to refuse to win the trick if the finesse wasn't working, I still >find it 100% clear to force drop-or-finesse-whichever-is-worst on a >declarer who doesn't state that he is repeating a finesse. > >Would anyone care to present an example of a case in which he feels the >new "unless failure to adopt this line of play would be irrational" clause >of L70E comes into effect? I can believe (just barely) that there are such >cases. I feel however that it would be a disaster for an official ACBL >publication to give the impression that we *routinely* allow declarers to >repeat previously successful finesses. xxx AQJ AK xx -- -- -- -- Declarer plays a spade to the jack, which holds. "Good," he says, "I make the rest." and puts his cards down. Of course declarer is naive, and deserves the second finesse to be losing. But we know what he means, and we would not force him to play for the drop in spades: to do so [for this declarer] would be irrational. The point about McCracken's statement is there was not much of a shift in the Laws: just enough that if everyone "knows" claimer would finesse again, that should be part of a claim ruling. In the far more common case where it is not clear, nothing has changed. -- 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 Feb 20 23:02:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC2SL06271 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KC2Ct06254 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:13 +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 14VBPr-00005c-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:57:14 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:44:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >I am guessing that the answer is that UI may be transmitted by selective >questioning. If the out-show is questioned only when partner's failure to >follow suit is a surprise, then the questionee can infer shortness in >partner's hand. Exactly. A lot of players used to play that "Having none, partner" actually meant "Goodness, partner, hasn't declarer got a lot". >If that is the case, it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy >also. Alternatively, but probably unenforceable, would be a requirement >that "Having none?" be required for defenders in every instance. The ACBL >should either adopt such a regualation or go along with the rest of the >world. > >Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, >when defenders don't have this right? I can never see why one should compare eggs with sheep. There is no similarity. >Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why >not remove it from the Laws? The reason I have heard was that the ACBL felt it would be nearly impossible to enforce. -------- alain gottcheiner writes >At 12:57 16/02/01 -0500, Steve Willner wrote: >>Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? >> >>My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 >>(Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, >>islands), > >AG : including Britain then, or has the Channel suddenly dried up :-)) Actually, you will be surprised to hear, we have become part of Europe now. > and 8 (Africa, new zone). > >AG : I've not read that it is disallowed in European zone, only that doing >so makes the revoke established. It has been disallowed in Europe since the Law first appeared. -- 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 Feb 20 23:02:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC2Y306276 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:34 +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 f1KC2Ht06259 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBOZ-00005c-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:48:50 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] asimere References: <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <000001c08fa7$953717a0$e5e0883e@default> <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@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 John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <3.0.5.32.20010206100416.00898b40@mail.netvision.net.il>, >Eitan Levy writes >>asimere = A(=4) S(=5) I(=1) M(ile) E(nd) R(oad) (London)E(3) >>The figure 4 resembles the letter A, 5 looks like an S, and I looks like a 1 >> >>WHEN DO 1 5T4RT DR1NK1NG MY PR1ZE? >> >>Eitan > >I'll buy you a pint next Brighton (but the usual prize is *two* (2) >games with me) :)) Warning: Eitan drinks whisky in pints. Aaaaah, I remember missing the speedball because I was still working at midnight. "Don't worry," said someone who shall remain nameless, "I've got a bottle!" Not by the end of the speedball, he hadn't ... -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 23:02:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC2bU06277 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KC2Kt06263 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:20 +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 14VBOZ-000066-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:46:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] change of name 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 >I am now my own domain: asimere.com > >There will be another of my much sought after prizes if anyone works out >why this name has been chosen. (Hint: you have sufficient information) Asses Sing In My Ears Round 'Ere. Easy peasy. -- 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 Feb 20 23:02:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC2gQ06280 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KC2Mt06267 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:02:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBOX-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:55:53 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 21:37:47 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... References: <002201c08e2f$d718aea0$cec3f1c3@default> In-Reply-To: <002201c08e2f$d718aea0$cec3f1c3@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jac Fuchs writes >The following happened to me while I was directing at a Dutch regional >pairs event today. > >North: 2S (weak) >East: pass >South: 4S >West: "Director ! South's cards have blue backs, while those of North, >East and mine have red ones ..." >What happened is that South took a hand from the first board at hand, >which happened to be board 6. Boards 5 through 8 were to be played at >this table in this round, so West swapped the boards, and North, East >and West subsequently took their cards from board 5. Hmmm. I would try to find out exactly what has happened, but at first sight a PP on West would seem in order. Once a board is placed on the table apparently for play I consider that no-one should be putting another board in its stead without checking to make sure the original board had 52 cards in. >L17D appears to cater for this; 4S is cancelled, South is handed the >correct hand and is invited to bid again. No problem there [well, the >bidding actually went: 2S pass 2S when South was eventually holding >the correct hand, but that is neither here nor there :-)) ]. OK. >But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply >that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an >adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and >play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? There are a number of matters here. First, L16A is irrelevant in effect, it is L16B which seems to have some relevance. But why not just apply L17D? this covers it, albeit in a fashion that seems somewhat dubious sometimes. if offender subsequently repeats his call, then ... but ... and in general the board will probably finish cancelled with Art ASs. My instinct is for the Art AS to be A+/A-, ie I consider E/W at fault. However, the players flatly refuse to bid and play board 6. It matters not whether the ruling ewas right or wrong, this must not be permitted. The only right a player ever has to disobey a Director is where matters of health, safety, or the like are involved: if there is a fire, and the director says play on, then he may safely be ignored. Otherwise the players must do what they are told. On the actual board I would give each side 0% and I would add a further 50% of a top fine. I consider this a DP not a PP. >Same question, but you now have the information that South is visually >impaired (he is known to see about 15% of what other people would >see). Does this influence your ruling ? Makes E/W's culpability more obvious. No, it does not affect my ruling. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 23:06:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC09906180 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KBxXt06150 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBOq-00005c-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:12 +0000 Message-ID: <4q4UIrCyoZk6EwkP@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:12:02 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@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 >You are East: > > North > 32 > 32 > KQJ10643 > 32 > East > A854 > Q976 > 2 > 109765 > >West North East South > 2NT >Pass 3NT Pass Pass >Pass > >West leads the four of hearts (your side leads third and fifth best from >suits headed by an honour). You play the queen, and declarer wins with >the king. He leads the eight of diamonds, on which West plays the ace. >Plan the defence. I have just read this for the first time, and have not read the ensuing articles. So I am fresh. Various thoughts occur to me. First, I should like to know which is my fourteenth card. If it is the diamond, and partner has led from AJ854, I need to discard a heart now. So I need to draw attention to my fourteenth card now. If it is a heart, declarer has four hearts. Perhaps it might be better to keep the fourteenth card for a bit. If it is black? I am not sure. I think this problem is too difficult for me. Ah well, 24 responses. Now to find out what it is all about. -- 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 Feb 20 23:21:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC0ah06210 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KBxit06159 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:46 +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 14VBOp-000066-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:10 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:26:57 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001901c08e89$f3e97140$e3ea7ad5@pbncomputer> <002401c08ed4$1ada50e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <000001c090e2$c84d6d60$170e7bd5@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 >Pretty close. Your problem is that, unless your partner began with >HA10874, you (probably) will not defeat the contract. If, however, he >did begin with that holding (and the odds are actually pretty good that >this is so, for with J10874 he might have led the jack), he can either >lay down HA or play a spade. But this will not be clear to him, and - >perhaps reading some suit preference implication into your D2 - he may, >left to his own devices, play a club. > >The correct defence is to play D2 to this trick while dropping SA on the >table by "mistake". Declarer has no winning option; he can forbid a >spade lead, of course, but your partner will now have no logical >alternative to laying down HA. > >At least, that is my understanding from the recent correspondence on the >subject of Law 50D. I cannot help feeling, though, that there must be a >flaw somewhere. Don't we just hit him with L72B1 and take the tricks back? I am talking theoretically. If someone did this with a straight face we would be pushed to catch him the first time, but I expect he would get a bit of a reputation. -- 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 Feb 20 23:36:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC06P06173 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:07 +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 f1KBxUt06146 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:31 +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 14VBOv-00005e-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:15 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:28:32 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <006a01c093b9$7239d740$9c3a1dc2@rabbit> <001501c094cd$3932a200$c09801d4@default> In-Reply-To: <001501c094cd$3932a200$c09801d4@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk magda thain writes > >I know that you are not really interested in the problems of running a small >local bridge club but I can tell you that a question like this makes >problems where you know that some players will not take the second >finesse because they fear they will not make even a second trick in the >suit. It is all right saying 'for the class of player involved' but do you >really >say that we must treat club members as being in different classes? The Laws say so. But really, Magda, are you telling me that a player who will not finesse again will claim? My experience is such players do not claim with two top trumps and no other cards! --------- Steve Willner writes >I take it the unattributed commentary is Rich Colker or maybe Linda. >Can anyone confirm? (It sure reads like something Rich would write.) Rich Colker. He re-comments on comments. If you look back a case- book or two you will find I complained about this [after three cases running he missed my point and the re-comment gave the wrong impression entirely]. to be fair, I think his re-comments have improved a lot since then. -- David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= Lawspage: http://blakjak.com/lws_menu.htm ~ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 20 23:51:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC0MF06205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KBxct06155 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:40 +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 14VBOq-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:11 +0000 Message-ID: <9KqVgDD43Zk6EwG4@blakjak.demon.co.uk> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 22:28:08 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Just checking References: <001601c090ea$6a9d13c0$4bdf36cb@gillp.bigpond.com> <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1KBxjt06158 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk John (MadDog) Probst writes >In article <3A82B5F3.C7B990C9@comarch.pl>, Konrad Ciborowski > writes >> No, it wasn't. I recall a problem from a TD training in >>Poland several years ago. Declarer was in 6H. The opponents >>cashed the side ace and declarer had to tackle the trump >>suit: >I think that, accident or no, this is a case of " ... could have known >...". I would adjust - I'd be interested in DWS view here. I do not see how it makes the least difference. If a player revokes are you suggesting he will be short in the suit he should have played, because otherwise he would find one? Well, if that is your view, then yes, L72B1 applies. It comes down to judgement again. ------ Konrad Ciborowski writes >David Burn a écrit : >>The laws should be written such that it is *not* possible to >> profit by any kind of illegality, deliberate or otherwise. I would have no problem with Laws that penalise for everything. But we don't, and until we do, we have to make judgements in judgement situations, we have to train TDs, we have to pool knowledge, we have to do all this - and we still get inconsistent rulings. On the other hand, if all rulings were changed to equity based I think the game would become ungovernable. > Amen, David. And still that revoke law works a lot better the >either the claim law or MI law. Can you even image the existnce >of debate dWs vs. DWS on revokes? > When a revoke occurs the TD opens TFLB, reads the appropriate >Law and makes ruling. The same in every place in the world. > But unfortunately there are plenty of Laws that need to >be "interpreted"; and they are.. Just look: > >1) Scene one: two card ending. Declarer has one spade (good) and one >losing club left in dummy. He says "club". The deffenders wait a second >or two and then say "so we take the rest". Declarer replies "I meant >of course that I concede a club; it would be absurd not to play a spade >now." TD rules that "club" was an incomplete call so L46B apllies; >thereore a club should be played but "declarer's different intention was >incontrovertible" so he lets him take his trick for the spade. Routine to give the defence two tricks, I would think. >2) Scene two: declarer has AKJ32 in hand and 864. >His RHO plays the 5D, he plays the 2 from his hand and LHO >follows with the 7! Declarer says "diamond" but after a second >corrects himself to "eight, please". TD rules that "diamond" was an >incomplete call so L46B apllies; therefore the 4 should be played >because "declarer's different intention was NOT incontrovertible" >this time. > > I guess you already know the answer: a diferent person was directing. > > At the risk of being called frustrated by Ton I admit that >I was deender in the first case and declarer in the second. >I don't mind losing a trick for the D7; I'm ready to pay for >my mistakes. But "consistency is all I ask". And the approach >that every mistake is punished regardless of the player's intention, >whether it matters or not ensures consistency. Your approach, >Grant, doesn't. You cannot get consistency with the current Laws, and probably not with any set of Laws. look at the continuous complaints about the calls of Officials in *all* sports. We should just do our best with what we have, through training, teaching, discussing, publications and so on. -- 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 Feb 20 23:53:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KCrZa06435 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:53:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from idworld.net (legend.idworld.net [209.142.64.9]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KCrSt06431 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:53:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from txdirect.net (unverified [24.160.153.181]) by idworld.net (Rockliffe SMTPRA 4.5.4) with ESMTP id ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:54:20 -0600 Message-ID: <3A9268AC.6C331536@txdirect.net> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:53:00 -0600 From: Albert Lochli Reply-To: biigal@satx.rr.com Organization: D16ACBL Internet Coordinator X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Stevenson CC: "bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au" Subject: [BLML] Re: Bridge proprieties page 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: > > Hi Al > > I have lost it! Failed to find it during a routine check of links. I > know you are not the webmaster nowadays, but could you find out what is > going on? > > It is such a valuable resource: if it is not going to be on the site > there any more, would it be possible to send it to me and then it can > permanently appear on my Lawspage? > > -- > Cheers, David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\ > Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @ > ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )= > Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~ It is still up at: http://www.d16acbl.org/d16bprop.htm I am again the webmonster District 16 ACBL, U172, U187, U2224, U225. U 237 et al whicch start at: http://www.d16acbl.org/ What happened, on February third, is that we took a domain change from acbl-d16 to d16acbl. I have been changing links all over myself. Missed the incoming link from you all. Yes, if you want you may copy all and make a post from your site if you will -- I have not been able to find Gil's myself as he took a change also -- on my list to do list. ;-)) Long list. I forward this also to BLML because there are several others that may also have links in to me. Cheers and get better. -- Biigal Albert "BiigAl" Lochli NEW E-MAIL: biigal@satx.rr.com District 16 ACBL Internet Coordinator - http://www.d16acbl.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 Feb 20 23:57:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KBxHp06127 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:17 +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 f1KBx6t06118 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:07 +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 14VBPU-000065-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:51 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 03:33:40 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: <002501c0967c$71e33280$0200000a@mindspring.com> >Hirsch wrote: > >> ??? How does this reconcile with 17D? A call made on cards from the >> wrong board must be cancelled. > >Wait a minute. 17D starts "If a player who has inadvertently picked up >the cards..". Now I have had long discussions with various people on what >"inadvertently" means. I accept that, in bridge law, it refers to >mechanical rather than mental slips. So if the cards are withdrawn >*thinking that this is the unplayed hand* it is not "inadvertent* in >bridge terms. L17D will seldom apply. This seems taking things too far. We have one Law dealing with taking cards from the wrong board - and you do not want to use it! In my view L17D applies to a player who takes the cards from the wrong board unless he does it deliberately. --------- Steve Willner writes >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> at L7D: "Any contestant remaining at a table throughout the session is >> primarily responsible for maintaining proper conditions of play at the >> table." >So you are giving the defender a PP if she was NS (assuming stationary >NS as in usual movements) but not if she was EW? Not me. When a Law gives primary responsibility to one side that does *not* absolve the other side from all responsibility. --------- Steve Willner writes >You can also ask the defender whether she comes to the club to play >bridge or for some other reason. You might wish to phrase the question >more politely :-), but the real point is to educate the player. Educate her in what? That she is allowed to gain from oppo's revoking [remember Cap Gemini] and leading out of turn but not from them taking the wrong cards? --------- Anne Jones writes >I admit to being in two minds about whether or not she has had her >attention drawn to an infraction when she noticed it. However I had my >attention drawn to Law72 which says >4. Concealing an Infraction >A player may not attempt to conceal an inadvertent infraction, as by >committing a second revoke, concealing a card involved in a revoke or >mixing the cards prematurely. I do not believe that failing to point something out is the same as concealing it. If it were we would not allow people to "conceal" a revoke by not mentioning it! >I know that this gives as an example the revoke situation, and I know >that this is interpreted in such a way that as long as a player does not >take further action to conceal, there is no duty to reveal. >However, only yesterday, in answer to an observation of mine, DWS said >to me "don't use the examples when you are looking for interpretation of >regulation. Oh dear! It was intended as a specific comment rather than a general comment. In our Orange book [permitted conventions section] Examples are simply used to bridge between one OB and the next so you can never use examples to prove something is not permitted. I did not really mean it did not apply to anything! --------- Steve Willner writes >> From: "Hirsch Davis" >> So, it becomes >> a legitimate strategy for a player, coming against a better pair and >> noticing a player take a hand from the wrong board, to sit silently and take >> the Ave, which is a greater score than would have been expected against the >> stronger pair. >Yes. I don't much like it, but it seems legal absent a regulation. >Nobody made the better player pull out the wrong cards, and taking >advantage of opponents' carelessness is legitimate. (Good thing, too!) Good. Consistency is often requested on this list. >> Would a TD called to the >> table in the situation where a player has taken out a hand from the wrong >> board even think to ask the opponents if they had seen the player do it, > >Not until today! But now that we have had this discussion, TD's who >read BLML should start asking. Why? What difference does it make? -- 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 Feb 21 00:00:48 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KC01m06172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:00:01 +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 f1KBxQt06141 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 22:59:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from blakjak.demon.co.uk ([194.222.6.72]) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VBOx-00005d-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:56:17 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 23:06:00 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation References: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin L. French writes >I don't think Gary Blaiss, ACBL CTD, would object to my quoting what he has >told me today: > >######## >My understanding is that the ACBL maintains that there are basically two >"best times" to call when there has been an unmistakable hesitation. >1. As stated in 16 A 2 (although you may on rare occasion have substantial >reason on some auctions during the auction but the footnote gives the Laws >interpretation, I suppose). > >[which is either at the sight of dummy, or at conclusion of play--mlf] > >or > >2. At the time of the unmistakable hesitation. This time has nothing to do >with whether the person has any reason to believe that there has been any >use (obviously) -- the player is only calling to establish the fact that >there has been an unmistakable hesitation or that UI may have been made >available (perhaps this is the same as the laws "conveyed"). > >[This is in accordance with L16A1, an optional Law for sponsoring >organizations--mlf] > >One reason to call when dummy appears is to enable a person's objection to >be raised prior to a good or bad result encouraging a player to place the >damage done to him on other than chance, a good decision by opponents or a >poor one by him or his partner. As you know bridge players frequently look >for legal redress to their difficulties. > >In actuality, players usually call after the hand and this causes little >problem. Sometimes they call at the time of the hesitation and the director >takes this opportunity to make sure everyone knows their responsibility as a >good bridge citizen as well as verifying that an unmistakable hesitation has >occurred. >####### It has been made clear during this thread that it refers to recommended practice in the ACBL, and I am not disagreeing that it is that. However, I am not convinced that what is suggested is necessarily desirable, and I think other parts of the world have other ideas about this. L16A1 gives the right to players [subject to the SO] to "reserve their rights" when [a] an oppo has made UI available to pd, and [b] damage could well result Now, Marv's argument, and Gary's based on quotation, is that [b] always applies once [a] is in place. I have never seen why. The normal policy as I have seen it is that reserving rights, or just calling the TD straightaway, is only done when [b] applies. Another way of looking at it is that L9A1 applies once someone feels there could have been an irregularity. Consider 1S P 4S ..P P X You could, of course, call the TD [or reserve your rights, if legal] after the slow pass. But there is no infraction. Once the double comes, you have no idea whether there is an infraction without looking at the player's hand. But there *may* be: it is fair *now* to say that damage "could well result" and so many people think this is the time to reserve rights [if permitted] or call the TD. It has been mentioned that the method needs to be user-friendly. Of course there will always be some people who explode at any suggestion of UI being used, but in fact this tends to be a more user-friendly approach than speaking at the time of the hesitation. Why? Because you only say something about a third as often: nothing need be said when the ensuing auction makes the "use" of UI very unlikely. If you speak at such a time, it is usually only a few seconds later, so agreement, if it can be reached is usually not more difficult. Furthermore, not many TDs are required if you are allowed to reserve your rights, and you only try to do so at such times. But what of the people who are deathly insulted that they have been accused of something? They will be whatever happens, either through ignorance or as a ploy, and keeping it friendly keeps such people to a minimum. Whether in the ACBL or not my advice to players is to suggest to opponents in a friendly manner that they might like to agree there was a hesitation after an ensuing call which could have "used" it, and to call the TD if [a] they do not agree there was a hesitation, or [b] they clearly do not understand about what you are talking, or [c] they become upset or offensive If you appear to be damaged then you follow L16A2. Oh, please: let us not argue about the term "use UI": surely we all know now what that means. -- 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 Feb 21 00:25:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KDPCs06502 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:25:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KDP5t06498 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:25:06 +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 IAA26422 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:31:12 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102201331.IAA26422@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] A new approach Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 08:31:12 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi David! Welcome back. I hope your recovery is faster and better (and requires less travel) than what caused it. And David: I am sending two responses to this. They aren't quite the same :-). On 19 February 2001 at 0:48, David Stevenson wrote: > > In the past I have worried a lot when writing on BLML about the >lurkers, the people who do not post, but do read BLML. Every so often I >get a nice email from one or other of them, which encourages me. > I too am worried about the lurkers. Come, join us! And tell us about your cats! (that reminds me; I must speak to "my" two again; find out how they like Montreal. Oh, and their human servants, too). > The claims thread is interesting, and has led me to think. I think that goes for all of us (at least the last half; I can't imagine it was interesting to everybody). >We have >basically had the arguments I agree with that it cannot be right to rule >against the spirit of the game because of a small problem in the >wording: this was expressed forcefully and well by a couple of others as >well as myself, allowing me to sit back from the argument. There is >also the view that the wording is absolute, and nothing else matters. Well, as far as ruling the game *today* is concerned...that, of course, is a problem with BLML that you have stated very clearly a number of times; we often mix "what do the Laws say" with "what are the Laws intended to mean" and "what should, therefore, the Laws say" (or "how should the Laws change") in the same thread, sometimes in the same post. I very rarely get confused; but I'm a Nomic (and other, similar games) player, so separating these kinds of discussions is a skill in which I have trained. Others, I have seen, do get confused (especially their first time through "the mill", especially when they join up halfway through a discussion). Thanks to your pointing it out, I am more careful now to make clear when I intend any such distinction. Others do, as well; I think it's helping (but as I said above, I can't tell. Anyone else notice a lessening of ambiguousity?) >As you know, I think this an unfortunate method of ruling a game. Yes, that I do know. And in my heart, on this specific topic, I agree. However, I am very partial, as recent rgb posts have made clear, to unambiguous regulations that lead to consistency in rulings. So I am uncomfortable when someone wants to "muddy" an absolute wording for any reason, especially when the wording was changed deliberately from one less absolute. Having said all that, I do not wish to restart the claims discussion. At least, I do not want to be the one to blame for restarting it :-). > This means that you cannot in future assume I agree with an approach >because I fail to disagree with it. I am going to cut retaliation down. >This will have the secondary effect of making my own posts friendlier: >not unnaturally my most vitriolic posts have been born out of annoyance >at someone else. > I do not believe that anyone should assume anything about anyone's belief on a topic from their *non-posting*; if everyone felt they had to make their opinions clear on every topic lest anyone presume an incorrection (yes, I know that's not a real word; maybe it should be :-) this list would truly become impossible to keep up with. Almost anything that improves the attitude of this list (or at least, by its omission fails to antagonize it) is a good thing in my opinion. > Finally, it is my decision that in future, once someone has been >unnecessarily offensive to me twice, I shall cease to read *any* of his >posts. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to arrange a killfile >but I shall take the trouble to delete such people unread. > As someone who often worries that I offend with my posts - and it is always unintended, (at least in public, *plonk*ings and posts to the Monastery aside, where deliberate offense is either the point, or at least expected) - I would hope that people would make clear, before the plonking, *privately*, what you believe has happened. And I hope that you do not choose nor need to choose this option frequently. As I have said before, both publicly and privately, I very highly value your opinions, and always weight them strongly in my decision-making. In fact, I hope that none of us need so do, with possibly one or two "can't live with 'em" exceptions. And maybe even not then; as it happens, in at least one case, one of my "can't live with 'em"s has turned into a "must read". Again, welcome back! Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 00:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KDne711632 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:49:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KDnXt11589 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:49:34 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1KDnPr21513 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:49:25 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:49 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability 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: > >Because that is not what "inadvertent" means in bridge. If I bid 5C > >believing that it shows 0/3 aces and then realise that I should have > bid >5D to show 0/3 my bid is not inadvertent and I will not be > permitted to >correct under 25a. The bid is "mistaken" not > inadvertent. I see no >reason why it should be different if I pull the > cards from the wrong board >*believing them to be from the right one*. > Again it is mistaken rather >than inadvertent. Inadvertent is limited > to mechanical, not mental, >errors. > > Why? If I draw cards from the wrong board, are you telling me I > intended to draw them from the wrong board? if not it is inadvertent. > > Even if what you said was right as far as English goes, do you really > believe that the Lawmakers put L17D in to be used only in these strange > cases where you think it applies, and in no other case - and provided no > Law for the other cases? You would not be trying to wind BLML up > deliberately, would you now, Tim? Not really. Inadvertently is fine in normal English usage. However, because we assign to it a highly specific meaning in L25 it is probably better not to give it a different meaning in L17. Indeed L17 doesn't even need it! "If a player bids on cards from the..." - If the action is deliberate the punishment must come from somewhere other than L17 anyway. 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 Feb 21 02:27:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KFQM505707 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:26:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KFQGt05703 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:26:16 +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 KAA00186 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:26:12 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA17831 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:26:12 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:26:12 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102201526.KAA17831@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > Consider 1S P 4S ..P > P X > > You could, of course, call the TD [or reserve your rights, if legal] > after the slow pass. But there is no infraction. Once the double > comes, you have no idea whether there is an infraction without looking > at the player's hand. But there *may* be: it is fair *now* to say that > damage "could well result" and so many people think this is the time to > reserve rights [if permitted] or call the TD. Well, David and I disagree again. No surprise there. My experience is that nothing but trouble comes from saying something after the double. At that point, it's better to wait to see the doubler's hand, and decide then whether to call the TD or not. A player who made a doubtful double will _never_ agree that there was an undue pause, so there is no benefit. If the player does agree, he will have his double! But perhaps David's experience differs. On the other hand, immediately after the slow pass, it is possible to ask "How long do you think your partner took to pass?" This doesn't accuse anyone of anything, but it establishes the facts if the opponents know the rules. If they don't, you are probably going to have a fight whatever you do. (Note: "undue pause" means substantially longer than the required one, 10 s in most but not all jurisdictions.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 02:44:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KFi7905737 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:44:07 +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 f1KFi1t05733 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:44:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id KAA01220 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:43:58 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id KAA17868 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:43:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:43:58 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102201543.KAA17868@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > >> For how are you going > >to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always > >say that he intended the H10... > > No, he won't. Most bridge players are honest people, and would not > lie to a TD. > > Of course, some players will say HT. But does it matter? What else > do you do? How about "follow L58B2?" Avoid asking which card was intended; advise East of the applicable rules, and let him decide which card he wishes to designate. Nothing in L58B2 says anything about the player's original intent. It says "the player designates the card he proposes to play." Why would you care what the intent was, even if you feel confident you can determine it? We have had this discussion before. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 02:54:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KFs6w05759 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:54:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KFrxt05755 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:54:00 +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 QAA19955; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:53:33 +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 QAA03675; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:53:23 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010220165540.0084b3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:55:40 +0100 To: David Stevenson , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010214143017.008406f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010214143017.008406f0@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 03:43 20/02/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: >alain gottcheiner writes >>At 12:03 14/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >>>In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010214111232.008366c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> > >>>1) If you notice opponent's revoke you can't give them a chance to >>>establish it. > >>AG : there have been cases where a declarer complained that a revoke made >>him play the hand backwards (ie changed more than the standard 1-trick or >>2-trick penalty), and the TD answered 'but you should have known that >>somebody, at least, had revoked. Why didn't you ask ?', and refused to >>transfer more tricks. > > I really do not think you should be quoting totally wrong rulings by >Directors in defiance of the Law book as reasons to change the Law. A >simpler solution seems to educate the Director to read his Law book. AG : 'totally deviant' doesn't seem to me to be a fair description. The first priority of the laws are equity, don't we all agree ? According to the first paragraph of the Laws Book, equity is more important than lawful penalizing. Giving a 3IMP score to one team that deserved +10 had one of their opponents not showed up late doesn't seem very equitable to me. My favorite position would be 3 IMPs or the expected score on the deal, whichever is higher. This is equity. Awarding 3IMPs is the lawful thing to do, but it is not aimed at equity. 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 Feb 21 03:02:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KG2ZM05793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:02:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from guppy.vub.ac.be (guppy.vub.ac.be [134.184.129.2]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KG2Rt05789 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:02:28 +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 RAA24635; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:02:17 +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 RAA10547; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:02:07 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010220170425.0084dad0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:04:25 +0100 To: Howardpup@aol.com, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? 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 00:03 20/02/01 EST, Howardpup@aol.com wrote: > >Today, playing in the first round of a very heterogenous ACBL "sectional" >open pairs, I pick up Axx, Axx, K, AQxxxx. > >Playing old-fashioned Blue Team, I judge this not to meet our "17 point hand >that we like" criterion for opening one club, so I open 2C (11-16 HCP, >typically six good clubs.) Partner bids 2D, artificial, asking. I bid 2NT >showing two side suits stopped. Partner asks with 3D and I show both majors >with 3NT. After a 5-minute huddle, partner -- a conservative expert who >doesn't take wild shots in weak fields -- bids 6C. > >Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the hesitation >imply? > >Could this be one of those cases where the hesitation could be the problem, >no matter what I do? If I pass, couldn't one argue that the hesitation might >have indicated a wild shot, on something like KQx, KQxx, x, KJxxx? If so, >should I then be forced to bid 7, since he might have held his actual hand? > AG : I feel UI is here much less than in [pass vs bid] or [pass vs double] cases. Partner could have been hesitating between 6C and a grand slam try, or between a 6C punt and just 5C, or between C and NT. In this case, 7C is not 'clearly suggested' as a winning bid by the huddle, so it shouldn't be disallowed. Since the bis would be more or less obvious without the trance, one should allow it. Regards, Alain -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 03:13:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KGDm105836 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:13:48 +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 f1KGDgt05832 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:13:42 +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 LAA29462 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:19:50 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102201619.LAA29462@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:19:49 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 19 February 2001 at 10:23, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >At first thought it seems extremely strange that the Laws include an >option for a ZO to permit one defender to help the other in this way, or >that any ZO would elect to adopt that option. The ACBL elected to do so, >and the reasoning is fairly obvious: If dummy can ask declarer, why >shouldn't a defender be allowed to do the same? > Um, because dummy can't pass UI to declarer about the contents of her hand? :-), but I expect that I'm correct. I happen to dislike ZO options; I happen to disapprove of about half of the elections the ACBL has decided to take. But that's neither here nor there. >If [worry about questioning only when "surprised"] is the case, >it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy >also. Why? Surely dummy has significantly less information to pass to partner by this question than does defender (as dummy's cards are already known). >Alternatively, but probably unenforceable, would be a requirement >that "Having none?" be required for defenders in every instance. The ACBL >should either adopt such a regulation or go along with the rest of the >world. > I happen to hate the question. I don't use it. I find that compared to the number of revokes in the world, the constant questioning is a drag on the game. But that's just a personal opinion; there are many who believe the exact opposite. I'll rule as my SO tells me, and I'll allow what is allowed. I'd be happy with "always ask on first discard", though. >Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, >when defenders don't have this right? > Well, apart from the lack of possible UI transmission, there's always the spirit of L42B2. After all, if dummy asks, and the revoke gets corrected before it is established, there is no penalty. And anyway, defenders have the same right as dummy to ask declarer :-). >Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why >not remove it from the Laws? > Almost certainly politics. Grattan has opined that most laws "with the option" are as they are because most of the world wants it, but the rest have violent opposition to it (and when "the rest" is the ACBL, it may be impossible to get any such Law passed, given the size of its representation on all WBF committees). Maybe I should start calling the ACBL "the Toronto of Bridge". I'll explain to non-Canadians upon request :-) Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 03:14:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KGEOc05849 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:14:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KGEHt05844 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:14:18 +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 f1KGEBf11968; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:11 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1KGEAP28746; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:10 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:10 GMT Received: from tempest.npl.co.uk (tempest [139.143.18.16]) by capulin.cise.npl.co.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA05476; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:09 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id QAA28984; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:09 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:14:09 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102201614.QAA28984@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: willner@cfa.harvard.edu, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Steve Willner > > > From: David Stevenson > > >> For how are you going > > >to find out which card East intended to lead? He will always > > >say that he intended the H10... > > > > No, he won't. Most bridge players are honest people, and would not > > lie to a TD. > > > > Of course, some players will say HT. But does it matter? What else > > do you do? > > How about "follow L58B2?" Avoid asking which card was intended; advise > East of the applicable rules, and let him decide which card he wishes > to designate. > > Nothing in L58B2 says anything about the player's original intent. It > says "the player designates the card he proposes to play." Why would > you care what the intent was, even if you feel confident you can > determine it? > > We have had this discussion before. Indeed, but there is still some confusion here. I don't think DWS says East must play the card originally intended. There are three things we may need to determine: 1) Does South wish to accept the LOOT (L54) 2) Which card East "proposes to play" (L58B) 3) Which card did East intend to play (L50B) We may disagree as to which of (1) and (2) we ask first;* but some of us need to know (3), in order to determine if a spot card played with other cards becomes a MPC. (*) The phrase "designates the card he proposes to play" persuades me that we should ask LOOTer first. Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 03:22:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KGM2X05873 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:22:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KGLtt05869 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:21:56 +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 LAA29577 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:28:03 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102201628.LAA29577@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <00e801c09af3$cff5d960$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> <00e801c09af3$cff5d960$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:28:02 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 19 February 2001 at 20:14, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >There is a second objection to the practice: One doesn't help partner >during the bidding or play (L16), and the inquiry does just that. Once it >is denied defenders for two reasons, it should be denied dummy even if one >of those reasons doesn't apply. > Once dummy is dummy, he is treated very differently in the Laws than any other player. L42B explicitly states that he may help declarer in specific ways, as long as there is no unauthorized information that can be passed to partner by the help. Defender asking defender: "Gee, partner, declarer has a surprisingly large number of cards in this suit." Dummy asking declarer: "Idio^H^H^H^HPartner, you bid 3NT with *that* heart holding?" :-), of course. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 03:31:41 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KGUGh05896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:30:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KGU9t05892 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:30:10 +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 LAA29700 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:36:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102201636.LAA29700@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <00e401c08fb3$fd8f0360$70991e18@san.rr.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:36:17 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 19 February 2001 at 23:06, David Stevenson wrote: > Oh, please: let us not argue about the term "use UI": surely we all >know now what that means. > One to be added to the "abbreviations list"? :-) Of course, in formal documents, or at the table, the correct (and longer) wording should always be used. But I believe that this piece of jargon is safe, among the denizens of BLML. Now that I think about it, maybe I'm not joking, The definition of that phrase should be available somewhere, and the acronym list is not, really, a bad spot for it. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 04:15:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KHEvN05980 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:14:57 +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 f1KHEpt05976 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:14:51 +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 JAA13210; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:14:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200102201714.JAA13210@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:36:17 EST." <200102201636.LAA29700@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:14:45 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Michael Farebrother wrote: > On 19 February 2001 at 23:06, David Stevenson wrote: > > Oh, please: let us not argue about the term "use UI": surely we all > >know now what that means. > > > One to be added to the "abbreviations list"? :-) Of course, in formal > documents, or at the table, the correct (and longer) wording should > always be used. But I believe that this piece of jargon is safe, among > the denizens of BLML. > > Now that I think about it, maybe I'm not joking, The definition of that > phrase should be available somewhere, and the acronym list is not, > really, a bad spot for it. Not really, except for the bothersome fact that "use UI" isn't an acronym by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you can find three appropriate words that begin with the letters U,S,E . . . But I guess that's just me picking nits 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 Wed Feb 21 04:36:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KHZt106014 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:35:55 +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 f1KHZnt06010 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:35:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:32:20 -0800 Message-ID: <004f01c09b63$82ff2240$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200102201526.KAA17831@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:34:25 -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: "Steve Willner" < > > From: David Stevenson > > Consider 1S P 4S ..P > > P X > > > > You could, of course, call the TD [or reserve your rights, if legal] > > after the slow pass. But there is no infraction. Once the double > > comes, you have no idea whether there is an infraction without looking > > at the player's hand. But there *may* be: it is fair *now* to say that > > damage "could well result" and so many people think this is the time to > > reserve rights [if permitted] or call the TD. > > Well, David and I disagree again. No surprise there. > > My experience is that nothing but trouble comes from saying something > after the double. At that point, it's better to wait to see the > doubler's hand, and decide then whether to call the TD or not. A > player who made a doubtful double will _never_ agree that there was an > undue pause, so there is no benefit. If the player does agree, he will > have his double! But perhaps David's experience differs. > > On the other hand, immediately after the slow pass, it is possible to > ask "How long do you think your partner took to pass?" This doesn't > accuse anyone of anything, but it establishes the facts if the > opponents know the rules. If they don't, you are probably going to > have a fight whatever you do. > I prefer "Can we agree that there has been a break in tempo?" Time estimates are notoriously inaccurate, but most people know what a break in tempo is. If that term may be unknown to the opponents, then "Can we agree that [the pass][the bid][the double] was [slower][faster] than normal?" Of course we all understand, I hope, that one does not ask the question when a break in normal tempo is very unlikely to suggest a call or play, as when someone studies their hand for quite a while before opening in first position. While on this subject, I have about as many actions taken against me with "unwonted speed" as with "unmistakable hesitation" (L16) in situations where tempo could matter. However, I don't believe there has been a single NABC casebook tempo case that concerned a too-fast action. "Slow shows" and "fast denies," but only slow gets caught, evidently. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 04:51:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KHp5E06052 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:51:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KHoxt06048 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:51:00 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1KHopk01061 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:50:51 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:50 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation 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: > Oh, please: let us not argue about the term "use UI": surely we all > know now what that means. Not me. I thought we had a debate a while back about something like "Judged to have used UI" and that Grattan had reported that this, according to a WBFLC interpretation, was the correct form for making a L16A ruling (instead of "may have used UI" or some such). Admittedly I can't find any records of this so maybe my mind is playing tricks. Any ideas anyone (especially Grattan). Thanks, 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 Feb 21 05:00:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KI0Ti06077 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:00:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from front002.cluster1.charter.net (outbound.charter.net [24.216.159.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KI0Mt06073 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:00:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [209.187.160.23] (HELO bickford1) by front002.cluster1.charter.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 3.4b8) with SMTP id 42868559 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:00:14 -0500 Message-ID: <049d01c09b67$64fe5460$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> From: "Bill Bickford" To: References: <200102201714.JAA13210@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:03:13 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk UUI???................:)) Cheers............/Bill Bickford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 12:14 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation > > > Michael Farebrother wrote: > > > On 19 February 2001 at 23:06, David Stevenson wrote: > > > Oh, please: let us not argue about the term "use UI": surely we all > > >know now what that means. > > > > > One to be added to the "abbreviations list"? :-) Of course, in formal > > documents, or at the table, the correct (and longer) wording should > > always be used. But I believe that this piece of jargon is safe, among > > the denizens of BLML. > > > > Now that I think about it, maybe I'm not joking, The definition of that > > phrase should be available somewhere, and the acronym list is not, > > really, a bad spot for it. > > Not really, except for the bothersome fact that "use UI" isn't an > acronym by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you can find three > appropriate words that begin with the letters U,S,E . . . > > But I guess that's just me picking nits 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/ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 05:26:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KIQhF06124 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:26:43 +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-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 f1KIQZt06119 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:26:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-31.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VHUX-000NGM-0V for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:26:25 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 18:24:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation References: <200102201526.KAA17831@cfa183.harvard.edu> <004f01c09b63$82ff2240$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <004f01c09b63$82ff2240$3f2ed2cc@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 <004f01c09b63$82ff2240$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com>, Marvin L. French writes > >From: "Steve Willner" < > >> > From: David Stevenson >> > Consider 1S P 4S ..P >> > P X >> > >> > You could, of course, call the TD [or reserve your rights, if legal] >> > after the slow pass. But there is no infraction. Once the double >> > comes, you have no idea whether there is an infraction without looking >> > at the player's hand. But there *may* be: it is fair *now* to say >that >> > damage "could well result" and so many people think this is the time >to >> > reserve rights [if permitted] or call the TD. >> >> Well, David and I disagree again. No surprise there. >> >> My experience is that nothing but trouble comes from saying something >> after the double. At that point, it's better to wait to see the >> doubler's hand, and decide then whether to call the TD or not. A >> player who made a doubtful double will _never_ agree that there was an >> undue pause, so there is no benefit. If the player does agree, he will >> have his double! But perhaps David's experience differs. >> >> On the other hand, immediately after the slow pass, it is possible to >> ask "How long do you think your partner took to pass?" This doesn't >> accuse anyone of anything, but it establishes the facts if the >> opponents know the rules. If they don't, you are probably going to >> have a fight whatever you do. >> >I prefer "Can we agree that there has been a break in tempo?" Time >estimates are notoriously inaccurate, but most people know what a break in >tempo is. If that term may be unknown to the opponents, then "Can we agree >that [the pass][the bid][the double] was [slower][faster] than normal?" > >Of course we all understand, I hope, that one does not ask the question >when a break in normal tempo is very unlikely to suggest a call or play, >as when someone studies their hand for quite a while before opening in >first position. > >While on this subject, I have about as many actions taken against me with >"unwonted speed" as with "unmistakable hesitation" (L16) in situations >where tempo could matter. However, I don't believe there has been a single >NABC casebook tempo case that concerned a too-fast action. "Slow shows" >and "fast denies," but only slow gets caught, evidently. I made a lightning quick Lightner double against a grand a few years ago. (Table 1, 1st board, Swiss teams, vs Internationals, know them well). It was obvious by the second round of bidding they'd grind into the grand (which a round or two later was obviously a 5 or 7 decision based on a King) and I had been waiting about 20 minutes to double by the time they'd explored the far reaches of cyber-bridge with a tortuous hesitation loaded auction. I was bored. Proddy lead, I ruffed before dummy was faced and then I put my hand away. "The finesse is working" I said. "I knew every card in your hand after that auction. I doubled because I didn't have the obvious king and did have a void. Pard has the obvious king and has had 20 minutes to think about it, so he knows it's Lightner. Next hand, we're behind and it's not us." The TD's pointed out that Lightner is usually delivered slowly because it needs to be worked out. I agree with that. Had it been me there'd have been a 3-bid auction, no double and a claim at trick 2, and if I'd had their auction forced on me I wouldn't have dreamt of calling in the NYPD - the whole hand was an open book. In a way I wish it had gone to appeal. I psyched the 2nd board to wind them up a bit further (2nd TD call. Me: "My opponents have no sense of humour, Director") and they then proceeded to lose 19-1. No sympathy at all, it's a cut-throat game at table 1. > >Marv >Marvin L. French, ISPE >San Diego, CA, USA > > > > > > > > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 21 05:41:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KIfWv06157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:41:32 +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 (oe17.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.121]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KIfQt06153 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:41:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:41:19 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.232.66.180] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102201619.LAA29462@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:40:59 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2001 18:41:19.0675 (UTC) FILETIME=[B714F0B0:01C09B6C] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Farebrother To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B | On 19 February 2001 at 10:23, "Marvin L. French" wrote: | > | >At first thought it seems extremely strange that the Laws include an | >option for a ZO to permit one defender to help the other in this way, or | >that any ZO would elect to adopt that option. The ACBL elected to do so, | >and the reasoning is fairly obvious: If dummy can ask declarer, why | >shouldn't a defender be allowed to do the same? | > | Um, because dummy can't pass UI to declarer about the contents of her hand? | :-), but I expect that I'm correct. | | I happen to dislike ZO options; I happen to disapprove of about half | of the elections the ACBL has decided to take. But that's neither here | nor there. | | >If [worry about questioning only when "surprised"] is the case, | >it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy | >also. | | Why? Surely dummy has significantly less information to pass to partner | by this question than does defender (as dummy's cards are already | known). I think that an important concern is the meaning of the words: Communication between partners during the auction and play shall be effected only by means of the calls and plays themselves. I think that it is good to give latitude where prevention of an irregularity is concerned, but in the case of a failure to follow suit, if a revoke has occurred, the irregularity is committed and allowing the question surely breaches the admonition above. Roger Pewick | Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 05:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KIpZY06185 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:51:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KIpTt06181 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:51:30 +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 NAA09963 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:51:26 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id NAA18162 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:51:26 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:51:26 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102201851.NAA18162@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > I thought we had a debate a while back about something like > "Judged to have used UI" and that Grattan had reported that this, > according to a WBFLC interpretation, was the correct form for making a > L16A ruling (instead of "may have used UI" or some such). I hope correct form is something like "judged to have chosen a prohibited action after UI was made available." That's too long to write out in every BLML message, but so far nobody has offered a short but accurate substitute. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 05:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KIrc206197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:53:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe16.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.120]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KIrXt06193 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 05:53:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:53:26 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.232.66.180] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <3.0.6.32.20010214143017.008406f0@pop.ulb.ac.be><3.0.6.32.20010214143017.008406f0@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010220165540.0084b3c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:53:15 -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: 20 Feb 2001 18:53:26.0135 (UTC) FILETIME=[6815F070:01C09B6E] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: David Stevenson ; Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:55 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability | At 03:43 20/02/01 +0000, David Stevenson wrote: | >alain gottcheiner writes | >>At 12:03 14/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: | >>>In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010214111232.008366c0@pop.ulb.ac.be> | > | >>>1) If you notice opponent's revoke you can't give them a chance to | >>>establish it. | > | >>AG : there have been cases where a declarer complained that a revoke made | >>him play the hand backwards (ie changed more than the standard 1-trick or | >>2-trick penalty), and the TD answered 'but you should have known that | >>somebody, at least, had revoked. Why didn't you ask ?', and refused to | >>transfer more tricks. | > | > I really do not think you should be quoting totally wrong rulings by | >Directors in defiance of the Law book as reasons to change the Law. A | >simpler solution seems to educate the Director to read his Law book. | | AG : 'totally deviant' doesn't seem to me to be a fair description. | The first priority of the laws are equity, don't we all agree ? Personally, I want fair play on a level playing field as the priority. roger pewick | 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 Feb 21 06:20:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KJKBU06247 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:20:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KJK5t06243 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 06:20:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id OAA11200 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id OAA18234 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:20:02 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102201920.OAA18234@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David Stevenson > ... suppose we have an ordinary auction, > >and in the middle of it, North says to South "Stay awake over there; > >I'm about to start cue bidding." > L73C covers it nicely [as so often in UI cases]. So South has to go to sleep to comply? Somehow that seems a little hard to enforce. I'm still thinking L73B1 + 12A1 + 12C2/3 but ready to be convinced otherwise. L16A says explicitly "suggest a call or play," and I think calls or plays would be the normal meaning of "actions" in the last sentence. Extending this meaning to include "actions" such as looking at one's hand again or recounting one's aces seems quite a stretch. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 07:28:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKRUF22193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:27:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KKRMt22149 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:27:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA05716; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:33:25 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102202033.PAA05716@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: lecsec@ebu.co.uk cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Brighton 2000 Appeals Booklet Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:33:25 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Dear Mr. Doe: David Stevenson has put to BLML the request for comments on the Brighton Appeals book (available online only, currently, from the EBU's L&EC page). In the Introduction, it states that feedback would be welcomed by the L&EC. So this is being sent to you, with a cc: to BLML. Michael. P.S. Herman, it sounds like I'm ragging on you consistently; I don't mean to. Most of the comments look either like incorrect transcription or lack of complete information; the analysis (both yours and David's) is impressive. --------- I mostly just have technical (proofreading, confusing) comments about what is really an excellent resource; I would strongly recommend continuing the practice of Appeals Books, especially if they are as clear, concise, and well-analyzed as this one is. Having them available electronically is probably sufficient (provided they are publicized sufficiently); those who require a hard copy either for reference or because they have no electronic access should not have a problem paying the 2 pounds or so it costs to print 40 pages (provided permission is granted, preferably in the book itself, to print one copy for reference purposes). I don't know about the ACBL experience, but I would not believe it would be cost-effective to publish the books, given the number of people who would want them that could not get access to them either online or through a friend. If I'm wrong, and you can make money on them, go ahead, of course. My comments: Case 4: As someone who doesn't play the Multi, it was not clear to me until I read the case explanations the second time that 2H after the double showed invitational values. In general, Alerts should be explained fully in the writeups; the readers have no opponents to ask if they don't understand. Case 5: Are forcing Passes Alertable in the EBU (they are not in the ACBL, where I play)? I am surprised that this was not even considered (except by Mr. de Wael), but if the forcing Pass would have had to be Alerted, I can understand. In my partnership, we are in a Forcing Pass situation once we show game-forcing values. Sure, the pause after 4S would show that North was unsure whether to Double or bid on; but the pass after 4S would show that North was unsure whether to Double or bid on. Were I to be given this ruling, I would appeal, Pass not being an alternative at all, never mind a Logical one. Also, in Mr. de Wael's comments, all bids are incorrect except for the first one. In order, they should be 4S, 4*S*, 5*H*, 4*S*, and 5*H*. Case 6: I believe there is a typo in the explanation of the 1H call ("Described as a relay with no four-card major"). South has *two* four-card majors, yet nothing was said about this anywhere in the writeup. If the explanation is correct, I would assume somebody would have mentioned the discrepancy, especially in a supposedly "constructive" call. Case 7: I guess Forcing Passes are Alertable at whatever level (case 5). I happen to agree with Mr. de Wael on this one, but what do I know? Case 12: Oh, do I wish I had the option of "Red Misbid" available here. This is the land where so many players "misbid" Landy that even though 2C shows the majors, two American experts recommend that you play systems on and double = Stayman rather than Lebensohl. And I could explain to the players why 1NT-2D(transfer); 2H-3D(No, I really had diamonds); Pass is not allowed. Case 14: "Lebensohl" here as the explanation of North's double is inadequate. There are two major ways of playing a double in this auction, playing Lebensohl; "penalty" or "negative" - in both cases, for the shown suit. If they are playing "negative" doubles, then it is likely that North has not heard the Alert - he has a nice takeout of diamonds. If they are playing "penalty" doubles, then North has a good double - if he has heard the Alert. Of course, the appeal will have a much different result depending on the answer to this question. Note that if they are playing "negative" doubles, this explains Mr. de Wael's confusion (shown in his last paragraph). Case 16: I don't understand Mr. de Wael's last paragraph. Or does he mean 6H-1 by E/W? Case 17: Again, I don't understand Mr. de Wael's commentary. The Director didn't punish N/S at all - he ruled "result stands". Maybe he should - possibly a PP, at least a warning, should be issued for "hesitation takeout pass", but according to the report, neither he nor the Appeal Committee did. As I said, all in all, an excellent first book. I hope it is still possible to correct the minor, but frustrating and confusing, errors in the text. Michael Farebrother, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. michael@farebrother.cx -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 07:30:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKUC423103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:30:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.91]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KKTxt23022 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:29:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VJPx-000MuJ-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:29:50 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Allowable tactics or not? Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 10:21:47 -0000 Message-ID: <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk An old issue of which I was reminded by reading the discussion in "Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of the game". We had a situation a little while back, towards the end of a match we were losing by a substantial margin ...... obviously we needed swings in the last set but we were unlikely to achieve those by bidding our socks off in both rooms, because on any one board the best we could expect is that cards would be lying well for one side but not the other. So it looks reasonable tactics for one pair to act optimistically (overbidding when close) and the other act pessimistically (underbidding when close). Is agreement on such tactics allowed? Does it have to be disclosed to the opponents? Patrick (a lurker with only fish for pets) Cheltenham, 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 Feb 21 07:30:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKUPq23166 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:30:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KKUEt23112 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:30:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id D174ED7F10 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:30:09 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: "Bridge Laws Discussion List" Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:30:09 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: <8ii59tgjqrn5fm9mld42c0ub88i8j1gd2d@nuser.dybdal.dk> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> 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 f1KKUIt23130 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 06:31:15 -0000, "David Burn" wrote: >Jesper wrote: > >> Time is not information; simply being given time is not UI. >> >> (Always assuming, of course, that there was nothing but time in the >> pause: if the pausing partner looked puzzled, for instance, that would >> be UI.) > >But (at least in the better circles), when someone bids Blackwood, one >expects him to know what he is going to do over the various responses >that he might receive - he will sign off in tempo if there are not >enough key cards, he will bid on if there are. Should one not also expect him to have prepared his reaction even to the unexpected answers? >Thus, when a player signs >off slowly, there is *always* the inference that he has been surprised >by the response (unless he is using Hesitation Blackwood, in which case >his side is cheating anyway). This inference is UI, and may not be used >for any purpose, as Jesper correctly points out. If he is a player who does not normally pause after Blackwood, yes. I certainly agree that it is a good idea to not pause after Blackwood, but I have to admit that I am not sure that I do not sometimes do it - it is after all not normally a problem for partner, since whatever I bid is (almost always) the final contract. >Suppose this communication took place between partners: > >"How many aces do you have?" >"None." >"Are you sure? I'd have thought you had at least one for your bidding. >Look at your hand again." >"Oh, sorry - I do have one after all." > >Now, if this conversation were actually to occur, I do not think that >there is anyone who would regard it as legal. Agreed, of course. But I would still consider the number of aces the player holds AI, and not require him to pass. Afterwards, I would then apply L72B1, so the result would probably be the same as if it were UI. I.e., I would consider the conversation the irregularity, and not the raise to slam. >But when a player bids >Blackwood, gets a no-ace response, signs off slowly, and gets a one-ace >continuation, this conversation has for practical purposes actually >taken place. Assuming that it actually has (i.e., this is a player who never thinks after an expected response, but does think after an unexpected response), the difference is that this time there has been no illegal action by the Blackwood-bidder. Thinking is not an infraction, so L72B1 is out of the question. The problem is of course that the pause in this case suggests "look at your hand". Herman would, if I've understood him correctly, forbid raising to slam because Herman considers that looking at the hand is an "action" in the sense of L16A. (In the Danish translation, "action" is translated as "call or play" - I am pretty sure that the choice of translation does not indicate a deliberate attitude to this problem.) But if Herman were right, the action that would be forbidden would be to look at the hand (assuming that not looking was a logical alternative). It seems to me that this is clearly going to far. Having to judge whether looking at the hand is an LA or not would make the concepts involved simply too strange and unclear. There are so many ways in which more or less accidental occurrences in the room may influence the act of looking at your hand or not at a particular moment that it seems meaningless to me to try to identify them and classify them as AI or UI. IMO, you have a right to look at your hand before making a call, no matter what may or may not have happened to help you realize that there may be an unusually good reason to look at it. Forbidding people to look at their hands before calling seems to me not to make sense. Bridge would only be a better game if everybody looked at their hand before making a call. I do not see any necessity to penalize people because they just possibly might not have looked at their hand if they were not reminded by partner's (legal) pause. On the other hand, I do find it very important to keep the principle of "my own hand is AI no matter what". So my conclusion is: let him have his slam. He might not have bid it if partner had not paused - but the pause is legal, and there are so many other factors that could influence his detection or not of the misbid. And as somebody (Eric?) said, this is not something that can be abused by the bad guys. -- 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 Feb 21 07:30:51 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKUkM23284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:30:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KKUct23245 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:30:39 +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 MAA17692; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:30:33 -0800 Message-Id: <200102202030.MAA17692@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 14:20:02 EST." <200102201920.OAA18234@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:30:33 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Steve Willner wrote: > I'm still thinking L73B1 + 12A1 + 12C2/3 but ready to be convinced > otherwise. L16A says explicitly "suggest a call or play," and I think > calls or plays would be the normal meaning of "actions" in the last > sentence. Extending this meaning to include "actions" such as looking > at one's hand again or recounting one's aces seems quite a stretch. I think David Burn already addressed that. If UI suggests an "action" such as recounting one's aces, and that "action" leads to a call that you wouldn't have made without the recount, then the UI has suggested that call, albeit indirectly. In fact, I'd say that a lot of UI-based calls, that no one here would dispute are illegal, are suggested only indirectly by the UI. Partner opens 2NT. You bid 3C, Stayman (or so you think). Partner alerts, explains it as asking about 4- or 5-card majors (i.e. Puppet Stayman), then bids 3D (shows at least one 4CM, denies a 5CM). You forgot you were playing Puppet Stayman; therefore you have UI from partner's explanation. If you have a 4=3=4=2 hand, say, does the UI suggest that you bid 3H (the conventional way to show four spades and deny four hearts)? Or does the UI suggest that you rethink what the conventional responses and follow-ups to Puppet Stayman are? It's certainly possible to argue that the UI suggests 3H only indirectly; that in reality, the UI suggests that you go back over your memory to figure out what you're playing, and since this rethinking action isn't a "call" or "play", it's legal by L16A and therefore it's perfectly legal to call 3H. But no one here would argue that way, would they? Everyone here would assume that 3H is suggested by the UI and is therefore illegal, right? Anyway, I can't see any real difference between my example and the Hesitation Blackwood situation. -- 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 Feb 21 07:32:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKWeb23936 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:32:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from carbon.btinternet.com (carbon.btinternet.com [194.73.73.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KKWXt23896 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:32:34 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.172.186] (helo=pbncomputer) by carbon.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14VJSW-0000Or-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:32:29 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c09b7c$38b4d900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200102201714.JAA13210@mailhub.irvine.com> <049d01c09b67$64fe5460$17a0bbd1@gw.totalweb.net> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:32:13 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Bill Bickford wrote: > > Not really, except for the bothersome fact that "use UI" isn't an > > acronym by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you can find three > > appropriate words that begin with the letters U,S,E . . . Unfairly Select, Employing UI? 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 Feb 21 07:49:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KKmu829546 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:48:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KKmmt29505 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 07:48:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.172.186] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14VJiG-0002OO-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:48:44 +0000 Message-ID: <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:48:32 -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: > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > > Declarer plays a spade to the jack, which holds. "Good," he says, "I > make the rest." and puts his cards down. > > Of course declarer is naive, and deserves the second finesse to be > losing. But we know what he means, and we would not force him to play > for the drop in spades: to do so [for this declarer] would be > irrational. Interesting. Suppose the true position were: xx xxx -- -- xxx AQJ AK xx -- -- -- -- Kx xxx -- -- How many tricks would declarer be awarded? 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 Feb 21 08:12:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLBmm06421 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:11:48 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KLBgt06417 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:11:42 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:08:15 -0800 Message-ID: <005901c09b81$ad7fe360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102201619.LAA29462@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:11:08 -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: "Michael Farebrother" > "Marvin L. French" > > > >At first thought it seems extremely strange that the Laws include an > >option for a ZO to permit one defender to help the other in this way, or > >that any ZO would elect to adopt that option. The ACBL elected to do so, > >and the reasoning is fairly obvious: If dummy can ask declarer, why > >shouldn't a defender be allowed to do the same? > > > Um, because dummy can't pass UI to declarer about the contents of her hand? > :-), but I expect that I'm correct. If the question is not selective, no UI for defenders either. > > I happen to dislike ZO options; I happen to disapprove of about half > of the elections the ACBL has decided to take. But that's neither here > nor there. > > >If [worry about questioning only when "surprised"] is the case, > >it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy > >also. > > Why? Surely dummy has significantly less information to pass to partner > by this question than does defender (as dummy's cards are already > known). There are two sides to this coin. The other one is that players are not supposed to help partner (other than mechanically, playing dummy's cards as directed). Don't you think that asking about a possible revoke isn't helping partner? I am prone to revoking as declarer, and (since it's legal) ask my partners to inquire every time I show out of a suit for the first time. It isn't right that I can have such help from partner, and defenders cannot. That's why I say either let both sides ask (IMO not in the spirit of the game), or deny the right to both sides. > > >Alternatively, but probably unenforceable, would be a requirement > >that "Having none?" be required for defenders in every instance. The ACBL > >should either adopt such a regulation or go along with the rest of the > >world. > > > I happen to hate the question. I don't use it. I find that compared to > the number of revokes in the world, the constant questioning is a drag > on the game. But that's just a personal opinion; there are many who > believe the exact opposite. I'll rule as my SO tells me, and I'll allow > what is allowed. I'd be happy with "always ask on first discard", > though. Not understood. Do you mean only on first failure to play a card to a given suit? That's all anyone would expect, I hope. Do you mean only on first failure to follow suit, period? That seems inconsistent. > > >Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, > >when defenders don't have this right? > > > Well, apart from the lack of possible UI transmission, there's always > the spirit of L42B2. After all, if dummy asks, and the revoke gets > corrected before it is established, there is no penalty. I don't believe L42B2 applies to a possible revoke, as (if it is one) the irregularity has already been committed. It permits dummy to prevent declarer from turning a played card the wrong way (before it is put down, not after). Don't see why dummy should have that right, either, if defenders don't. (I believe the ACBL tolerates, but does not condone, such action by a defender.) L42B2 allows dummy to warn declarer that s/he is about to lead from the wrong hand. That right is also possessed by defenders, I guess (can't find the Law that says so, but everyone does it). > > And anyway, defenders have the same right as dummy to ask declarer :-). The smiley excuses that comment. > > >Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why > >not remove it from the Laws? > > > Almost certainly politics. Grattan has opined that most laws "with the > option" are as they are because most of the world wants it, but > the rest have violent opposition to it (and when "the rest" is the ACBL, > it may be impossible to get any such Law passed, given the size of > its representation on all WBF committees). Which is too large. I'm for proportional representation, which would perhaps give us (you, me, everyone) the chance to have a uniform set of Laws. > > Maybe I should start calling the ACBL "the Toronto of Bridge". I'll > explain to non-Canadians upon request :-) > Oh, do tell us about that! Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 08:18:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLIT406450 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:29 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KLINt06446 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:18:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhnr.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.70.251]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA20536 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:18:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001701c09b9b$c3e254c0$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 16:18:05 -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 ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" To: Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 7:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Degree of culpability > > -------- > > Hirsch Davis writes > > >All of which leads back to a question that continues to bother me: If a > >player is not obligated to stop an opponent's infraction (and so far we have > >not come across a law that creates this obligation), is it proper to assign > >him partial blame for making the board unplayable at all? His opponent > >committed a clear infraction- he violated no Laws. What are his obligations > >under the Laws in this situation, that we will assign him partial blame for > >the unplayable board if he does not perform them? > > > >It feels right to assign partial blame, but is it actually correct? > > No, why? Do you assign partial blame to someone who sees a revoke but > waits for it to be established before drawing attention? > IIRC, earlier in this thread Grattan pointed out a wording in L88 that may apply: "In a pair or individual event, when a non-offending contestant is required to take an artificial adjusted score through no fault or choice of his own, such contestant shall be awarded a minimum of 60% of the matchpoints available to him on that board..." In the case in question, the player had the option of drawing attention to the infraction, which would have allowed the board to be played. The player's decision not to do so can be considered a "choice", even though no fault was present. By making a choice that results in an artificial score, the player no longer qualifies for A+ under L88. L12C1 refers to L88 for awarding A+ in pairs events, so it seems inappropriate to award A+ to a contestant that does not meet the criteria of L88. The difference between this situation and a revoke is obvious- a revoke does not require an artificial score, and both 12C1 and 88 are irrelevant. The conclusion I am left with is that an infraction that requires the assignment of an artificial score represents a special case. There is no obligation to draw attention to the infraction, and therefore no direct responsibility or infraction of Law if the player does not do so. However, if the player has the opportunity to prevent the infraction and play the board, but elects to take an artificial score instead, the player must bear partial responsibility for the artificial score, and is limited to Ave. 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 Feb 21 08:24:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLOWJ06470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:24:32 +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 f1KLOPt06466 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:24:26 +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 NAA18920; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:24:21 -0800 Message-Id: <200102202124.NAA18920@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:48:32 GMT." <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:24:21 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > DWS wrote: > > > xxx AQJ > > AK xx > > -- -- > > -- -- > > > > Declarer plays a spade to the jack, which holds. "Good," he says, > "I > > make the rest." and puts his cards down. > > > > Of course declarer is naive, and deserves the second finesse to be > > losing. But we know what he means, and we would not force him to play > > for the drop in spades: to do so [for this declarer] would be > > irrational. > > Interesting. Suppose the true position were: > > xx > xxx > -- > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > > How many tricks would declarer be awarded? Three. For anyone who is naive enough to think he can claim just because a finesse wins, it's not irrational to cash both hearts before repeating the finesse. -- 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 Feb 21 08:42:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLg8K06503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:42:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KLg3t06499 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:42:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:38:37 -0800 Message-ID: <007801c09b85$eb745800$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> <00e801c09af3$cff5d960$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102201628.LAA29577@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:35:31 -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: "Michael Farebrother" > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > >There is a second objection to the practice: One doesn't help partner > >during the bidding or play (L16), and the inquiry does just that. Once it > >is denied defenders for two reasons, it should be denied dummy even if one > >of those reasons doesn't apply. > > > Once dummy is dummy, he is treated very differently in the Laws than any > other player. L42B explicitly states that he may help declarer in > specific ways, as long as there is no unauthorized information that can > be passed to partner by the help. Not so explicit, and no mention of UI. If L42B2 covers a revoke inquiry, there would be no need for L42B1, the Law I would like to see removed. When declarer revokes (corrected or not), an irregularity has been committed and cannot be prevented. L42B2 doesn't allow dummy to call attention to an irregularity until play is over. > Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 08:49:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLnPY06525 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:49:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KLnJt06521 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:49:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:45:53 -0800 Message-ID: <008101c09b86$efb1be20$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200102201851.NAA18162@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:48:57 -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 From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation > > From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) > > I thought we had a debate a while back about something like > > "Judged to have used UI" and that Grattan had reported that this, > > according to a WBFLC interpretation, was the correct form for making a > > L16A ruling (instead of "may have used UI" or some such). > > I hope correct form is something like "judged to have chosen a > prohibited action after UI was made available." That's too long to > write out in every BLML message, but so far nobody has offered a short > but accurate substitute. I have always called it "misuse of UI," "may have misused UI," etc. MUI, misuse of UI. I suppose the "mis" is unnecessary, but it makes clear that an infraction is involved. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 08:49:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLnfE06537 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 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 hotmail.com (f50.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.50]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KLnZt06529 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:49:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:49:28 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.26 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 21:49:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.26] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:49:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Feb 2001 21:49:28.0488 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFBD1A80:01C09B86] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Interesting. Suppose the true position were: > > xx > xxx > -- > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? Three. Not irrational to cash the AKH as you need no further transportation after the first finesse. -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 Feb 21 08:58:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KLwH006563 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:58:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KLwAt06558 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:58:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KF91c00883 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:09:01 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:04:25 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <200102202030.MAA17692@mailhub.irvine.com> In-Reply-To: <200102202030.MAA17692@mailhub.irvine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022015090006.00781@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > I think David Burn already addressed that. If UI suggests an "action" > such as recounting one's aces, and that "action" leads to a call that > you wouldn't have made without the recount, then the UI has suggested > that call, albeit indirectly. > > In fact, I'd say that a lot of UI-based calls, that no one here would > dispute are illegal, are suggested only indirectly by the UI. Partner > opens 2NT. You bid 3C, Stayman (or so you think). Partner alerts, > explains it as asking about 4- or 5-card majors (i.e. Puppet Stayman), > then bids 3D (shows at least one 4CM, denies a 5CM). You forgot you > were playing Puppet Stayman; therefore you have UI from partner's > explanation. > But no one here would argue that way, would they? Everyone here would > assume that 3H is suggested by the UI and is therefore illegal, right? > Anyway, I can't see any real difference between my example and the > Hesitation Blackwood situation. The difference is that the UI in the Puppet Stayman situation suggests that partner misinterpreted your bid, which is normally UI, while the UI in the hesitation Blackwood situation suggests something about your own hand, which is normally AI. In the Puppet Stayman auction, partner's 3D bid has a different meaning because of the UI. When there is a hesitation Blackwood caused by an ace miscount, the AI is that partner wants to play 5H opposite the number of aces you have shown. This is true either with or without the hesitation, so the ruling that you are allowed to recount your aces is not as clear. -- Sincerely, David Grabiner, grabiner@math.la.asu.edu Department of Mathematics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1804 http://math.la.asu.edu/~grabiner Phone: (480)965-3745 (work), (480)517-1674 (home). Fax: (480)965-8119. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 09:08:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KM8bM07574 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:08:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KM8Qt07521 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:08:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KFJH800892 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:19:17 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: Subject: Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:10:03 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain References: <011801c09af6$8e0fb400$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <011801c09af6$8e0fb400$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022015191707.00781@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Marvin L. French wrote: > > In the case of the National Basketball Association the rules were > > changed to make it in the best interests of any team to finish as > > high as possible in the league standings. > > > > I think it is reasonable to attempt to write the rules of any game with > > this objective in mind. > Of course. But nobody would, I hope, condone the deliberate loss of games > before those rules were in place. The new rules did not say deliberately > losing was okay, they just made it unprofitable to do so. There was some more serious discussion about a problem in baseball, in which there was a direct strategic benefit for losing, as the team would be eliminated from contention if they won. The team in questions said that they would forfeit the games rather than playing to lose. The 1981 season was interrupted by a strike, and the resolution was to play the season in two halves, with the winners of the two halves in each division playing in the first round of the playoffs. However, if the same team won both halves, then instead of getting a bye, the team with the second-best overall record would be the other playoff team. (Blame the money for these bad conditions of contest; a missing series would mean no games on TV.) The Chicago White Sox finished second in the first half behind the Oakland A's, and were due to play the A's at the end of the second half. It could have happened that the A's and Kansas City Royals (fifth in the first half) were fighting for the title at the end, with the White Sox in third. The White Sox would then be in a position in which they would be eliminated if they won the games (causing Kansas City to win the second half) but would make the playoffs if they lost (and the A's won both halves, with the White Sox second-best). -- 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 Feb 21 09:13:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KMDSC09315 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:13:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KMDLt09276 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:13:21 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA19138 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:13:17 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18464 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:13:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:13:17 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal Thanks, Jesper. I agree with everything you write except for one small quibble: > Thinking is not an infraction, so L72B1 is out of the question. While thinking is certainly not an infraction, when it happens in a position in which it is unusual to have anything to think about, mightn't it be an irregularity? L72B1 doesn't explicitly require an infraction, although it does use the word 'offender'. An analogy (not terribly close) is L73F2. Taking awhile to think in an "obvious" position isn't an infraction _per se_, but we will still adjust the score if the conditions are met. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 09:21:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KMLN712171 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:21:23 +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 f1KMLGt12133 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:21:17 +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 RAA19468 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:21:13 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18479 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:21:13 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:21:13 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102202221.RAA18479@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Allowable tactics or not? X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Patrick Shields" >... So it looks reasonable tactics for one pair to act > optimistically (overbidding when close) and the other act > pessimistically (underbidding when close). > > Is agreement on such tactics allowed? > Does it have to be disclosed to the opponents? Kaplan's answer in a BW editorial -- and I hope I've remembered correctly: 1. Such tactics are legal. 2. You must disclose your own pair's strategy to your opponents at the table (if you have an agreement, as opposed to just your own personal choice of tactics). 3. You need not disclose the strategy of your teammates at the other table. This is analogous to disclosure of bidding and carding agreements. You are obliged to disclose your own, but you are not obliged to disclose or even to know those of your teammates. And it makes sense. After all, your team captain could have told you to underbid or overbid (or switch bidding systems!) without telling you what instructions, if any, he has given to the pair at the other table. Hmmm... what about those team captain's instructions? He says to North (privately), "I want you to underbid in close situations. Don't tell South." He says the same to South, saying "Don't tell North." Is there now a disclosure requirement? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 09:28:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KMSKa14644 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:28:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from pandora.worldonline.nl (pandora.worldonline.nl [195.241.48.140]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KMSDt14604 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:28:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from default (vp196-64.worldonline.nl [195.241.196.64]) by pandora.worldonline.nl (Postfix) with SMTP id 0035B36B54; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:28:03 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <004701c09b8c$b7d09200$40c4f1c3@default> From: "Jac Fuchs" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] Too many spades ... Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 23:30:20 +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 4.72.2106.4 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David, thank you for having given your opinion. Apparently, you are catching up, and I hope this is a good sign ! >>But what to do with board 6 ? North has UI there. L16A seems to imply >>that the hand has to be bid and played, but that the TD may assign an >>adjusted score later on. Anyway, the players flatly refuse to bid and >>play board 6. What score(s) do you assign ? > > There are a number of matters here. First, L16A is irrelevant in >effect, it is L16B which seems to have some relevance. > > But why not just apply L17D? this covers it, albeit in a fashion that >seems somewhat dubious sometimes. if offender subsequently repeats his >call, then ... but ... and in general the board will probably finish >cancelled with Art ASs. My instinct is for the Art AS to be A+/A-, ie I >consider E/W at fault. I had overlooked this. This way the second board will indeed almost always finish being cancelled with an Art AS, but that is quite what one would expect, and is fine with me too. However, I have just noted an unrelated minor point that disturbs me : there are two references in L17D to L90; the first one makes perfect sense, having a "for penalty" clause added to it, but the second one is lacking the "for penalty" clause, and reads as if the Art AS is explained there, which seems wrong to me. What is your opinion about that ? Finally, if I understand you correctly, one can be an offending player (South is so in this application of L17D) and may yet end up with a L12C Av+ score. Am I correct in interpreting your reply this way ? Jac -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 09:33:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KMX8o16358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:33:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1KMX2t16321 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:33:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id RAA20011 for ; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:32:59 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA18498 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:32:59 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:32:59 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102202232.RAA18498@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I have not been to my file to check details. > However, my 'sure' recollection 'off the top of my > head', is that Geoffrey Butler (British) originally > put this forward in connection with the 1975 > Laws Thanks, Grattan. I think you wrote some of the history before, but I'm afraid my memory is not so good as yours. I see that my copy of the 1987 Laws (ACBL second printing, August 1988) omits the zonal option. > Geoffrey Butler's original aim was to stop > players using the enquiry, made in tones of > surprise, to draw partner's attention to an > unexpected number of the suit with declarer > or whatever. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I well remember that "tone of surprise," but I don't recall having heard it in the last decade or more. Perhaps I'm just playing in better company, but my impression is that ethical standards have in fact improved, at least in this respect. It will be interesting to see what the new LC makes of the zonal option (and how loud the ACBL will scream if it's 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 Wed Feb 21 10:21:28 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1KNL6S22141 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:21:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1KNL0t22137 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 10:21:00 +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 PAA21773; Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:20:55 -0800 Message-Id: <200102202320.PAA21773@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:04:25 GMT." <01022015090006.00781@psa836> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:20:53 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Adam Beneschan wrote: > > > I think David Burn already addressed that. If UI suggests an "action" > > such as recounting one's aces, and that "action" leads to a call that > > you wouldn't have made without the recount, then the UI has suggested > > that call, albeit indirectly. > > > > In fact, I'd say that a lot of UI-based calls, that no one here would > > dispute are illegal, are suggested only indirectly by the UI. Partner > > opens 2NT. You bid 3C, Stayman (or so you think). Partner alerts, > > explains it as asking about 4- or 5-card majors (i.e. Puppet Stayman), > > then bids 3D (shows at least one 4CM, denies a 5CM). You forgot you > > were playing Puppet Stayman; therefore you have UI from partner's > > explanation. > > > But no one here would argue that way, would they? Everyone here would > > assume that 3H is suggested by the UI and is therefore illegal, right? > > > Anyway, I can't see any real difference between my example and the > > Hesitation Blackwood situation. > > The difference is that the UI in the Puppet Stayman situation suggests > that partner misinterpreted your bid, which is normally UI, while the > UI in the hesitation Blackwood situation suggests something about your > own hand, which is normally AI. In the Puppet Stayman auction, > partner's 3D bid has a different meaning because of the UI. > > When there is a hesitation Blackwood caused by an ace miscount, the AI > is that partner wants to play 5H opposite the number of aces you have > shown. This is true either with or without the hesitation, so the > ruling that you are allowed to recount your aces is not as clear. My example would be better, and would still make my point, if I had used a convention in which the UI from partner didn't give you any information about his own hand (i.e. partner's bid meant the same thing in the system you're actually playing and in the system you thought you were playing), but did affect your choice of follow-up. I couldn't think of one off the top of my head, however. OK, here's one. RHO opens 1S. You have a big hand with diamonds, which you elect to show by doubling and then bidding diamonds. Parnter, however, alerts your double, saying that you could have a minimum takeout double with hearts and long diamonds (i.e. Equal Level Conversion). You forgot you were playing this. Partner bids 2C. The opponents have passed throughout after the 1S opening. The UI suggests you go back and remember how you and your partner discussed handling this hand (do you jump in diamonds, or do you cue-bid), but it doesn't give you any information about partner's hand. -- 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 Feb 21 13:26:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L2NR329418 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:23:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L2NHt29361 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:23:18 +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 14VOvu-0000wY-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:23:11 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 12:30:13 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: David Stevenson Reply-To: David Stevenson Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? 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 Howardpup@aol.com writes >If this is an inappropriate forum for my questiion, please ignore it, or >refer me elsewhere. I think it is highly appropriate. You will get better understanding of such problems here than on RGB, for example. Of course, someone may see something strange, and then all sorts of strange articles will follow! >Today, playing in the first round of a very heterogenous ACBL "sectional" >open pairs, I pick up Axx, Axx, K, AQxxxx. > >Playing old-fashioned Blue Team, I judge this not to meet our "17 point hand >that we like" criterion for opening one club, so I open 2C (11-16 HCP, >typically six good clubs.) Partner bids 2D, artificial, asking. I bid 2NT >showing two side suits stopped. Partner asks with 3D and I show both majors >with 3NT. After a 5-minute huddle, partner -- a conservative expert who >doesn't take wild shots in weak fields -- bids 6C. > >Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the hesitation >imply? > >My thought was that the 6C bid (when 4C would have been forcing), showed the >diamond ace (since I could have two losing diamonds in the suit likely to be >led), probably both major suit kings, and maybe queens, since my stopper in >either major could be Qxx, plus the club king. This makes 7C easy, and I bid >it. At no previous point in our auction could I have described extra values. >If he had taken a shot with KQxx, KQxx, x, Kxxxx, I'd go down. this is the >only hand type I can think of where I wouldn't have a very odds-on play for >seven. > >Later, I asked one of the opponents (a pro and occasional teammate) if he >thought 7C was clear and he responded that without the hitch, he would bid 7C >without much thought; but, if the hesitation might have indicated a decision >between bidding 6 and trying for 7, he would pass. > >Partner held Q, KQx, Axxx, KJxxx. Not that it's relevant, but he says his >thoughts were whether to pass 3NT, try for slam, or bid 6C. Finally, he >decided we would make anytime I held three spades, and took his shot. > >Could this be one of those cases where the hesitation could be the problem, >no matter what I do? If I pass, couldn't one argue that the hesitation might >have indicated a wild shot, on something like KQx, KQxx, x, KJxxx? If so, >should I then be forced to bid 7, since he might have held his actual hand? I do not think the UI indicates anything that suggests 7C over pass, so your 7C is perfectly legal. -- 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 Feb 21 13:28:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L2RsL00983 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:27:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L2Rlt00942 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:27:48 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VP0J-000BwT-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:27:43 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:26:09 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@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 <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >DWS wrote: > >> xxx AQJ >> AK xx >> -- -- >> -- -- >> >> Declarer plays a spade to the jack, which holds. "Good," he says, >"I >> make the rest." and puts his cards down. >> >> Of course declarer is naive, and deserves the second finesse to be >> losing. But we know what he means, and we would not force him to play >> for the drop in spades: to do so [for this declarer] would be >> irrational. > >Interesting. Suppose the true position were: > > xx > xxx > -- > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? I'd award 2 to the defenders. It's not irrational to cash AK > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 21 13:35:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L2ZJd01284 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:35:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L2ZDt01280 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:35:14 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VP7R-000LAQ-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:35:06 +0000 Message-ID: <5va$32AKkyk6EwVD@asimere.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:33:46 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Allowable tactics or not? References: <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@default> In-Reply-To: <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@default> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@default>, Patrick Shields writes >An old issue of which I was reminded by reading the >discussion in "Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The >inscrutable face of the game". > >We had a situation a little while back, towards the end of a >match we were losing by a substantial margin ...... >obviously we needed swings in the last set but we were >unlikely to achieve those by bidding our socks off in both >rooms, because on any one board the best we could expect is >that cards would be lying well for one side but not the >other. So it looks reasonable tactics for one pair to act >optimistically (overbidding when close) and the other act >pessimistically (underbidding when close). It's actually better in an 8-board segment to agree to do nothing for the first half of the set, and then try to get it back in the second half. You will know which of the first four boards team-mates may be able to operate on, and they will know which you can do something on. You don't double-win any boards either. > >Is agreement on such tactics allowed? Yes. You're trying to win the match. >Does it have to be disclosed to the opponents? probably, but they know you'll be trying something anyway. > >Patrick (a lurker with only fish for pets) >Cheltenham, UK. > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 21 16:16:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L5FLe13431 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:15:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L5FEt13388 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:15:15 +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 AAA18808 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:21:21 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102210521.AAA18808@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <007801c09b85$eb745800$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <001c01c09acf$6c338f40$5a5d063e@dodona> <00e801c09af3$cff5d960$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102201628.LAA29577@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <007801c09b85$eb745800$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:21:20 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 February 2001 at 13:35, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >From: "Michael Farebrother" > >> "Marvin L. French" wrote: >> > >> >There is a second objection to the practice: One doesn't help partner >> >during the bidding or play (L16), and the inquiry does just that. >> > >> Once dummy is dummy, he is treated very differently in the Laws than any >> other player. L42B explicitly states that he may help declarer in >> specific ways, as long as there is no unauthorized information that can >> be passed to partner by the help. > >Not so explicit, and no mention of UI. If L42B2 covers a revoke inquiry, >there would be no need for L42B1, the Law I would like to see removed. >When declarer revokes (corrected or not), an irregularity has been >committed and cannot be prevented. L42B2 doesn't allow dummy to call >attention to an irregularity until play is over. >> Hehe, caught by my own hubris. The day I post that I usually can work out the difference between "this is what the Laws say" and "this is what the Laws should say", I miss one. Why am I not surprised :-) You are arguing that since L42B1 contradicts L16, and that defenders can't ask partner the way dummy can (barring an Election), that L42B1 should go. I am not sure that is necessary for the good of the game. The reason defenders can't ask each other is the likelihood of passing UI; dummy can't do this (by the simple nature of having no hidden I to pass). I wouldn't be upset to see L42B1 go - frankly, I wouldn't be too upset to see L42B go in its entirety - but it does have historical support, and I don't think it's a big deal either way. I choose not to exercise my L42B1 rights (or my L61B Election rights, for that matter). I have my reasons. But I don't have a problem, theoretically or at the table, with other dummies doing so. Michael. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 17:37:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L6bCl20804 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:37:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L6b6t20800 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:37:06 +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 BAA19992 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:43:15 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102210643.BAA19992@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: <005901c09b81$ad7fe360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <200102201619.LAA29462@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> <005901c09b81$ad7fe360$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 01:43:14 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 20 February 2001 at 13:11, "Marvin L. French" wrote: > >From: "Michael Farebrother" > >> "Marvin L. French" >> > >> >At first thought it seems extremely strange that the Laws include an >> >option for a ZO to permit one defender to help the other in this way, >or >> >that any ZO would elect to adopt that option. The ACBL elected to do >so, >> >and the reasoning is fairly obvious: If dummy can ask declarer, why >> >shouldn't a defender be allowed to do the same? >> > >> Um, because dummy can't pass UI to declarer about the contents of her >hand? >> :-), but I expect that I'm correct. > >If the question is not selective, no UI for defenders either. Yes, but the question is selective in practice, by at least the number of partnerships as that selectively use the Stop card in the ACBL - and we all know what that is like. Well, at least all of us in North America, anyway. >> >If [worry about questioning only when "surprised"] is the case, >> >it would be more fair to forbid the question by dummy >> >also. >> >> Why? Surely dummy has significantly less information to pass to partner >> by this question than does defender (as dummy's cards are already >> known). > >There are two sides to this coin. The other one is that players are not >supposed to help partner (other than mechanically, playing dummy's cards >as directed). Don't you think that asking about a possible revoke isn't >helping partner? I am prone to revoking as declarer, and (since it's >legal) ask my partners to inquire every time I show out of a suit for the >first time. It isn't right that I can have such help from partner, and >defenders cannot. That's why I say either let both sides ask (IMO not in >the spirit of the game), or deny the right to both sides. >> This I can understand, and possibly agree with. The converse argument is that dummy is special, and so we can restrict and allow dummy rights as we see fit in the same way that declarer can't have a MPC if he corrects a revoke, because his environment is different from defenders'. Frankly, I don't care what happens; but my style and choices would make me prefer WBF rules. I wouldn't care if anybody was allowed to ask anybody else, except for the potential for abuse it gives defenders. Dummy has no such potential for abuse; so I don't care that he can ask. >> I'd be happy with "always ask on first discard", >> though. > >Not understood. Do you mean only on first failure to play a card to a >given suit? That's all anyone would expect, I hope. Do you mean only on >first failure to follow suit, period? That seems inconsistent. >> First failure to follow suit on a hand. Inconsistent, yes, but asking every first out in any suit would drive me nuts, no matter were I was at the table. And 95% of the "having none?" questions I hear are on partner's first discard. >I don't believe L42B2 applies to a possible revoke, as (if it is one) the >irregularity has already been committed. Of course - L42B1 does. That's why I said "the spirit of L42B2"; perhaps a better description of my position is "L42B is clearly intended to allow Dummy to ensure that declarer doesn't do anything stupid, up to, but not including, offering suggestions as to the action plan of the play. Ensuring that declarer hasn't revoked comes under 'not plan of play, and stupid' - so it should be allowed." >> And anyway, defenders have the same right as dummy to ask declarer :-). > >The smiley excuses that comment. >> I was attempting a joke based on the fact that your question could be misread. I failed. I apologize. >> Maybe I should start calling the ACBL "the Toronto of Bridge". I'll >> explain to non-Canadians upon request :-) >> >Oh, do tell us about that! > Ok, twist my arm. Torontonians and Torontophiles can hit "n" now :-). First, realize the population distribution of Canada. 30 millions, of which about 6 millions live in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area). In fact, the sixth largest city in Canada is a *suburb of Toronto*. Needless to say, Toronto has a huge representation in our National Parliament, and almost a majority of the seats in our Provincial Parliament. Torontonians are firm in the belief that they live in the best place in the world; that the way they do things is universally "the right way" (or at least, better than the way anyone else does it); and can not understand how anyone else could believe anything else. A recent classic example of that attitude was when the Ontario Transportation Minister suggested saving costs by removing all the "help phones" on the provincial highways. After all, he said, everybody has a cell phone, or at least the driver of the next car does. Imagine someone in Melbourne saying that about Australia in general, or a Muscovite talking about (even European) Russia. Needless to say, the realities of the situation were explained to him Real Quick, and he backed off on that plan. Canadians that don't live in Toronto, needless to say, don't appreciate this attitude. They also are of the opinion that a Torontonian believes that Canada stops at Barrie (an hour north of TO) and Ottawa (because small as it is, it is our National Capital, and sometimes they pass laws that don't benefit Canada^H^H^H^H^H^HToronto), with exceptions for Quebec City (because they complain too loudly to ignore), Montreal (because they complain about Quebec City too loudly to ignore), and Vancouver (because that's where our illegal immigrants land, and they can't ignore that). There is a Rest of Canada, but as it simply exists to support the Toronto Lifestyle, it is ignorable. These attitudes don't mix very well; and that's why there are two Separatist Parties in what the UN repeatedly calls the best country in the world to live. And that's why the Canadian media (headquartered in...um...Toronto, strangely enough) can't seem to understand the parties' existence. For another view of this, listen to The Toronto Song from Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie, available from mp3.com, if you go through their hoops. (a hint; it finds nothing wrong with an example.com email address - even though this is one domain guaranteed to not exist). The resemblances to the ACBL v. RoW seem, um, self-evident. The accuracy of the opinions are probably equivalent, too. Michael - not from Toronto. Not even, originally, from Ontario. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 18:41:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L7ef520889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:40:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L7eZt20885 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:40:36 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1L7bCb14562 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:37:12 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 02:39:13 -0500 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] What does this huddle suggest? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:03 AM -0500 2/20/01, Howardpup@aol.com wrote: >Since a pause of this magnitude is UI (I think), what does the hesitation >imply? Most of the posters to this list are far more qualified than I to answer questions on the laws, and UI situations are among those I don't fully understand yet, but something about this question bothers me. I don't know if it matters in the end, but it seems to me you have the cart before the horse. :-) In order to determine whether there is UI, you have to *first* decide whether the hesitation implies *anything*. The mere fact there was a pause, however long, does not in itself constitute UI. Or at least I *think* that's right. :-) As for figuring out what this particular hesitation implies, I'll leave that to others - it's past my bed time, and besides my head hurts. :-) 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/AwUBOpNw9b2UW3au93vOEQJMjwCfbiU8D2yFmOvS2/M8QQztwtEcw7EAnRp7 SBFgtcOs19ds7rr9NhA0megN =Cl6w -----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 Feb 21 19:37:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L8arW21412 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:36:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1L8akt21378 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:36:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp2.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:33:20 -0800 Message-ID: <00f601c09be1$63bdbda0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <200102202232.RAA18498@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 00:36:26 -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: "Steve Willner" > > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > +=+ I have not been to my file to check details. > > However, my 'sure' recollection 'off the top of my > > head', is that Geoffrey Butler (British) originally > > put this forward in connection with the 1975 > > Laws > > Thanks, Grattan. I think you wrote some of the history before, but I'm > afraid my memory is not so good as yours. > > I see that my copy of the 1987 Laws (ACBL second printing, August 1988) > omits the zonal option. Evidently that was the reason for coming out with the "Revised, September 1990" edition (the one I have), which includes it, Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 21 20:08:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1L98SU02511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:08:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from protactinium ([194.73.73.176]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1L98Lt02474 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:08:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.20.147] (helo=pbncomputer) by protactinium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14VVFt-0005Qh-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:08:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:59 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd (and others) wrote: [in the position below, declarer, West, takes the spade finesse, claiming when South ducks] > > xx > > xxx > > -- > > -- > > xxx AQJ > > AK xx > > -- -- > > -- -- > > Kx > > xxx > > -- > > -- > > > >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > > Three. Not irrational to cash the AKH as you need no further transportation > after the first finesse. Now suppose the true position is: xx xx x -- xxx AQJ AK xx -- -- -- -- Kx xxx -- -- South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? 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 Feb 21 21:33:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LAWeP15470 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:32:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LAWXt15466 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:32:34 +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 LAA05306; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:32:22 +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 LAA24611; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:32:13 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010221113429.00856360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:34:29 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: Terminology/II: (Was: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt) Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200102202030.MAA17692@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 12:30 20/02/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: Partner >opens 2NT. You bid 3C, Stayman (or so you think). Partner alerts, >explains it as asking about 4- or 5-card majors (i.e. Puppet Stayman), >then bids 3D (shows at least one 4CM, denies a 5CM). You forgot you >were playing Puppet Stayman; therefore you have UI from partner's >explanation. If you have a 4=3=4=2 hand, say, does the UI suggest >that you bid 3H (the conventional way to show four spades and deny >four hearts)? Or does the UI suggest that you rethink what the >conventional responses and follow-ups to Puppet Stayman are? It's >certainly possible to argue that the UI suggests 3H only indirectly; >that in reality, the UI suggests that you go back over your memory to >figure out what you're playing, and since this rethinking action isn't >a "call" or "play", it's legal by L16A and therefore it's perfectly >legal to call 3H. > >But no one here would argue that way, would they? Everyone here would >assume that 3H is suggested by the UI and is therefore illegal, right? > AG : emphatically so. But how do you intend to detect that the staymanist did use UI ? There is absolutely no difference in attitude between somebody who already knew he played Puppet and somebody who discovered it late. Both would bid 3H, alas. Ah yes, putting some obstacle between the players. You could call them 'screens'. How fair the game would become, although Herman just told us there were no panacaea :) Or, easier : Puppet shouldn't be alertable, only the responses. 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 Feb 21 21:38:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LAc4315488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:38:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LAbwt15484 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:37:58 +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 LAA07884; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:37:48 +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 LAA29145; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:37:38 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010221113955.00856360@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 11:39:55 +0100 To: "Patrick Shields" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Allowable tactics or not? In-Reply-To: <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:21 20/02/01 -0000, Patrick Shields wrote: >An old issue of which I was reminded by reading the >discussion in "Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The >inscrutable face of the game". > >We had a situation a little while back, towards the end of a >match we were losing by a substantial margin ...... >obviously we needed swings in the last set but we were >unlikely to achieve those by bidding our socks off in both >rooms, because on any one board the best we could expect is >that cards would be lying well for one side but not the >other. So it looks reasonable tactics for one pair to act >optimistically (overbidding when close) and the other act >pessimistically (underbidding when close). > >Is agreement on such tactics allowed? >Does it have to be disclosed to the opponents? AG : this is not an agreement on system. However, when a player of the 'optimistic' pair would open a preempt, his partner would be compelled to alert and signal it could be quite light (the 'implicit agreement' provision from L75B). And so on. Agreement would not have to be specific. I think it would be a natural thing to do, and good tactics too, to let an optimistic pair be more so, and a pessimistic one be more so. What if the captain gave specific instructions ? Does the coach of a US foot team reveal his tactics before the match ? 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 Feb 21 21:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LAirh15511 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:44:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno.racsa.co.cr (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LAiht15507 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 21:44:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from john (sanpedro-a59.racsa.co.cr [196.40.40.60]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id EAA12522; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 04:33:38 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000a01c09bea$1a643040$3c2828c4@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200102161757.MAA00601@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 03:25:26 -0500 Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Here in Zone 5-CACBF, we follow the WBF lead and forbid defenders to ask one another until play has ceased. saludos, john John A. Mac Gregor, Chief Tournament Director Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation Current Residence: San Jose, Costa Rica e-mail: johnmacg@hotmail.com johnmacg@racsa.co.cr CACBF Web Page: http://www.geocities.com/cacbf/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Willner" To: Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 12:57 PM Subject: [BLML] L61B | Where are defenders allowed to ask each other about a possible revoke? | | My information is that asking is illegal in WBF play and in Zone 1 | (Europe); legal in Zones 2 (North America), 7 (Australia, New Zealand, | islands), and 8 (Africa, new zone). | | Any corrections to the above or definite information on other zones? | -- | ======================================================================== | (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with | "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" 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 Feb 21 22:41:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LBfBF29909 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:41:11 +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-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LBf0t29859 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:41:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.216]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1LBer702376 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:40:54 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A924BFF.4CDD5432@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:50:39 +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] L61B References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@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: > > > Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, > when defenders don't have this right? > Because dummy cannot transfer useful information to partner. Note that dummy is no longer allowed to do this when he has seen other hands. > Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why > not remove it from the Laws? > Because the ACBL does not want to have to change the habits of 200000 players. I can understand that. However, there are no 200000 players in Africa that currently use this practice, so it is easy for Zone 8 to tell them they should not. Which is why I found it strange that Zone 8 would have gone against the WBF (and the zone (5?) that they sprang from). -- 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 Feb 21 22:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LBfFK29932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:41:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LBf3t29871 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:41:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.216]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1LBex702427 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:40:59 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A924DF9.9272E92@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:59:05 +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] DwS - one more try References: <3A911986.3E00C129@village.uunet.be> <000d01c09ab0$b2ed6d80$6c7fa218@austin.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello Kevin, I don't believe you've posted before ? Welcome ! Kevin Perkins wrote: > > I understand both the DwS and the DWS position on this. The only question I > have about the DwS is, can it be right to use the UI given by partner in the > first place? That seems to be the source of the disagreement. I have > always believed that any alert or failure to alert or explaination by > partner should be treated as not heard until the auction ( and possibly > play, if defender) is over. If possible, bridge would be played where this > information would only be transmitted to the opponents during the auction. > I do have sympathy for the position that using the UI to try to prevent MI > may actually benifit the opponents. > > Kevin Perkins > This one has been put forward already. Law 16 tells us it is not allowed to base bids and plays upon UI. It says nothing about other actions. Besides, explaining the mistake before the opening lead is also an action based on UI. Yes, that one is mentioned explicitely in the Laws, but, by my intrerpretation, so is this requirement ("not indicate in any manner" of L75D2). -- 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 Feb 21 22:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LBf2o29866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:41:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LBest29815 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:40:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-216.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.216]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1LBem702338 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:40:49 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A924AA0.E5BD1EE9@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:44:48 +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: Wording problem [BLML], was The inscrutable face of thegame References: <200102191941.LAA17322@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: > > Marvin wrote: > > > I believe these principles apply to other sports and games. In American > > football, finishing last gives the right to first pick of new players in > > the next draft, but there is no evidence that players, coaches, or owners > > aim for that when having a bad season. > > Maybe not in football; but in basketball, I think there was a > suspicion that the Houston Rockets played badly on purpose two years > in a row so that they could get two first-round draft picks (Samson > and Olajuwon). That's when the NBA decided to institute a lottery, so > that all the teams that missed the playoffs would have a random > drawing to decide which of them would get the first, second, etc., > picks, instead of the worst team always getting the first pick. (I'm > not an expert on this; my apologies if I got any details wrong.) > > -- Adam > This proves that the original set of regulations was "not good". There is nothing wrong in the tactics that follow from bad regulations. -- 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 Feb 22 00:03:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LD36v28157 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:03:06 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LD2ut28111 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:02:57 +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 f1LD2qV77134 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:02:52 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010221075729.00ab12c0@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, 21 Feb 2001 08:02:18 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Allowable tactics or not? In-Reply-To: <01c09b26$ee96d9e0$8f7b989e@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 05:21 AM 2/20/01, Patrick wrote: >An old issue of which I was reminded by reading the >discussion in "Re: Wording problem [BLML], was The >inscrutable face of the game". > >We had a situation a little while back, towards the end of a >match we were losing by a substantial margin ...... >obviously we needed swings in the last set but we were >unlikely to achieve those by bidding our socks off in both >rooms, because on any one board the best we could expect is >that cards would be lying well for one side but not the >other. So it looks reasonable tactics for one pair to act >optimistically (overbidding when close) and the other act >pessimistically (underbidding when close). > >Is agreement on such tactics allowed? Yes. >Does it have to be disclosed to the opponents? Your actual (at the table) opponents have a right to know about any agreement that will affect your bidding and/or play. So each pair must disclose that they have agreed to bid optimistically or pessimistically, but need not disclose their teammates' tactics. 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 Feb 22 03:49:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LGn2O04207 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:49:03 +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 f1LGmut04166 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 03:48:56 +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 IAA08046; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:48:52 -0800 Message-Id: <200102211648.IAA08046@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Feb 2001 11:50:39 +0100." <3A924BFF.4CDD5432@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 08:48:52 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman de Wael wrote: > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, > > when defenders don't have this right? > > > > Because dummy cannot transfer useful information to partner. > Note that dummy is no longer allowed to do this when he has > seen other hands. Nitpick: That's only true if dummy has looked at another hand on his own initiative (L42A2). -- 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 Feb 22 04:34:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LHYS014529 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:34:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from t21mta02-app.talk21.com (mta02.talk21.com [62.172.192.41]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LHYMt14525 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 04:34:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from davicaltd ([62.7.5.108]) by t21mta02-app.talk21.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010221173113.ZZIF19514.t21mta02-app.talk21.com@davicaltd> for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:31:13 +0000 Message-ID: <001501c09c2c$ac4570e0$6c05073e@davicaltd> From: "David Martin" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: Fw: [BLML] L61B Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:34:14 -0000 Organization: Davica Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > Herman de Wael wrote: > > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > > > > > > Question 1: What justification is there for allowing dummy's question, > > > when defenders don't have this right? > > > > > > > Because dummy cannot transfer useful information to partner. > > Note that dummy is no longer allowed to do this when he has > > seen other hands. > > Nitpick: That's only true if dummy has looked at another hand on his > own initiative (L42A2). > > -- Adam ###### Just to nitpick even more. Its only true if dummy has looked at the face of *a* card in a defender's hand on his own initiative. ######## Regards David -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 05:55:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LItCX00304 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:55:13 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LIt6t00300 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 05:55:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from spir.h.dybdal.dk (spir.h.dybdal.dk [10.148.46.2]) by nuser.dybdal.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id 0731BD7C89 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:55:01 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Dybdal To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:55:02 +0100 Organization: at home Message-ID: References: <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> In-Reply-To: <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1LIt9t00301 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:13:17 -0500 (EST), Steve Willner wrote: >Thanks, Jesper. I agree with everything you write except for one >small quibble: > >> Thinking is not an infraction, so L72B1 is out of the question. > >While thinking is certainly not an infraction, when it happens in a >position in which it is unusual to have anything to think about, >mightn't it be an irregularity? L72B1 doesn't explicitly require an >infraction, although it does use the word 'offender'. I was about to answer this when I suddenly found it difficult to find a law that explicitly makes it illegal to deliberately pause in order to give _partner_ more time to think. I don't think that can be called "communication", and L74B4, L74C7, and L73D2 are all about tempo variations for other purposes. What have I overlooked? -- 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 Feb 22 07:07:04 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LK6WD14822 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:06:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f55.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.55]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LK6Qt14787 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:06:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:06:19 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.28 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:06:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.28] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:06:19 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Feb 2001 20:06:19.0355 (UTC) FILETIME=[C1241AB0:01C09C41] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: "David Burn" >Todd (and others) wrote: > >[in the position below, declarer, West, takes the spade finesse, >claiming when South ducks] > > > > xx > > > xxx > > > -- > > > -- > > > xxx AQJ > > > AK xx > > > -- -- > > > -- -- > > > Kx > > > xxx > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > > > > Three. Not irrational to cash the AKH as you need no further >transportation > > after the first finesse. > >Now suppose the true position is: > > xx > xx > x > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > >South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that >North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? Assuming West can count and is doing so, cashing AKH, West sees that North can only have 2 spades. When the 2nd round of spades (starting from the end position) fails to show the KS in North, play the AS taking all 5. But it's still not irrational (for most of us) to take the finesse before cashing both AKH, one trick to defense. I, for one, would not have thought about exposing the location of the KS by playing AKH first, and neither would this declarer as he thinks he already knows where it is. -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 Feb 22 07:27:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LKQsN19509 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:26:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net [207.217.121.85]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LKQmt19505 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:26:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from ivillage (sdn-ar-002kslawrP280.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.82]) by gull.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA22933 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 12:26:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200102211424120130.00F2D4B3@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.01 (3) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:24:12 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Now suppose the true position is: >> >> xx >> xx >> x >> -- >> xxx AQJ >> AK xx >> -- -- >> -- -- >> Kx >> xxx >> -- >> -- >> >>South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that >>North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > >Assuming West can count and is doing so, cashing AKH, West sees that North >can only have 2 spades. When the 2nd round of spades (starting from the >end >position) fails to show the KS in North, play the AS taking all 5. > >But it's still not irrational (for most of us) to take the finesse before >cashing both AKH, one trick to defense. I, for one, would not have >thought >about exposing the location of the KS by playing AKH first, and neither >would this declarer as he thinks he already knows where it is. But failing to count would be careless but not irrational for most (perhaps all) players, so I can see a case for 2 tricks to the defense. Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 07:55:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LKsmK19553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:54:48 +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 f1LKsdt19548 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 07:54:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from shields.demon.co.uk ([158.152.123.143] helo=default) by finch-post-10.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14VgHS-000PwO-0A for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:54:35 +0000 From: "Patrick Shields" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 20:59:53 -0000 Message-ID: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Recent incident in local Swiss teams. Comments welcome. Dealer South, EW Vul xx xx xx KJTxxxxx AQJxx Txx QJxx Axx KQx A9xx x Qxx Kxx Kxxx JTxx Ax Bidding goes W N E S ============= <> <> <> 1N 2C 2N P 3C P P X P 3S P 4C P 4S 5C X end 1N : weak, advertised as 12-14 2C : hearts and another: show shorter major if holding both 2N : Lebensohl, demands 3C 3C : forced P over 3C : after a small pause X : after a noticeable pause 3S : after a longer pause 4C : cue, supporting spades After the hand (down 500) EW complained about abuse of UI. The TD ruling was that the 3S bid suggested a bid of 3.5 spades and the 4S bid was therefore disallowed. Result rolled back to 3S+2 for 200 to EW. Some discomfort afterwards but no appeal. Questions which came up a) the pass over 2N and then re-entry to the auction after 3C might not be entirely rational, but the player concerned is still a schoolboy (competent but still relatively inexperienced). Can (should) we take this into account in determining LAs - ie one person's LAs might not be another's? b) the pause before X and before 3S are (IMHO) primarily because this situation was never discussed before by this year old, twice a week partnership. It doesn't sound right that "we're in unfamiliar territory, partner" constitutes UI. Or is that UI? One long pause often generates another in practice, because of the uncertainty the first pause identifies. Does that make the slow 3S bid a normal tempo for that auction? c) if we didn't have the distraction of being sure how we handle this situation, then the slow 3S bid suggests there are LAs. The wording in the rule book is "could demonstrably have been suggested over another". Are we to ask ourselves "could to the player concerned" or "could to me have been suggested?" Patrick Cheltenham,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 Feb 22 08:12:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LLBVN19592 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:11:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LLBOt19588 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:11:25 +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 NAA14959; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:11:20 -0800 Message-Id: <200102212111.NAA14959@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Feb 2001 09:07:59 GMT." <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:11:20 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > Todd (and others) wrote: > > [in the position below, declarer, West, takes the spade finesse, > claiming when South ducks] > > > > xx > > > xxx > > > -- > > > -- > > > xxx AQJ > > > AK xx > > > -- -- > > > -- -- > > > Kx > > > xxx > > > -- > > > -- > > > > > >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > > > > Three. Not irrational to cash the AKH as you need no further > transportation > > after the first finesse. > > Now suppose the true position is: > > xx > xx > x > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > > South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that > North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? I still say three. Todd pointed out that once the play goes finesse, two hearts, and a spade lead, West can count the hand out and see that North does not have room for the spade king. However, I belive that failure to count the hand out would be "careless", not "irrational", for the class of player that would make this bogus claim in the first place. If someone is careless enough to think he can claim because the finesse "obviously" is going to work again, they're certainly going to be careless enough to take the finesse again without thinking, and specifically without thinking about the remaining diamond known to be in North's hand. -- 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 Feb 22 08:48:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LLm5J19647 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:48:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (cosmos.ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca [132.156.47.32]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LLlwt19640 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:47:59 +1100 (EST) Received: (from johnson@localhost) by cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca (8.10.1/8.10.1) id f1LLn3G10741 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:49:03 -0500 (EST) From: Ron Johnson Message-Id: <200102212149.f1LLn3G10741@cosmos.CCRS.NRCan.gc.ca> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 16:49:02 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> from "Patrick Shields" at Feb 21, 2001 08:59:53 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 Patrick Shields writes: > > Recent incident in local Swiss teams. Comments welcome. > > Dealer South, EW Vul > > xx > xx > xx > KJTxxxxx > > AQJxx Txx > QJxx Axx > KQx A9xx > x Qxx > > Kxx > Kxxx > JTxx > Ax > > Bidding goes > > W N E S > ============= > <> <> <> 1N > 2C 2N P 3C > P P X P > 3S P 4C P > 4S 5C X end > > 1N : weak, advertised as 12-14 > 2C : hearts and another: show shorter major if holding both > 2N : Lebensohl, demands 3C > 3C : forced > P over 3C : after a small pause > X : after a noticeable pause > 3S : after a longer pause > 4C : cue, supporting spades > > After the hand (down 500) EW complained > about abuse of UI. The TD ruling was that > the 3S bid suggested a bid of 3.5 spades > and the 4S bid was therefore disallowed. > Result rolled back to 3S+2 for 200 to EW. > > Some discomfort afterwards but no appeal. > Questions which came up > > a) the pass over 2N and then re-entry to the auction > after 3C might not be entirely rational, but the > player concerned is still a schoolboy (competent > but still relatively inexperienced). Can (should) we > take this into account in determining LAs - ie > one person's LAs might not be another's? Not only can his relative inexperience be taken into consideration, they must be. LAs are potentially different for each player. > b) the pause before X and before 3S are (IMHO) > primarily because this situation was never > discussed before by this year old, twice a week > partnership. It doesn't sound right that "we're > in unfamiliar territory, partner" constitutes UI. What matters is whether there's information beyond this being trasmitted. And there is. Doubt this? Give either member of the partnership weaker (or stronger) hands and you'll get in tempo actions. A slow 3S call is a pretty accurate description of the West hand and inexperienced or no, the 4C call looks to me like a clear use of the UI. I don't care what your experience level is, a pass of 3S is a LA. Unless you have some right funny agreements as to the minimum strength of the 2C call. > Or is that UI? It can be. I know I can generally tell if my partner's hesitation is "I can't recall our agreements" or "I'm picking through our system trying to find the action that best describes my hand." > One long pause often generates > another in practice, because of the uncertainty > the first pause identifies. Does that make the > slow 3S bid a normal tempo for that auction? Nope. > c) if we didn't have the distraction of being sure > how we handle this situation, then the slow 3S bid > suggests there are LAs. The wording in the > rule book is "could demonstrably have been suggested > over another". Are we to ask ourselves "could to the > player concerned" or "could to me have been suggested?" To the player concerned or more accurately to the player concerned and his peers. -- RNJ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 09:06:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LM5wh19725 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:05:58 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LM5mt19720 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:05:49 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14VhOK-0001us-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:05:44 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:04:18 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Todd (and others) wrote: > >[in the position below, declarer, West, takes the spade finesse, >claiming when South ducks] > >> > xx >> > xxx >> > -- >> > -- >> > xxx AQJ >> > AK xx >> > -- -- >> > -- -- >> > Kx >> > xxx >> > -- >> > -- >> > >> >How many tricks would declarer be awarded? >> >> Three. Not irrational to cash the AKH as you need no further >transportation >> after the first finesse. > >Now suppose the true position is: > > xx > xx > x > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > >South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that >North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? I don't believe that declarer knows North has a Diamond. I'd doubt she even knows the day of the week. Still 2 tricks to the defence > >David Burn >London, England > > >-- >======================================================================== >(Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with >"(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. >A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 22 09:30:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LMU2K19748 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:30:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LMTut19744 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:29:57 +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 RAA13220 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id RAA28913 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:29:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:29:53 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102212229.RAA28913@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Jesper Dybdal > I was about to answer this when I suddenly found it difficult to find a > law that explicitly makes it illegal to deliberately pause in order to > give _partner_ more time to think. I hope this isn't illegal! Of course it's mandatory over skip bids (in many jurisdictions). Everybody at the table has more time as a result of the regulation, even though LHO is the immediate beneficiary. Another common case is when making a forcing pass. I believe the pass should be made only after a delay. This delay won't suggest one action over another, but it gives partner (and incidentally LHO, who may be interested) time to consider and probably act in tempo. This is especially important if planning a pass and pull sequence; if partner doubles only after thought, the pull may be disallowed. There are probably other situations that are similar. I think L73D1 is the authority. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 09:32:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LMVqQ19760 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:31:52 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LMVkt19756 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:31:46 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-41-76.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.41.76]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA07809; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:31:15 GMT Message-ID: <001401c09c56$149678a0$4c297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] DWS again. Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:30:39 -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 'The sooner patients can be removed from the depressing influence of general hospital life the more rapid their convalescence." ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) <==-==> +=+ Liz Stevenson has just spoken to me. David is back in hospital, it is thought 'for a couple of days'. Liz thinks the failure to shake off his problem is getting to him and adding to his problems. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 09:48:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LMm8L19784 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:48:08 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1LMm1t19780 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:48:02 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugs1.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.129]) by blount.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id RAA07456 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:47:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 17:47:49 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Shields" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 3:59 PM Subject: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows > Recent incident in local Swiss teams. Comments welcome. > > Dealer South, EW Vul > > xx > xx > xx > KJTxxxxx > > AQJxx Txx > QJxx Axx > KQx A9xx > x Qxx > > Kxx > Kxxx > JTxx > Ax > > Bidding goes > > W N E S > ============= > <> <> <> 1N > 2C 2N P 3C > P P X P > 3S P 4C P > 4S 5C X end > > 1N : weak, advertised as 12-14 > 2C : hearts and another: show shorter major if holding both > 2N : Lebensohl, demands 3C > 3C : forced > P over 3C : after a small pause > X : after a noticeable pause > 3S : after a longer pause > 4C : cue, supporting spades > > After the hand (down 500) EW complained > about abuse of UI. The TD ruling was that > the 3S bid suggested a bid of 3.5 spades > and the 4S bid was therefore disallowed. > Result rolled back to 3S+2 for 200 to EW. > > Some discomfort afterwards but no appeal. > Questions which came up > > a) the pass over 2N and then re-entry to the auction > after 3C might not be entirely rational, but the > player concerned is still a schoolboy (competent > but still relatively inexperienced). Can (should) we > take this into account in determining LAs - ie > one person's LAs might not be another's? > Of course. However, we don't necessarily consider LA's for the particular player, but rather the class of player. In the case of E, we would determine LA's for inexperienced players playing the same system as E/W, and would not necessarily consider LA's that would require more experience to identify. We would also, I hope, recognize that this player is not necessarily going to be able to draw the same inferences from hesitations etc. that a more experienced player could. Even though a hesitation may be present, if the class of player cannot be expected to interpret it, there isn't UI. At some point, a discussion of UI with E might be helpful. We want to educate the inexperienced players, not punish them for something that they don't yet understand. > b) the pause before X and before 3S are (IMHO) > primarily because this situation was never > discussed before by this year old, twice a week > partnership. It doesn't sound right that "we're > in unfamiliar territory, partner" constitutes UI. > Or is that UI? One long pause often generates > another in practice, because of the uncertainty > the first pause identifies. Does that make the > slow 3S bid a normal tempo for that auction? > A prior hesitation by the side does not justify a later hesitation. The phrase "we haven't discussed this" might be appropriate in response to a question, as you're talking to the opponents, not your partner. Comments such as the above should never be directed at partner during play, not even an inexperienced one. It is UI, and inappropriate communication. It can never be too early to start teaching this. > c) if we didn't have the distraction of being sure > how we handle this situation, then the slow 3S bid > suggests there are LAs. The wording in the > rule book is "could demonstrably have been suggested > over another". Are we to ask ourselves "could to the > player concerned" or "could to me have been suggested?" > As above, at least in the ACBL we refer to the class of the player, that is, the player's peers. > Patrick > Cheltenham,UK > What really happened here? I'm assuming the TD call was by N/S, not E/W, and I don't blame them. The hitch over 2C indicates values. It would impose an obligation to avoid marginal actions on E. E is inexperienced and might not recognize this. E might also be aware that partner had a problem over 2C, and be bidding on the hesitation (possibly not being aware of having done so, or of the legalities involved). The TD on the spot will have to diagnose the situation. Moving onward, what's this 3S by W? Why doesn't the double of 3C show exactly what it should, a trump stack sitting behind the club suit? There's no guarantee that S has more than 2 small clubs, or N more than 6 (assuming that N is supposed to have 7 clubs on the actual hand, to bring the suit down to 13 cards). If E has a club stack, is W afraid of the opponents running to diamonds or the majors? If W is a more experienced player, I'd rule that he heard his own hesitation, saw that E was bidding on the W hesitation by noting the E hesitation, and pulled to a spade suit he had already told E about with the 2C call. There's more than one player concerned, and we haven't been told whether W is also an inexperienced schoolboy. If W were at all experienced, I wouldn't allow the 3S call (I might not allow it anyway). IMO, the obvious LA for W over the double is pass. If E had doubled confidently, would W have still pulled? With E showing a club stack and not necessarily having anything in the majors, I don't think so. 3Cx down one for 100 to E/W, and a lecture to both E and W on UI. I think the original ruling was overly generous. 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 Feb 22 10:58:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1LNubp19823 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:56:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1LNuTt19819 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:56:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauhsu.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.71.158]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA25104 for ; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:56:24 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001501c09c61$e3855220$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> <002f01c09c58$53b99420$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 18:56:20 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows Error correction from my previous post. 2C should have read 3C. Hirsch > > > The hitch over 2C indicates values. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 16:23:14 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1M5K7B24729 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:20:07 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail2.panix.com (mail2.panix.com [166.84.0.213]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1M5K0t24684 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:20:00 +1100 (EST) Received: by mail2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 130) id 2A3099069; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:19:56 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: adamw@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:19:51 -0500 To: Nick Doe From: Adam Wildavsky Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, Herman De Wael Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:49 PM +0000 2/16/01, David Stevenson wrote: >Feedback is sought, whether good or bad, and whether from England or >elsewhere! It took me a while to figure this out - I think David means "whether favorable or unfavorable." My feedback may be bad, but not intentionally so. > To download your copy, please go to > > http://www.ebu.co.uk/landec I was impressed with the overall quality of your rulings, the committee decisions, and the writeups. I found most of Michael Farebrother's BLML comments to be on target. I'm always pleased to see the relevant laws quoted in the "Details of ruling:" sections. I hope this practice can be made more complete in the future. The same holds for the ACBL and the WBF, who have improved but have further room for improvement in this regard. I was surprised at how often EBU committees returned the deposit in cases which seemed to me to lack substantial merit. I don't know what criteria are used for this decision in the EBU. On Appeal Number 5 I do not understand Herman's comments regarding the possibility that the pass was forcing. If NS play the pass forcing it is their responsibility to let the director and committee know. I don't understand the director's stated reason for ruling as he did on Appeal Number 8. He wrote "7D not suggested by hesitation." I'd like to know why he thought so - I find the hesitation demonstrably suggests a save. I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. 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 Thu Feb 22 23:07:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MC6k403354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6at03345 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.36]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6WS11092 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:06:32 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A93BC67.C0714F53@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 14:02:31 +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] OLOOT with two cards References: <200102201614.QAA28984@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: > > > > > We have had this discussion before. > > Indeed, but there is still some confusion here. > > I don't think DWS says East must play the card > originally intended. > > There are three things we may need to determine: > 1) Does South wish to accept the LOOT (L54) > 2) Which card East "proposes to play" (L58B) > 3) Which card did East intend to play (L50B) > > We may disagree as to which of (1) and (2) we ask first;* > but some of us need to know (3), in order to determine if > a spot card played with other cards becomes a MPC. > > (*) The phrase "designates the card he proposes to play" > persuades me that we should ask LOOTer first. > > Robin > I believe some of the confusion may be because of the definition of a mPC. In order to be a minor PC, 3 conditions have to be met : - only one - not an honour - not deliberately played We accept that when a player plays 2 cards, and designates 1, the other is still "only one" (this might be under discussion, but it isn't). We also accept that the player should know about the second rule in order for him to work out that he'd better designate the 10 and not the 5, in case both were played inadvertently. But we must add the case that when the 5 was played deliberately, and the 10 fell too, then the player has the right to designate the 10, but the 5 still becomes a Major PC !!!!! -- 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 Feb 22 23:07:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MC6gl03352 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6Vt03338 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.36]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6PS11035 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:06:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A93B6CC.CB633D44@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:38:36 +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] Re: gerard0201.txt References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> <8ii59tgjqrn5fm9mld42c0ub88i8j1gd2d@nuser.dybdal.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jesper is mixing two points in his post, one of which I agree with (or perhaps not completely, but that's not important) and one that I don't agree with. So please Jesper, don't think I'm criticising the final answer in your post. I've come to see that there are many arguments for letting the slam stand in the original case. Anyway, I've forgotten the original case, so allow me to comment simply on : Jesper Dybdal wrote: > > > The problem is of course that the pause in this case suggests "look at > your hand". Herman would, if I've understood him correctly, forbid > raising to slam because Herman considers that looking at the hand is an > "action" in the sense of L16A. (In the Danish translation, "action" is > translated as "call or play" - I am pretty sure that the choice of > translation does not indicate a deliberate attitude to this problem.) > I do not believe that actions are anything else than calls or plays. My point is that if a call is based on the result of an action, and that action is taken as a result of UI, then that call is based on that UI. Indeed without the UI, the call would not have been made. > But if Herman were right, the action that would be forbidden would be to > look at the hand (assuming that not looking was a logical alternative). > Well, it comes down to the same thing, doesn't it ? > It seems to me that this is clearly going to far. Having to judge > whether looking at the hand is an LA or not would make the concepts > involved simply too strange and unclear. > Why ? You have answered to Blackwood, and you have put your hand down. Do you need to look at your hand to pass at the next turn ? No you don't. Therefor looking at your hand and not looking at it are LAs (if you really want to use this terminology on that action - I don't). I consider passing a LA, because it is what you would have done without looking at your hand, and you didn't have to look at your hand. I agree that in the original problem, there is an additional problem with the "suggested" bit, but that should not distract us from the point I am trying to make. Whether we say the call was based on UI, or that the call was based on AI that could only have been found by use of UI, should turn out to be the same thing. > There are so many ways in which more or less accidental occurrences in > the room may influence the act of looking at your hand or not at a > particular moment that it seems meaningless to me to try to identify > them and classify them as AI or UI. > > IMO, you have a right to look at your hand before making a call, no > matter what may or may not have happened to help you realize that there > may be an unusually good reason to look at it. Forbidding people to > look at their hands before calling seems to me not to make sense. > When there is nothing there that you have not already informed partner about ? When partner makes a sign-off ? > Bridge would only be a better game if everybody looked at their hand > before making a call. I do not see any necessity to penalize people > because they just possibly might not have looked at their hand if they > were not reminded by partner's (legal) pause. > Your use of "possibly" does not conform with the actualities of this case. 9 out of 10 players would not look at their hand in this situation. > On the other hand, I do find it very important to keep the principle of > "my own hand is AI no matter what". > Well, that is a principle that is not written. The only place where I've seen it is on blml, and it has been attacked by many an illustrious poster. So to say that this is a principle that we should "keep" is a dangerous expression. > So my conclusion is: let him have his slam. He might not have bid it if > partner had not paused - but the pause is legal, and there are so many > other factors that could influence his detection or not of the misbid. > And as somebody (Eric?) said, this is not something that can be abused > by the bad guys. > As I've said, I have no problem with that ruling. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Thu Feb 22 23:07:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MC6iF03353 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:44 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6Yt03340 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:06:35 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-3-36.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.3.36]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1MC6TS11063; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:06:30 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 13:49:47 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws , Jan Boets Subject: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Jan Boets (sadly no longer listening to our ramblings) and I had a small discussion about the legality of this ruling. A director decides he cannot determine whether or not a board was fouled. If it wasn't, the result was +10 IMPs to one team, resulting in 12-8. (peculiar VP-scale to that tournament) If it was, then (in compliance with the regulations for that tournament), the result is 0VP, resulting in 10-10. The director (applying L85B - facts not determined) scored the match 11-9. If need be, you might say he awarded +5 IMPs which resulted in 11-9. Is this what you would understand as "a ruling that will permit play to continue" ? -- 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 Feb 22 23:51:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MCp2412172 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:51:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MCost12129 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:50:55 +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 NAA28783; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:46:54 +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 NAA14021; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:50:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222135252.00854860@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:52:52 +0100 To: Jesper Dybdal , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: References: <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200102202213.RAA18464@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 19:55 21/02/01 +0100, Jesper Dybdal wrote: > >I was about to answer this when I suddenly found it difficult to find a >law that explicitly makes it illegal to deliberately pause in order to >give _partner_ more time to think. I don't think that can be called >"communication", and L74B4, L74C7, and L73D2 are all about tempo >variations for other purposes. > >What have I overlooked? AG : perhaps (only perhaps) the third sentence of L74D1. Here is a case where it could help us, isn't it ? Reading the prolegomena, which establish subtle gradations between verbal and modal forms, we see that doing the contrary (ie taking time at the moment where it helps) is an infraction. Which is quite a harsh opinion. Does the blml field agree ? Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 00:01:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MD1Gw15796 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:01:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MD18t15759 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:01:09 +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 NAA01567; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:57:10 +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 OAA21690; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:00:50 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222140307.00859e90@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:03:07 +0100 To: "Patrick Shields" , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Huddles and don't knows In-Reply-To: <01c09c49$3ced3c60$0100007f@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 20:59 21/02/01 -0000, Patrick Shields wrote: >Recent incident in local Swiss teams. Comments welcome. > >Dealer South, EW Vul > > xx > xx > xx > KJTxxxxx > >AQJxx Txx >QJxx Axx >KQx A9xx >x Qxx > > Kxx > Kxxx > JTxx > Ax > >Bidding goes > >W N E S >============= ><> <> <> 1N >2C 2N P 3C >P P X P >3S P 4C P >4S 5C X end > >1N : weak, advertised as 12-14 >2C : hearts and another: show shorter major if holding both >2N : Lebensohl, demands 3C >3C : forced >P over 3C : after a small pause >X : after a noticeable pause >3S : after a longer pause >4C : cue, supporting spades > >After the hand (down 500) EW complained >about abuse of UI. The TD ruling was that >the 3S bid suggested a bid of 3.5 spades >and the 4S bid was therefore disallowed. >Result rolled back to 3S+2 for 200 to EW. > >Some discomfort afterwards but no appeal. >Questions which came up > >a) the pass over 2N and then re-entry to the auction >after 3C might not be entirely rational, but the >player concerned is still a schoolboy (competent >but still relatively inexperienced). Can (should) we >take this into account in determining LAs - ie >one person's LAs might not be another's? AG : we should. Perhaps not in this case, but in all generality we should. East's actions seem to me very rational. He waits till he hears (er, sees) which suit North is coming in, then decides what to do. What is wrong with this ? BTW, I consider that, after the 1st round pass, there is no LA to a double (which should clearly show general strength), I would thus allow it after the pause. >b) the pause before X and before 3S are (IMHO) >primarily because this situation was never >discussed before by this year old, twice a week >partnership. It doesn't sound right that "we're >in unfamiliar territory, partner" constitutes UI. >Or is that UI? AG : nope. This information is well known without the pause. One long pause often generates >another in practice, because of the uncertainty >the first pause identifies. Does that make the >slow 3S bid a normal tempo for that auction? AG : West could have hesitated a short time in deciding this was an action double, not a penalty double (and it is an action double, else you double 2NT). A longer pause, however, is suspect. Here, I would not allow the 4S bid if the pause was too long. >c) if we didn't have the distraction of being sure >how we handle this situation, then the slow 3S bid >suggests there are LAs. The wording in the >rule book is "could demonstrably have been suggested >over another". Are we to ask ourselves "could to the >player concerned" or "could to me have been suggested?" AG : the former. 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 Feb 23 00:03:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MD2xY16395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:02:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from batman.npl.co.uk ([139.143.5.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MD2qt16352 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:02:52 +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 f1MD2hf05439; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:44 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1MD2g923605; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:42 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:42 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 NAA11403; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:41 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id NAA00943; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:41 GMT Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:02:41 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102221302.NAA00943@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, hermandw@village.uunet.be Subject: Re: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > I believe some of the confusion may be because of the > definition of a mPC. > > In order to be a minor PC, 3 conditions have to be met : > - only one > - not an honour > - not deliberately played > > We accept that when a player plays 2 cards, and designates > 1, the other is still "only one" (this might be under > discussion, but it isn't). > We also accept that the player should know about the second > rule in order for him to work out that he'd better designate > the 10 and not the 5, in case both were played > inadvertently. > But we must add the case that when the 5 was played > deliberately, and the 10 fell too, then the player has the > right to designate the 10, but the 5 still becomes a Major > PC !!!!! > I believe the confusion is due to "exposed inadvertently (as in playing two cards to a trick, or in dropping a card accidentally)" in L50B. This suggests (but does not imply) that any single penalty card (below the rank of an honour) exposed in playing two cards to a trick is minor. If the current interpretation is be maintained, perhaps this text should be: "exposed inadvertently (as in dropping a card accidentally, perhaps whilst playing two cards to a trick)". Alternatively, if we do not want to have to investigate intent, we should change the second sentence of L50B to: "Any card of honour rank, or any *single* card exposed through deliberate play (as in leading out of turn, or in revoking and then correcting), becomes a major penalty card; ... " That said, does the game really need the distinction between Major and Minor penalty cards. Minor penalty cards seem very rare (and the current issue in dispute/confusion makes them slightly rarer), does the slight gain in equity for OS from the minor penalty card law (as distinct from the MPC law) real make the distinction worth having? 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 Feb 23 00:11:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDB3219189 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:11:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MDAtt19138 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:10:56 +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 OAA04005; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:10:43 +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 OAA29347; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:10:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222141252.00851290@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:12:52 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws , Jan Boets From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? In-Reply-To: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@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 13:49 21/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Jan Boets (sadly no longer listening to our ramblings) and I >had a small discussion about the legality of this ruling. > >A director decides he cannot determine whether or not a >board was fouled. AG : I have recollections of a feature in 'The Bridge World', in which it was said that without clear evidence to this, you can't decide the board was fouled. Even the fact that one board is exactly the same as another, played some hours before, is not strong enough evidence, if there is stronger evidence to the contrary (eg, the TD dealt this one himself a split second ago, and he is sure it must be this one, because it's made of metal, and the rest of the series is wooden). Fouled boards are the same as soccer penalties : if you doubt there is any, you don't whistle. >If it wasn't, the result was +10 IMPs to one team, resulting >in 12-8. >(peculiar VP-scale to that tournament) > >If it was, then (in compliance with the regulations for that >tournament), the result is 0VP, resulting in 10-10. > >The director (applying L85B - facts not determined) scored >the match 11-9. >If need be, you might say he awarded +5 IMPs which resulted >in 11-9. AG : I can't swallow it. If, after hearing the arguments of those who claim it is fouled, the director is not convinced, he should rule the board was correct. 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 Feb 23 00:35:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDXSi27082 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MDXIt27026 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:19 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.154]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1MDXES00424 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:33:14 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A95094E.E4792540@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:42:54 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: [BLML] Gerard revisited Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've had a hesitation Blackwood case yesterday. North bids 4NT and South answers 5Cl. She intends this to mean 1 or 4, but he plays 0 or 3. This is a tournament in which teams of four must play in all three combinations for 9 boards. This partnership plays together for 9 boards every month. Both treatments are equally in use in our club, and she should have known that he is a traditionalist who plays 30-41. There is no UI of the type explanation or alert of the call, she has no direct evidence that he interprets differently. But the sign-off of 5He comes after an agreed long delay. And she raises to six, and makes it. This case has a few similarities to the Gerard case. In both cases, responder realises that partner has a mistaken idea of his number of aces. In both cases, armed with this realisation, passing is not a LA. In my view, in both cases, without the realisation, passing IS a LA. In my opinion, if this realisation stems from UI, then the raise to six must be disallowed. Does the hesitation suggest the realisation of the mistake ? I now agree that the mere effect of providing more time for responder to discover the mistake is not enough. There must be some factor that induces responder to reconsider. The fact that partner is thinking may well suggest that he is surprised at the answer. When this leads to a reconsideration, I think we have the link. Which is why I turned the result back to 5He+1. -- 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 Feb 23 00:36:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDXVe27103 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MDXGt27019 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-8-154.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.8.154]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1MDXCS00402 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:33:12 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A95056F.29E6DD2A@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:26:23 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim References: <001f01c09be5$cc23fae0$9314073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I've taken the Grattan approach and waited, but I don't believe David has received the answer he expects : David Burn wrote: > > Todd (and others) wrote: > > [in the position below, declarer, West, takes the spade finesse, > claiming when South ducks] > > > Now suppose the true position is: > > xx > xx > x > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > > South has shown out of diamonds earlier in the play; declarer knows that > North still has a diamond. How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > If I see it correctly, West now has a 100% line to all tricks, by playing hearts twice, thus counting that spades are 2-2. If he says this with his claim, he will of course get it. If he doesn't, he doesn't. Unless he's a member of the English national team, in which case he does not need to say it and still gets it. Unless he's David Burn, who would be expected to say it, and who would be ruled against if he didn't. BTW, I've read that David has again made it into the English team for the Europeans. Congratulations, and I'm glad there are no quarter finals in that one. So are you, I imagine. -- 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 Feb 23 00:43:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDeM829468 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:40:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MDeEt29422 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:40:15 +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 OAA18216; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:40:04 +0100 (MET) for Received: from math2-pc1 (math2-pc1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.34.6]) by mach.vub.ac.be (8.9.3/3.13.2.ap (mach)) id OAA25797; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:39:55 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222144213.00850640@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:42:13 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] informal reporting, was : gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <3A93B6CC.CB633D44@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> <8ii59tgjqrn5fm9mld42c0ub88i8j1gd2d@nuser.dybdal.dk> 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 f1MDeIt29443 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:38 21/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Why ? >You have answered to Blackwood, and you have put your hand >down. >Do you need to look at your hand to pass at the next turn ? >No you don't. AG : yes I do. I always look at my hand before doing my next call, whatever it is. As said earlier, I've a long guilty past, made of missorting cards, playing with 12 cards, miscounting points and the like, thus I'm careful. And my usual partner is a self-disciplined slow bidder, BW or not. To me at least, this tempo wouldn't carry information. >When there is nothing there that you have not already >informed partner about ? When partner makes a sign-off ? AG : see above. There could always be a surprise lurking somewhere. >> Bridge would only be a better game if everybody looked at their hand >> before making a call. I do not see any necessity to penalize people >> because they just possibly might not have looked at their hand if they >> were not reminded by partner's (legal) pause. >> > >Your use of "possibly" does not conform with the actualities >of this case. 9 out of 10 players would not look at their >hand in this situation. AG : what about player n°10 ? >> On the other hand, I do find it very important to keep the principle of >> "my own hand is AI no matter what". >> > >Well, that is a principle that is not written. The only >place where I've seen it is on blml, and it has been >attacked by many an illustrious poster. So to say that this >is a principle that we should "keep" is a dangerous >expression. AG : IBTD. Whenever somebody says 'this is a principle', it is. Whether it's right/good/fair/usable is a horse of another color. 'my own hand is AI' is a principle for some people. If the laws (and expert TDs) disagree, it remains a principle, albeit a wrong one which shouldn't be used. Now, for a suggestion : In such cases, as in many others, I would like to see the generalization of 'informal reporting' : borderline actions that one could not disallow when they happen once shall be reported, while saying to the implied players that it is no more a penalty than calling for the TD is. If the same pair is implied in many borderline cases, one may warn them, as is the case with psyches, that following cases might be decided against them. I think this does not need any change in the laws to be implemented. It is only creating guidelines on which to decide close UI/fielding/system deviation cases. Suspended verdict, so to speak. 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 Feb 23 00:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDrTv00477 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:53:29 +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 (mailout3-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.168]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MDrMt00471 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:53:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1MDnww05997 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:49:59 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A93B6CC.CB633D44@village.uunet.be> References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010209080055.00b1ea60@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010212080235.00b22740@127.0.0.1> <4.3.2.7.1.20010213075639.00b24950@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010214103259.007d7310@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <4.3.2.7.1.20010216074415.00b18600@127.0.0.1> <3A8FA26E.AFC8E861@village.uunet.be> <4.3.2.7.1.20010218173927.00b2e1d0@127.0.0.1> <39s29t4dq3ue78e4maiknh1cpqukurqh9p@nuser.dybdal.dk> <003b01c09b06$bd407100$4937073e@pbncomputer> <8ii59tgjqrn5fm9mld42c0ub88i8j1gd2d@nuser.dybdal.dk> <3A93B6CC.CB633D44@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:46:57 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Herman De Wael wrote: >You have answered to Blackwood, and you have put your hand >down. A violation of Law 74C6. >Do you need to look at your hand to pass at the next turn ? >No you don't. Who says I have to pass at the next turn (absent UI)? Not everyone's agreements regarding Blackwood say "once one partner uses Blackwood, the other partner is required to pass after he tells how many aces he has". How do I know partner isn't going to ask for Kings? 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/AwUBOpUZ072UW3au93vOEQKqwACghYgC0zxIUgkUpakPgL+pjWOYWV8AniQV dQkNiAUyloAIh8mE/SN94vqY =cwKm -----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 Feb 23 00:53:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MDrc400483 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:53:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MDrVt00479 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:53:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout3-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1MDoGw06163; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:50:16 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:50:00 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? Cc: Bridge Laws , Jan Boets Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 1:49 PM +0100 2/21/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >Is this what you would understand as "a ruling that will >permit play to continue" ? My understanding of "a ruling that will permit play to continue" is that it refers to play *on the board in question*. If you already have a result on that board, then you don't need play to continue. 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/AwUBOpUZ3b2UW3au93vOEQJvygCg/Le+LX/3UJRARL1erzY2VS1QZBAAn0oc WC5LneLS/Pc19ADUyX5pwHp/ =wYBU -----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 Feb 23 01:05:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ME5W500522 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:05:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ME5Pt00518 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:05:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.89]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1ME5E702196 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:05:15 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A951C13.A8BE4B3E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:02:59 +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] L85B - acceptable ruling ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010222141252.00851290@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 13:49 21/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Jan Boets (sadly no longer listening to our ramblings) and I > >had a small discussion about the legality of this ruling. > > > >A director decides he cannot determine whether or not a > >board was fouled. > > AG : I have recollections of a feature in 'The Bridge World', in which it > was said that without clear evidence to this, you can't decide the board > was fouled. Even the fact that one board is exactly the same as another, > played some hours before, is not strong enough evidence, if there is > stronger evidence to the contrary (eg, the TD dealt this one himself a > split second ago, and he is sure it must be this one, because it's made of > metal, and the rest of the series is wooden). Fouled boards are the same as > soccer penalties : if you doubt there is any, you don't whistle. > > >If it wasn't, the result was +10 IMPs to one team, resulting > >in 12-8. > >(peculiar VP-scale to that tournament) > > > >If it was, then (in compliance with the regulations for that > >tournament), the result is 0VP, resulting in 10-10. > > > >The director (applying L85B - facts not determined) scored > >the match 11-9. > >If need be, you might say he awarded +5 IMPs which resulted > >in 11-9. > > AG : I can't swallow it. If, after hearing the arguments of those who claim > it is fouled, the director is not convinced, he should rule the board was > correct. > > A. Please explain that to Hubert Janssens next time you meet him. Are you suggesting, Alain, that L85B has no place in the book ? That in all cases, the director ought to be certain of what happened ? Surely you must realize that it can be impossible to determine what really happened. In which case some decision still has to be taken. You cannot have stock answers for all cases. -- 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 Feb 23 01:08:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ME8AY00538 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:08:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ME83t00533 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:08:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-89.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.89]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1ME7o703697 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:52 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:09:03 +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] L85B - acceptable ruling ? References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@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 1:49 PM +0100 2/21/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Is this what you would understand as "a ruling that will > >permit play to continue" ? > > My understanding of "a ruling that will permit play to continue" is > that it refers to play *on the board in question*. If you already > have a result on that board, then you don't need play to continue. > Well, if by play you also mean the tournament, the competition, then surely this must be included. At this moment, the matter is in appeal. Surely in the meantime the players of the other teams have the right to know of a preliminary result of this match ? > 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/AwUBOpUZ3b2UW3au93vOEQJvygCg/Le+LX/3UJRARL1erzY2VS1QZBAAn0oc > WC5LneLS/Pc19ADUyX5pwHp/ > =wYBU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- 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 Feb 23 02:18:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MFHSL00696 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:17:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MFHLt00692 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:17:21 +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 KAA04822 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:17:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA246515032; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:17:12 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:17:11 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: [BLML] 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="Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:17:10 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1MFHOt00693 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hi BLMLrs, Board No 6: North 9 2 A K J 8 7 Q 3 K Q 6 4 West East 7 6 A 5 4 3 6 5 3 10 9 7 10 4 2 8 7 6 J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 South K Q J 10 8 Q 5 A K J 9 5 A South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: "the TD shall cancell a concession if a player has conceded a trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining cards." As the last sentence of Law 71C has been rubbed out, it is not too late to ask for a cancellation. The only problem is defining "normal play" including careless or inferior. 1) Your ruling please taking into account that S is a good player (who can normaly count tricks ... and Aces). 3) Any difference if dummy did contest the concession when his partner spread his hand ? 2) The same ruling if W has J 4 2 in D and this suit has to split 3-3 to make 13 tricks ? 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 Feb 23 02:18:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MFHkS00703 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:17:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MFHdt00698 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:17:40 +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 QAA06706; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:17:29 +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 QAA11316; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:17:20 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222161938.00856a60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:19:38 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Gerard revisited In-Reply-To: <3A95094E.E4792540@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 13:42 22/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >I've had a hesitation Blackwood case yesterday. > >North bids 4NT and South answers 5Cl. > >She intends this to mean 1 or 4, but he plays 0 or 3. > >This is a tournament in which teams of four must play in all >three combinations for 9 boards. This partnership plays >together for 9 boards every month. Both treatments are >equally in use in our club, and she should have known that >he is a traditionalist who plays 30-41. > >There is no UI of the type explanation or alert of the call, >she has no direct evidence that he interprets differently. > >But the sign-off of 5He comes after an agreed long delay. > >And she raises to six, and makes it. > >This case has a few similarities to the Gerard case. AG : there is a strong dissimilarity between both cases : In this case, it is possible that the implied player be unsure of whether they play 3041 or 4130. Even with screens and/or no explanation given, the long time taken by partner can suggest that the 'other' version is played, because it would make more sense. In the Gerard case, it is not very likely that the implied player be unsure of how many aces he holds. To say that the tempo suggests one has miscounted the aces is fishy ; if I were the BWist and had to choose between a) he miscounted his aces b) he overbid I would choose b) ; to convey information that I think a) is possible, I would have to think it is, and I would not, except perhaps playing facing myself :) So, while the Gerard case is borderline, in this new case I would disallow the rectification to 6. 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 Feb 23 02:30:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MFTxD00756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:29:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MFTqt00751 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 02:29:53 +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 QAA12929; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:29:42 +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 QAA20189; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:29:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222163152.0085e970@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:31:52 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? In-Reply-To: <3A951C13.A8BE4B3E@village.uunet.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010222141252.00851290@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 15:02 22/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Please explain that to Hubert Janssens next time you meet >him. AG : why not ? Just tell me what the case was (ie, why some thought the board was fouled, and others didn't) >Are you suggesting, Alain, that L85B has no place in the >book ? >That in all cases, the director ought to be certain of what >happened ? AG : no. I do suggest that the provisional decision, given there is doubt, is not free. If it is about LAs, the provisional decision should be that there were LAs and that the choice was prompted by the UI. If it is about MI vs systemic error, the provisional decision (waiting for the pair to produce their system notes) should be that there was MI. If it is about a fouled board, the provisional decision should be that it was not. In no single occurence, the provisional decision should be a weighted score. To cut it short, the provisional decision should be what the final decision will be barring evidence of the contrary ; the 'default value' as computer-users would say. 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 Feb 23 03:01:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MG1VU04065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:01:31 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MG1Ot04059 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:01:24 +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 LAA07008 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost by Panoramix.UQSS.UQuebec.ca with ESMTP (1.40.112.8/15.6) id AA262227679; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:19 -0500 X-Openmail-Hops: 1 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:16 -0500 Message-Id: Subject: TR: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards 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, 22 Feb 2001 11:01:16 -0500" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1MG1Qt04061 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----Message d'origine----- De : DuBreuil, Laval Envoyé : 22 février, 2001 09:18 À : rmb1 Objet : RE: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Robin Baker wrote: That said, does the game really need the distinction between Major and Minor penalty cards. Minor penalty cards seem very rare (and the current issue in dispute/confusion makes them slightly rarer), does the slight gain in equity for OS from the minor penalty card law (as distinct from the MPC law) real make the distinction worth having? ________________________________________________________________________ ____ True. I saw my first two minor penalty cards (TD since 7 years) last week at the same table... and for both, the play should have been the same if I did rule "major penalty cards". Laval Du Breuil -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 03:38:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MGc0505394 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:38:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MGbqt05349 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 03:37:53 +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 IAA04089; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:37:46 -0800 Message-Id: <200102221637.IAA04089@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 10:17:11 EST." Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:37:45 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Laval Du Breuil wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Board No 6: > North > 9 2 > A K J 8 7 > Q 3 > K Q 6 4 > West East > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > South > K Q J 10 8 > Q 5 > A K J 9 5 > A > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > "the TD shall cancell a concession if a player has conceded a > trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining > cards." > > As the last sentence of Law 71C has been rubbed out, it is not > too late to ask for a cancellation. The only problem is defining > "normal play" including careless or inferior. > > 1) Your ruling please taking into account that S is a good player > (who can normaly count tricks ... and Aces). > > 3) Any difference if dummy did contest the concession when his > partner spread his hand ? > > 2) The same ruling if W has J 4 2 in D and this suit has to split > 3-3 to make 13 tricks ? My ruling follows the same principle I followed when responding to David Burn's second example: If he's careless enough to make the dumb concession in the first place, he could be careless enough to play the way he said he was going to play. Thus, for this player, playing spades is "normal" (including careless or inferior), not "irrational". The purpose of Law 71C isn't to let careless players get a "do-over." It's there, I believe, to handle cases where someone has conceded a trick with a high card or a trump, say, to the opponents, when the opponents didn't actually have that high card or trump. Example: 7 6 3 K 3 A K Q A 8 4 A 5 2 5 4 3 9 Declarer, in a spade contract, faces his hand and concedes one trick to the opponents, saying "You can get your high trump whenever you want." In reality, declarer miscounted, and the opponents don't have any trumps left. The concession can be cancelled by L71C, and declarer can be awarded all the tricks. Plays such as unblocking the heart king under the ace, or taking two hearts and letting the opponents win the third, are "irrational" for the purposes of this law. -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 06:22:57 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MJM0Z02746 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:22:00 +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 (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MJLrt02739 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:21:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:22:07 -0800 Message-ID: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:00:15 -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: "Adam Wildavsky" > > I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - > I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the > almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule > in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about > all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. > Very strange, since N/S are required to call the TD when they did, no option. How could this be "almost unethical." Declarer spread his hand, saying "ruffing a spade," and that seems to satisfy L68: "A contestant also claims...when he shows his cards (unless he demonstrably did not intend to claim)." and L68D says ",,,play ceases" There is a current popular belief among some TDs and ACs that following the UI/MI Laws is "winning in court what could not be won at the table." This a strange outlook, considering that the Laws do not permit players to waive the penalty for an infraction. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 06:48:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MJmlH05065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:48:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MJmbt05017 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:48:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4o6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.6]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA03847; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:48:30 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Stevenson" , References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:49:12 -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 Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you inferring that in zones 2, 7, and 8 there is something even remotely unethical about asking "no spades partner" or the like? It has been the desire of bridge authorities in these zones to allow such questions as a means of avoiding needless established revokes and the often draconian penalties that they may involve. Novices are generally taught that it is important to protect and ask EVERY time partner shows out to (avoid passing information improperly), just as dummy is expected to do when he has not relinquished his rights. It seems to me that this is no more unethical than for the software in on line bridge to prevent revokes. It speeds the game and makes results more dependent on skill and judgement and less so upon careless error. It has always seemed strange that Zone 1 does not allow this, and we are indebted to EK and others for keeping our option. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Stevenson" > And what has this to do with anything? The question came from Zone 1, > where you are not allowed to ask partner because of the ethical > implications. > > Either the player has the right to see the last trick or he has not, > but I do not see what your dislike of ethical players has to do with it. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 07:00:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MK0cX09354 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:00:38 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MK0Ut09312 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:00:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from james (user-2ive4o6.dialup.mindspring.com [165.247.19.6]) by smtp10.atl.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA08221; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:00:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00a101c09d0a$386d39d0$0613f7a5@james> From: "Craig Senior" To: "David Burn" , References: <004d01c09b7e$7e10f900$baac7ad5@pbncomputer> Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:01:17 -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 Three, as it would not be irrational (just careless) to play both hearts before repeating the finesse. Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Burn" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 3:48 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Claim from Anaheim > DWS wrote: > > > xxx AQJ > > AK xx > > -- -- > > -- -- > > > > Declarer plays a spade to the jack, which holds. "Good," he says, > "I > > make the rest." and puts his cards down. > > > > Of course declarer is naive, and deserves the second finesse to be > > losing. But we know what he means, and we would not force him to play > > for the drop in spades: to do so [for this declarer] would be > > irrational. > > Interesting. Suppose the true position were: > > xx > xxx > -- > -- > xxx AQJ > AK xx > -- -- > -- -- > Kx > xxx > -- > -- > > How many tricks would declarer be awarded? > > David Burn > London, England > > > -- > ================================================================ ======== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 07:07:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MK7l511932 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:07:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MK7dt11894 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:07:40 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauifb.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.235]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA19290 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <009501c09d0b$18bcc780$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: <200102221637.IAA04089@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:34 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Beneschan" To: Cc: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:37 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > Laval Du Breuil wrote: > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > Board No 6: > > North > > 9 2 > > A K J 8 7 > > Q 3 > > K Q 6 4 > > West East > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > South > > K Q J 10 8 > > Q 5 > > A K J 9 5 > > A > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > > > "the TD shall cancell a concession if a player has conceded a > > trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining > > cards." > > > > As the last sentence of Law 71C has been rubbed out, it is not > > too late to ask for a cancellation. The only problem is defining > > "normal play" including careless or inferior. > > > > 1) Your ruling please taking into account that S is a good player > > (who can normaly count tricks ... and Aces). > > Down 1. The ruling occurs under L71. The question is whether or not there is a normal line of play that would still result in a loss of the trick. On the given hand, if the player cashes his red suit winners before the clubs, the club suit is blocked and the tricks cannot be cashed. I would rule that failing to unblock would be careless, rather than irrational, and would thus represent a normal line of play. If the players are strong, S is not going to like this ruling. Too bad. It's harder if S has a small club instead of one of the spades, so that no blockage exists. Would it be careless or irrational to discard the vital entry on the run of the hearts? I would rule it to be irrational to create the blockage, and would allow the contract to make in the absence of a blockage. > > 3) Any difference if dummy did contest the concession when his > > partner spread his hand ? > > No. If a defender contests a concession by partner, the concession is cancelled (68B). There is no provision for dummy to contest a concession by declarer. 69A defines acquiescence as occurring when a contest raises no objection to an opponents claim or concession. Once the concession is made, and the opponents accept, the concession cannot be contested under L70, but must be ruled under L71. > > 2) The same ruling if W has J 4 2 in D and this suit has to split > > 3-3 to make 13 tricks ? > Yep, but only if E has the T. If declarer has an option to finesse or drop, then he gets it wrong if he says nothing in the claim statement. > My ruling follows the same principle I followed when responding to > David Burn's second example: If he's careless enough to make the dumb > concession in the first place, he could be careless enough to play the > way he said he was going to play. Thus, for this player, playing > spades is "normal" (including careless or inferior), not "irrational". > The player did not say he was going to play on spades. He appeared to state that he would have a spade left at the end. This implies that he's going to run everything else first. If that works, then there's no spade left to lose. > The purpose of Law 71C isn't to let careless players get a "do-over." > It's there, I believe, to handle cases where someone has conceded a > trick with a high card or a trump, say, to the opponents, when the > opponents didn't actually have that high card or trump. Example: > > 7 6 3 > K 3 > A K Q > A > > 8 4 > A 5 2 > 5 4 3 > 9 > > Declarer, in a spade contract, faces his hand and concedes one trick > to the opponents, saying "You can get your high trump whenever you > want." In reality, declarer miscounted, and the opponents don't have > any trumps left. The concession can be cancelled by L71C, and > declarer can be awarded all the tricks. Plays such as unblocking the > heart king under the ace, or taking two hearts and letting the > opponents win the third, are "irrational" for the purposes of this > law. > > -- Adam > Exactly. And, in the earlier example, if Declarer had run off 13 winners, there are no spade losers. This is not a "do over". The player simply miscounted his winners, just as your declarer lost track of trump. He still goes down, but only because there is a careless way for him to do so. 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 Feb 23 07:10:30 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MKANH12618 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:10:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MKAHt12612 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:10:17 +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 MAA08741; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:10:13 -0800 Message-Id: <200102222010.MAA08741@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 11:00:15 PST." <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:10:13 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Marvin wrote: > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > > I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - > > I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the > > almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule > > in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about > > all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. > Very strange, since N/S are required to call the TD when they did, no > option. How could this be "almost unethical." Perhaps there's something he knows about the director call that wasn't published in the appeals book, like maybe they called the TD in an "almost" rude and insulting manner. That's the only thing I can think of. Unless something like this is the case, I too find the comment inexplicable. -- 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 Feb 23 07:47:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MKlL813289 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:47:21 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MKlEt13285 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 07:47:15 +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 OAA02070 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:48:49 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010222144745.007dbc10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:47:45 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 In-Reply-To: <200102222010.MAA08741@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 12:10 PM 2/22/2001 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Marvin wrote: > >> From: "Adam Wildavsky" >> > >> > I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - >> > I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the >> > almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule >> > in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about >> > all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. > >> Very strange, since N/S are required to call the TD when they did, no >> option. How could this be "almost unethical." No, they aren't. They're required to call the TD _if they're contesting the claim_. Nothing requires them to contest the claim. >Perhaps there's something he knows about the director call that wasn't >published in the appeals book, like maybe they called the TD in an >"almost" rude and insulting manner. > >That's the only thing I can think of. Unless something like this is >the case, I too find the comment inexplicable. The AC, DWS, and HDW all suggested that calling the TD rather than simply allowing the claim was unusual. If you think Herman's comment was odd, you must at least agree that he had company. [Personally, I wouldn't have contested the claim as N/S, but OTOH I don't find it to be one of those cases where contesting the claim was obnoxious BL'ing or anything--the finesse is by no means that obvious, as the AC itself ruled (with misgivings, apparently). "Unethical", or even "nearly" so, strikes me as too extreme, and I'm notoriously lenient about claims.] > -- Adam Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 08:05:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ML5Mb13621 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:05:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1ML5Ft13615 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:05:15 +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 NAA09959; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:05:12 -0800 Message-Id: <200102222105.NAA09959@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 15:07:34 EST." <009501c09d0b$18bcc780$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:05:11 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > Laval Du Breuil wrote: > > > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > > > Board No 6: > > > North > > > 9 2 > > > A K J 8 7 > > > Q 3 > > > K Q 6 4 > > > West East > > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > > > South > > > K Q J 10 8 > > > Q 5 > > > A K J 9 5 > > > A > > > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > > > My ruling follows the same principle I followed when responding to > > David Burn's second example: If he's careless enough to make the dumb > > concession in the first place, he could be careless enough to play the > > way he said he was going to play. Thus, for this player, playing > > spades is "normal" (including careless or inferior), not "irrational". > > The player did not say he was going to play on spades. He appeared to state > that he would have a spade left at the end. This implies that he's going to > run everything else first. Note that everything else is not necessarily "running", from declarer's point of view. There are only 11 top tricks. > If that works, then there's no spade left to lose. No, you can't infer that he meant the spade would be left at the *end*. On similar hands, where there are only 12 tricks and no hope for 13, it's pretty normal just to knock out the ace of spades early and then take all the high tricks; there's no real way to tell from his statement that this wasn't what he meant. In fact, playing this hand at 6NT at rubber bridge, it's not too farfetched to lead spades at trick 2, to avoid perhaps going down if both red suits break 5-1. (It's better to cash two rounds of diamonds first, and then play on spades if diamonds don't break.) Anyway, both lines---declarer plans to run the other three suits first, and declarer plans to knock out the ace of spades early and take the rest---are possible interpretations of declarer's stated line of play, and I don't see anything to go on to choose one or the other, based just on the evidence we're allowed to look at. (A statement by declarer after the fact that he would have run the side suits first, after dummy pointed out that there were 13 quick tricks, should carry no weight.) -- 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 Feb 23 08:23:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MLNJn13963 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:23:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1.san.rr.com [24.25.195.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MLNCt13957 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:23:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:23:36 -0800 Message-ID: <007601c09d15$9ce4faa0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: References: <20010130075527.TYJO14147057.mta1-rme.xtra.co.nz@[203.96.92.2]> <002001c08c43$1848de20$ccd130d5@mikeamos> <003c01c08c5c$6a9fa0a0$dfafa03f@mom> <007901c08c77$a9847140$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <00fc01c08c89$76910e80$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <014001c08cd1$bc1acb60$9a9c1e18@san.rr.com> <003701c08e70$6d01f4e0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <004901c08efd$3bac6dc0$70991e18@san.rr.com> <007201c08f43$40c97820$70991e18@san.rr.com> <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:17:38 -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 From: "Craig Senior" > Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you inferring that in zones 2, 7, > and 8 there is something even remotely unethical about asking > "no spades partner" or the like? It has been the desire of > bridge authorities in these zones to allow such questions as a > means of avoiding needless established revokes and the often > draconian penalties that they may involve. Novices are generally > taught that it is important to protect and ask EVERY time > partner shows out to (avoid passing information improperly), > just as dummy is expected to do when he has not relinquished his > rights. It seems to me that this is no more unethical than for > the software in on line bridge to prevent revokes. It speeds the > game and makes results more dependent on skill and judgement and > less so upon careless error. It has always seemed strange that > Zone 1 does not allow this, and we are indebted to EK and others > for keeping our option. > > From: "David Stevenson" > > And what has this to do with anything? The question came > from Zone 1, > > where you are not allowed to ask partner because of the > ethical > > implications. > > > > Either the player has the right to see the last trick or he > has not, > > but I do not see what your dislike of ethical players has to > do with it. David's comments don't seem quite on the mark, perhaps the cause of your misunderstanding. The Laws in Zone 1 prohibit defenders from asking, but in Zone 2 (ACBL) and elsewhere it is permitted. There is no implication that doing so is unethical, unless one follows the usual custom of asking only when the failure to follow suit is somewhat of a surprise. Asking EVERY TIME could never be considered unethical, and I don't remember anyone saying that. However, ZOs might prefer to bar asking out of fear that players might ask selectively (unethical if intentional, just dumb otherwise). I think that is all David meant. Of course players should ask always, or never, if permitted to do so. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 08:33:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MLXSL14167 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:33:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MLXMt14162 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:33:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:33:44 -0800 Message-ID: <007f01c09d17$07c2f600$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Hirsch Davis" , References: <200102221637.IAA04089@mailhub.irvine.com> <009501c09d0b$18bcc780$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:25:57 -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 > > Laval Du Breuil wrote: > > > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > > > Board No 6: > > > North > > > 9 2 > > > A K J 8 7 > > > Q 3 > > > K Q 6 4 > > > West East > > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > > > South > > > K Q J 10 8 > > > Q 5 > > > A K J 9 5 > > > A > > > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > > > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > > > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > > > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > > > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > > > > > "the TD shall cancell a concession if a player has conceded a > > > trick that cannot be lost by any "normal" play of the remaining > > > cards." "I have to give you a spade trick" means at trick 2 when the hand is spread, as I see it. South has miscounted hir tricks, so why would s/he not make the normal play of knocking out the ace of spades for a quick claim? A normal play was stated, it must be made Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 08:36:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MLaRX14232 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:36:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MLaKt14226 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:36:20 +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 ESMTP id MAA01130 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:51:31 -0900 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:36:08 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? 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, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > Hi BLMLrs, > > Board No 6: > North > 9 2 > A K J 8 7 > Q 3 > K Q 6 4 > West East > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > South > K Q J 10 8 > Q 5 > A K J 9 5 > A > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: North is IMO just plain wrong. If you claim at trick one without testing either red suit, you have *11* top tricks, not 13 -- a valid claim statement must account for all possible lies of the opposing cards, so this declarer didn't say anything about being prepared for a 5-1 break in hearts or diamonds. South's claim statement wasn't "a spade at the end", it was "I have to give you a spade trick." South is leading his spade at whichever of trick 2, trick 3, trick 4, ... or trick 13 results in his losing a trick by doing so. -- A related question: what would you do if South had faced his hand and claimed ALL the tricks at trick one? That is the sort of inexcusably bad claim we need to be trying hard to stamp out, failing to state lines or explain how to cope with bad breaks. I see them all the time and even make such sloppy claims embarassingly often, perhaps every fifth session I play I make a claim that fails on an unlikely-but-possible bad break. I think it's close whether to award 7NT-2 or 7NT-4 to a declarer who claims 13 tricks on this hand. Playing for the drop in diamonds is a line of play that depends on an opponent having a specific holding (west having at least 2). Finessing in diamonds is a line of play that depends on an opponent having a specific holding (east having the 10.) There's no way to get a count on the opponent's hands before making the critical decision. I consider the finesse to be substantially inferior, but not irrational -- give East D108764 [and West the SA so there is no change of a squeeze] and the finesse is the only way to make the contract; maybe your table feel will tell you it is time to take an antipercentage line, maybe not. In other words, I will always force a trick-one-claimer who wants 13 tricks to lose a diamond trick on the actual layout. I honestly don't know where it is strict justice or just plain viciousness to require him to play off 3 rounds of clubs so that he'll lose CJ9 in addition to the DT and SA. I don't believe there is any real danger that the declarer would have failed to make his contract if he had played it out. But the claim laws emphatically do not say "assign the most probable result" or "assign the most equitable result", nor do I think they should. Donning the flameproof suit, 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 Feb 23 08:50:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MLnvK14507 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:49:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MLnnt14499 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:49:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA01907 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:05:02 -0900 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 12:49:39 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? In-Reply-To: <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> 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, 22 Feb 2001, Craig Senior wrote: > Perhaps I misunderstand. Are you inferring that in zones 2, 7, > and 8 there is something even remotely unethical about asking > "no spades partner" or the like? It has been the desire of > bridge authorities in these zones to allow such questions as a > means of avoiding needless established revokes and the often > draconian penalties that they may involve. Novices are generally > taught that it is important to protect and ask EVERY time > partner shows out to (avoid passing information improperly), > just as dummy is expected to do when he has not relinquished his > rights. It seems to me that this is no more unethical than for > the software in on line bridge to prevent revokes. It speeds the > game and makes results more dependent on skill and judgement and > less so upon careless error. It has always seemed strange that > Zone 1 does not allow this, and we are indebted to EK and others > for keeping our option. Ah, an idealist! I wouldn't say there is anything unethical about "no spades, partner" any more than I would say there is anything unethical about taking time to think before bidding. It does however have a similarly high risk of passing UI unless you are very consistent. You are fortunate to have such well-trained novices in your area. In my club we have exactly one person who always asks the first time his partner shows out (even sometimes when we've seen all 13 cards) each hand. I have never met anyone who did it the first time his partner failed in each suit, or even who did it twice in the same deal. In my experience the question shows surprise of some sort the *vast* majority of the time it is asked. Only uncommonly does this actually give rise to a problem -- rather like only uncommonly do hesitations give rise to serious ethical dilemmas. The problems from "no spades" are usually minimal since all but one person at the table has just been given a count on that suit anyway. It is similarly rare for the question to result in preventing a revoke (except at the table of a few players with poor eyesight.) Except in the case of players with poor eyesight, I would be happy to see the zonal option removed in 2007, and equally happy to see the retraining-of-the-players process begin now. My only sadness would be from seeing a little nostalgic fragment from the days of whist, like "may I lead?" and "thank you, partner," forcibly removed from the game. 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 Feb 23 08:53:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MLrev14593 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:53:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MLrXt14587 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:53:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauifb.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.235]) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA28174 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:29 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <001801c09d19$e37df580$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:53:26 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gordon Bower" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > > I don't believe there is any real danger that the declarer would have > failed to make his contract if he had played it out. But the claim laws > emphatically do not say "assign the most probable result" or "assign the > most equitable result", nor do I think they should. > Oh? Has L70A been repealed? (Doesn't apply in this example, but it's there). 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 Feb 23 09:37:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MMaoV15366 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:36:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1MMaht15360 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:36:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inism0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.114.192]) by granger.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id RAA10914 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:36:38 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A9595F2.CDBBD2EE@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:42:58 -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: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? 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 Thu, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > Board No 6: > > North > > 9 2 > > A K J 8 7 > > Q 3 > > K Q 6 4 > > West East > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > South > > K Q J 10 8 > > Q 5 > > A K J 9 5 > > A > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > North is IMO just plain wrong. If you claim at trick one without testing > either red suit, you have *11* top tricks, not 13 -- a valid claim > statement must account for all possible lies of the opposing cards, so > this declarer didn't say anything about being prepared for a 5-1 break in > hearts or diamonds. > > South's claim statement wasn't "a spade at the end", it was "I have to > give you a spade trick." South is leading his spade at whichever of trick > 2, trick 3, trick 4, ... or trick 13 results in his losing a trick by > doing so. I agree here, and agree with Adam that anyone who claims without seeing all of dummy isn't the type to do all that pesky counting before playing, anyway. Easy down 1. > > -- > > A related question: what would you do if South had faced his hand and > claimed ALL the tricks at trick one? 13 tricks. It's not "doubtful" that he would have taken them. It's not "as equitabl[e] as possible" to give fewer. I'm all for hanging bad claimers, but here I don't see it. [snip] > > I don't believe there is any real danger that the declarer would have > failed to make his contract if he had played it out. Then you can't make this ruling. But the claim laws > emphatically do not say "assign the most probable result" or "assign the > most equitable result", nor do I think they should. Um, Gordon, buddy, lay off the 'shrooms. L70A (with the "doubtful points" caveat.) I know the swirling colors are fun, but when you gotta go looking for words, stick to alcohol or heroin. The hallucinogens don't help. --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 Fri Feb 23 10:18:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MNHua19961 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:17:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MNHnt19957 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:17:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from bigbyte.mosquitonet.com (bigbyte.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.2]) by swarm.mosquitonet.com (8.9.1/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA06834 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:33:02 -0900 Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:17:39 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-Reply-To: <3A9595F2.CDBBD2EE@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 Thu, 22 Feb 2001, John R. Mayne wrote: [if declarer claims 13 tricks at trick 1 with no line] > 13 tricks. It's not "doubtful" that he would have taken them. It's not > "as equitabl[e] as possible" to give fewer. I'm all for hanging bad > claimers, but here I don't see it. Are you saying you don't think this would be a bad claim, or that even though it is a bad claim you think we have to let declarer off the hook this time because he gets a lucky break? This raises a somewhat more general question. L70A and L70E seem to be in conflict; 70A states a suitably vague principle, and then purports to say "and L70B-E tell you how to put this principle into practice." But 70E simply says "shall not accept... unless irrational" -- doesn't that mean that we have to disallow a normal, obvious, seeminly equitable line if there is some other inferior-but-not-irrational less successful line out there - even if we are reasonably sure the declarer would have taken the normal and obvious line had he played it out? I agree that if the actual hand was faced and declarer claimed 13 tricks, it is unlikely that the director would get called at all. But if I *did* get called, on what basis do I ignore L70E? > [snip] > Um, Gordon, buddy, lay off the 'shrooms. L70A (with the "doubtful > points" caveat.) I know the swirling colors are fun, but when you gotta > go looking for words, stick to alcohol or heroin. The hallucinogens > don't help. A wee bit scathing, there? Several have written to tell me I am overly vigorous in my enthusiasm to look for doubtful points against claimers and I could have choser better words for the last paragraph of my post. And I'll agree that 70A is enough to stop me from awarding 7NT-4. I don't think it stops me from awarding down 2. And please be assured that while I do enjoy collecting wild berries and roots to brew teas from, I stay well clear of anything with hallucinogenic effect. 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 Feb 23 10:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MNNLS20305 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MNNEt20263 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:23:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host213-123-46-52.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.46.52]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id XAA04077; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:22:12 GMT Message-ID: <001f01c09d26$355d5100$c14c063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Steve Willner" , References: <200102212229.RAA28913@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 23:20:49 -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 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott To: Sent: 21 February 2001 22:29 Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt > > Another common case is when making a > forcing pass. I believe the pass should be > made only after a delay +=+ Well, that's quite a good way of making sure partner understands you intend it to be forcing. ~ G ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 10:34:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MNYk024392 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:34:47 +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 f1MNYdt24347 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:34:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1MNVCb26255; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:31:13 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:34:00 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 3:09 PM +0100 2/22/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >Well, if by play you also mean the tournament, the >competition, then surely this must be included. > >At this moment, the matter is in appeal. Surely in the >meantime the players of the other teams have the right to >know of a preliminary result of this match ? You mentioned three different results, expressed in VP. One if the board was fouled, one if it wasn't, and a third the TD apparently awarded. Which one was the result obtained at the table? I gather the problem has something to do with which teams play each other in the next round. I suppose if the TD can't determine whether the board was fouled, he should rule it wasn't, and proceed on that basis. I don't know enough about running team contests to judge what should happen if the AC decides later that it was. What I don't understand is where this third result comes from. 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/AwUBOpWiC72UW3au93vOEQI28QCdHHOqQ+sSTOtFQp7aTvH/PVCMlSAAn1ru 00lA1qcfhlS6/odIocSQjumE =PmPu -----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 Feb 23 10:35:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1MNZa524689 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:35:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1MNZTt24652 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 10:35:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAB01964 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:35:25 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA07453 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:35:25 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:35:25 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102222335.SAA07453@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > > Another common case is when making a > > forcing pass. I believe the pass should be > > made only after a delay > > +=+ Well, that's quite a good way of making > sure partner understands you intend it to be > forcing. ~ G ~ +=+ I see your point, but it's only a problem if there's no clear agreement (and bridge logic leaves doubt) as to whether the pass is forcing. Of course it's precisely those cases that come to an AC. I dare say that after 2C(strong, art)-3S-P(showing values)-4S-P, nobody will have any doubt about the nature of the pass, no matter what speed it's made at. In practice, opener will most likely have decided on his action during the mandatory pause after 3S -- the 4S bid can hardly come as a surprise -- but he should still take some time over 4S. At least that's my view. I think it is in accord with L73D1. We normally interpret "steady tempo" to mean "take the same time in every occurrence of a given type of situation, regardless of your cards," not "take the same time for every call, regardless of the 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 Fri Feb 23 11:03:58 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N03dF25497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:39 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1N03Wt25491 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:33 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.78.105] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14W5hn-0002NE-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:03:28 +0000 Message-ID: <005001c09d2c$05bd7c80$694e01d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> <200102202213.RAA18464@cfa183.harvard.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010222135252.00854860@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:02:16 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Alain wrote: > AG : perhaps (only perhaps) the third sentence of L74D1. Here is a case > where it could help us, isn't it ? Reading the prolegomena, which establish > subtle gradations between verbal and modal forms, we see that doing the > contrary (ie taking time at the moment where it helps) is an infraction. > Which is quite a harsh opinion. Does the blml field agree ? There have been many comments along the lines of "thinking is not an infraction". Strictly speaking, it is, for L73A2 says: Calls and plays should be made without special emphasis, mannerism or inflection, and without undue hesitation or haste. and the Scope of the Laws says: When a player "should" do something ... the failure to do so is an infraction of Law, which will jeopardize his rights... Now, it may be argued - indeed, the "thinking is not an infraction" brigade can only argue - that to make a slow call or play when you have something to think about is not to make a call with "undue" hesitation, for since you have a problem, your hesitation is "due". But the fact is that since communication is only permissible by means of calls or plays, and not by the manner in which those calls or plays are made, to vary your tempo when making a call is illegal if the variation in tempo could convey some information to partner over and above the information conveyed by the call itself. I repeat: if a player bids Blackwood, and then acts slowly over the response, the tempo of his action is highly likely to convey some information over and above that contained by the action itself. If, in whatever fashion, that information causes the player's partner to do something which he would not have done without the information, then a breach of L73A1 has taken place, and a score adjustment is appropriate if the partnership derives benefit therefrom. 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 Feb 23 11:03:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N03pq25503 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1N03it25499 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:03:44 +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 QAA13729; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:03:39 -0800 Message-Id: <200102230003.QAA13729@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws Mailing List CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 14:17:39 -0900." Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:03:39 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Gordon Bower wrote: > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, John R. Mayne wrote: > > [if declarer claims 13 tricks at trick 1 with no line] > > > 13 tricks. It's not "doubtful" that he would have taken them. It's not > > "as equitabl[e] as possible" to give fewer. I'm all for hanging bad > > claimers, but here I don't see it. > > Are you saying you don't think this would be a bad claim, or that even > though it is a bad claim you think we have to let declarer off the hook > this time because he gets a lucky break? > > > This raises a somewhat more general question. L70A and L70E seem to be in > conflict; 70A states a suitably vague principle, and then purports to say > "and L70B-E tell you how to put this principle into practice." Well . . . L70C and E tell you what to do with inferior claims in some specific situations, but those don't begin to cover all the bad claims that could happen (remember the "Strange Claim" thread from a few years ago where the whole hand was blocked?). On hands where 70C and E don't apply, we're left with just the vague principle on 70A. > But 70E > simply says "shall not accept... unless irrational" -- doesn't that mean > that we have to disallow a normal, obvious, seeminly equitable line if > there is some other inferior-but-not-irrational less successful line out > there - even if we are reasonably sure the declarer would have taken the > normal and obvious line had he played it out? No. Despite the fact that the title (which is not part of the Laws) says "Finesse or Drop", I think the wording of L70E means that we don't accept an unstated *finesse* line, but not an unstated *drop* line. We're supposed to reject an unstated line "the success of which depends upon finding one opponent rather than the other with a particular card"; if the success of a line of play depends on the opponents having a particular distribution (or one of several particular distributions), no *particular* *card* is involved, and therefore this law doesn't apply. To me, the wording in L70E is specific enough that it can't be stretched "on principle" to cover this situation. > I agree that if the actual hand was faced and declarer claimed 13 tricks, > it is unlikely that the director would get called at all. But if I *did* > get called, on what basis do I ignore L70E? Inapplicability. > > [snip] > > Um, Gordon, buddy, lay off the 'shrooms. L70A (with the "doubtful > > points" caveat.) I know the swirling colors are fun, but when you gotta > > go looking for words, stick to alcohol or heroin. The hallucinogens > > don't help. > > A wee bit scathing, there? I agree with you there. Given that L70E doesn't apply, and the only principle that applies is the vague one in L70A, I think it's understandable that there may be differences of opinion about how the law is supposed to be applied. In general, though, I believe that when a claimer claims on the basis of a running suit, and forgets about the possibility that it might not break, we should give it to him anyway if the suit does break. The reason is that claimer obviously intended to try to run the suit from the top (unblocking, of course), and he would clearly succeed if the hand were played out. I wish that this were spelled out more explicitly; I've complained a number of times that L70A isn't specific enough. It isn't even specific enough to give a TD any general direction in determining what is "equitable". DWS's recent attempt at a revised claim law is a step in the right direction. Personally, I once tried to come up with a precise mathematical way of defining how we should award tricks in the case of a claimed "running suit" that isn't really running, or that might not run if it breaks badly. I found it to be quite a difficult challenge to cover all the cases, and I never finished it. (Here's one situation I was trying to include: Suppose someone claims five tricks with AK632 opposite Q984 [not trumps], with no side entry to the long suit, and the suit breaks 3-1.) -- 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 Feb 23 11:07:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N079a25571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:07:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1N072t25565 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:07:03 +1100 (EST) Received: from mindspring.com (user-2inism0.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.114.192]) by barry.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA01135 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 19:06:57 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3A95AB1C.28B8F569@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 16:13:16 -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: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? 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 Thu, 22 Feb 2001, John R. Mayne wrote: > > [if declarer claims 13 tricks at trick 1 with no line] > > > 13 tricks. It's not "doubtful" that he would have taken them. It's not > > "as equitabl[e] as possible" to give fewer. I'm all for hanging bad > > claimers, but here I don't see it. > > Are you saying you don't think this would be a bad claim, or that even > though it is a bad claim you think we have to let declarer off the hook > this time because he gets a lucky break? The latter. > > This raises a somewhat more general question. L70A and L70E seem to be in > conflict; 70A states a suitably vague principle, and then purports to say > "and L70B-E tell you how to put this principle into practice." But 70E > simply says "shall not accept... unless irrational" -- doesn't that mean > that we have to disallow a normal, obvious, seeminly equitable line if > there is some other inferior-but-not-irrational less successful line out > there - even if we are reasonably sure the declarer would have taken the > normal and obvious line had he played it out? Yes. The 70E standard seems slightly harsher than the 70A standard, but they are meshable. The header on 70C2, of course, doesn't mesh with 70A. I think that we have to interpret "normal" and "careless" in the context of declarer's claim statement. I find it exceedingly unlikely that a person making this claim would go hooking tens, even if proper play resulted in a full or near-full count. (If it was a ten-hook on full, count, I rule down whatever.) > > I agree that if the actual hand was faced and declarer claimed 13 tricks, > it is unlikely that the director would get called at all. But if I *did* > get called, on what basis do I ignore L70E? Don't ignore it. Hooking the ten is abnormal in context. > > > [snip] > > Um, Gordon, buddy, lay off the 'shrooms. L70A (with the "doubtful > > points" caveat.) I know the swirling colors are fun, but when you gotta > > go looking for words, stick to alcohol or heroin. The hallucinogens > > don't help. > > A wee bit scathing, there? To be fair, Gordon left out the part which I was responding to, an errant statement about whether equitable treatment was in the claim laws. Still, I'm sorry if it came off as scathing; I meant it as amusing and friendly. (I attempted to apologize privately to Gordon, but got blocked from both my mindspring and okbridge addresses.) > > Several have written to tell me I am overly vigorous in my enthusiasm to > look for doubtful points against claimers and I could have choser better > words for the last paragraph of my post. And I'll agree that 70A is enough > to stop me from awarding 7NT-4. I don't think it stops me from awarding > down 2. I think it does, even when combined with 70E. It's not hallucinogenic to rule otherwise, but it is overly harsh. --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 Fri Feb 23 11:34:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N0Y9D26000 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:34:09 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1N0Y2t25994 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:34:04 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by tele-post-20.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #2) id 14W6BG-0007Jn-0K for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:33:54 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:32:25 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] 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 In article , Gordon Bower writes > > >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > >> Hi BLMLrs, >> >> Board No 6: >> North >> 9 2 >> A K J 8 7 >> Q 3 >> K Q 6 4 >> West East >> 7 6 A 5 4 3 >> 6 5 3 10 9 7 >> 10 4 2 8 7 6 >> J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 >> >> South >> K Q J 10 8 >> Q 5 >> A K J 9 5 >> A >> >> South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. >> Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his >> hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > >> They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some >> tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick >> tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked >> concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: snip. This is a 71a ruling. Result stands. Had he woken up before removing the cards from the board on the next hand, or moving for the next round I'd probably give him 13, and a lecture. The emphasis changes once you move onto the next hand. > >A related question: what would you do if South had faced his hand and >claimed ALL the tricks at trick one? > >That is the sort of inexcusably bad claim we need to be trying hard to >stamp out, failing to state lines or explain how to cope with bad >breaks. I see them all the time and even make such sloppy claims >embarassingly often, perhaps every fifth session I play I make a claim >that fails on an unlikely-but-possible bad break. > >I think it's close whether to award 7NT-2 or 7NT-4 to a declarer who >claims 13 tricks on this hand. This is a ludicrous view. it is totally irrational to score fewer than 12 on this board .. and that was the claim. If, as he was writing the score down, he'd said "Hang on, I've got 13 if the reds are breaking" I'd give them to him. What the heck is he doing to lose more than one trick? > >Playing for the drop in diamonds is a line of play that depends on an >opponent having a specific holding (west having at least 2). Finessing in >diamonds is a line of play that depends on an opponent having a specific >holding (east having the 10.) There's no way to get a count on the >opponent's hands before making the critical decision. I consider the >finesse to be substantially inferior, but not irrational -- give East >D108764 [and West the SA so there is no change of a squeeze] and the >finesse is the only way to make the contract; maybe your table feel will >tell you it is time to take an antipercentage line, maybe not. > >In other words, I will always force a trick-one-claimer who wants 13 >tricks to lose a diamond trick on the actual layout. I honestly don't know >where it is strict justice or just plain viciousness to require him to >play off 3 rounds of clubs so that he'll lose CJ9 in addition to the DT >and SA. > >I don't believe there is any real danger that the declarer would have >failed to make his contract if he had played it out. But the claim laws >emphatically do not say "assign the most probable result" or "assign the >most equitable result", nor do I think they should. > >Donning the flameproof suit, > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 23 12:52:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N1pYH05807 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:51:34 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1N1pSt05801 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:51:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcauifb.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.73.235]) by johnson.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA02418 for ; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <006601c09d3b$1ef55600$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:14 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "John (MadDog) Probst" To: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 7:32 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > In article .com>, Gordon Bower writes > > > > > >On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > >> Hi BLMLrs, > >> > >> Board No 6: > >> North > >> 9 2 > >> A K J 8 7 > >> Q 3 > >> K Q 6 4 > >> West East > >> 7 6 A 5 4 3 > >> 6 5 3 10 9 7 > >> 10 4 2 8 7 6 > >> J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > >> > >> South > >> K Q J 10 8 > >> Q 5 > >> A K J 9 5 > >> A > >> > >> South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > >> Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > >> hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > >> They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > >> tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > >> tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > >> concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > snip. This is a 71a ruling. Result stands. Had he woken up before > removing the cards from the board on the next hand, or moving for the > next round I'd probably give him 13, and a lecture. The emphasis > changes once you move onto the next hand. > > No, it's a 71C ruling. Ton pointed out in January in a thread on L71 that the second sentence of L71, limiting the time of its application, was deleted in 10/97. So, the ruling has to go through 3 steps. First try 71A: Is there a legal play of the cards that could cause the loss of a trick? Yes, any spade or a low red card from both hands would do it, so the concession still stands. Then 71B: Did declarer concede the loss of a contract he had already made? No, the concession occurred before it got that far. Finally 71C: Could the trick be lost by any normal play (with the usual caveats) of the remaining cards? If such a play exists, then the concession stands. With regard to Marv, Adam and Gordon's comments, the claim statement is completely irrelevant in a L71 ruling. So one question we can ask is: is it rational to concede an ace early while playing a grand slam that can make? Nope, not where I play. Note that even if the original concession statement implied an irrational line, which is open for debate in this situation, it no longer matters. We're looking for any normal line that will allow the trick to be lost. If it exists, the concession stands. First, do thirteen top tricks exist without touching the spades? Yep. The contract is there. So we finally get to the real question: Is there a way that a careless declarer could avoid taking those tricks? IMO yes. We get back to the club blockage. If Declarer cashes the red suits first, the clubs can no longer be cashed. I regard failure to unblock as careless, rather than irrational, so I'd let the down 1 ruling stand. Another TD might regard the failure to unblock as irrational, and allow 13 tricks (I've ruled this way in the past, but discussions with others have convinced me that I was wrong. I'm still keeping an open mind on this one.) So, my ruling under 71C is that the concession stands. 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 Feb 23 13:24:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N2NnD12314 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:23:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1N2Nft12266 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:23:42 +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 SAA17289; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:23:37 -0800 Message-Id: <200102230223.SAA17289@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:51:14 EST." <006601c09d3b$1ef55600$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 18:23:36 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > With regard to Marv, Adam and Gordon's comments, the claim statement is > completely irrelevant in a L71 ruling. Beg to differ. The definitions of "normal" and "irrational" vary with the class of player involved (footnote to Law 71), and I think a claimer's claim statement can provide some evidence to help determine what class he's in. Other than for making that determination, yes, the claim statement is irrelevant. -- 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 Feb 23 17:26:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N6PaS15497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:25:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from saturno.racsa.co.cr (saturno.racsa.co.cr [196.40.31.23]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1N6PPt15491 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 17:25:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from john (sanpedro-a655.racsa.co.cr [196.40.42.150]) by saturno.racsa.co.cr (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA17781; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 00:14:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <000501c09d58$26202e60$962a28c4@john> Reply-To: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" From: "John A. Mac Gregor, Chief TD - CACBF" To: "Herman De Wael" , "Bridge Laws" References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7AE@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> <001c01c09aa1$1482c320$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3A924BFF.4CDD5432@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] L61B Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:32:03 -0500 Organization: Central American and Caribbean Bridge Federation MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk | | > Question 2: If so much of the world is against this defender option, why | > not remove it from the Laws? | > | | Because the ACBL does not want to have to change the habits | of 200000 players. I can understand that. | However, there are no 200000 players in Africa that | currently use this practice, so it is easy for Zone 8 to | tell them they should not. | Which is why I found it strange that Zone 8 would have gone | against the WBF (and the zone (5?) that they sprang from). | No, they did not spring out of Zone 5. It was created from within the Americas. John -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 20:56:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1N9uCc25793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:56:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1N9u4t25788 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:56:05 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-41-107.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.41.107]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id JAA02341 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:55:34 GMT Message-ID: <000701c09d7e$d98cd720$6b297bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <200102222335.SAA07453@cfa183.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:47:58 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'The sooner patients can be removed from the depressing influence of general hospital life the more rapid their convalescence." ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Willner To: Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 11:35 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt > > At least that's my view. I think it is in accord > with L73D1. We normally interpret "steady > tempo" to mean "take the same time in every > occurrence of a given type of situation, > regardless of your cards," not "take the same > time for every call, regardless of the situation." > +=+ 'We' ? +=+ > -- +=+ I tend to think the tempo of these passes should be measured rather than quick or slow. I would have sympathy with the Director who in some circumstances ruled improper a purposed breach of the statement in the laws that "players should be particularly careful in positions in which variations may work to the benefit of their side". (As, for example, when made for the sole purpose of giving partner time to think, or if risking possibly giving a false impression to opponents). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 21:38:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NAc4O26283 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:38:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NAbvt26277 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 21:37:58 +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 LAA03407; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:46 +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 LAA14993; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:37:37 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010223113956.0085aa70@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:39:56 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? In-Reply-To: References: <008801c09d08$8ec92520$0613f7a5@james> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:49 22/02/01 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: >I wouldn't say there is anything unethical about "no spades, partner" any >more than I would say there is anything unethical about taking time to >think before bidding. It does however have a similarly high risk of >passing UI unless you are very consistent. AG : there can be several cases of passing UI. For example, if you don't ask 'no plums ?', partner can infer you didn't realize he didn't follow suit. UI. He will know his next discard would be treated as a 'first discard' signal. Even those who ask everytime (everytime they notice, it is) don't escape this. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 22:28:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBSG001192 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:28:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRut01121 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:27:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRpF08393 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:27:51 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:11:32 +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] Concession cancelled ? 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 Thu, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > Board No 6: > > North > > 9 2 > > A K J 8 7 > > Q 3 > > K Q 6 4 > > West East > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > South > > K Q J 10 8 > > Q 5 > > A K J 9 5 > > A > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > The correct answer is that conceding to the spade ace at trick two is a normal line of play, so the concession stands, but many others have answered this. let's go to > A related question: what would you do if South had faced his hand and > claimed ALL the tricks at trick one? > give him 13 tricks. > That is the sort of inexcusably bad claim we need to be trying hard to > stamp out, failing to state lines or explain how to cope with bad > breaks. I agree. But that does not excuse a bad ruling. > I see them all the time and even make such sloppy claims > embarassingly often, perhaps every fifth session I play I make a claim > that fails on an unlikely-but-possible bad break. > But there are no bad breaks here. OK. Try finding a line that is not blocking (we may assume this player knows about simple communication) and that fails in this distribution. I agree with you that if either red suit is 5-1, there is an "inferior" line that fails, but not with both suits 3-3. > I think it's close whether to award 7NT-2 or 7NT-4 to a declarer who > claims 13 tricks on this hand. > Not close at all. Way off ! > Playing for the drop in diamonds is a line of play that depends on an > opponent having a specific holding (west having at least 2). Finessing in > diamonds is a line of play that depends on an opponent having a specific > holding (east having the 10.) There's no way to get a count on the > opponent's hands before making the critical decision. I consider the > finesse to be substantially inferior, but not irrational -- give East > D108764 [and West the SA so there is no change of a squeeze] and the > finesse is the only way to make the contract; maybe your table feel will > tell you it is time to take an antipercentage line, maybe not. > What ? Finesse a ten for a 5-1 break when either of 2 suits 4-2 brings in the contract ? Now that is irrational. IMVHO. > In other words, I will always force a trick-one-claimer who wants 13 > tricks to lose a diamond trick on the actual layout. I honestly don't know > where it is strict justice or just plain viciousness to require him to > play off 3 rounds of clubs so that he'll lose CJ9 in addition to the DT > and SA. > > I don't believe there is any real danger that the declarer would have > failed to make his contract if he had played it out. But the claim laws > emphatically do not say "assign the most probable result" or "assign the > most equitable result", nor do I think they should. > > Donning the flameproof suit, > > GRB > -- 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 Feb 23 22:28:38 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBS3J01144 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:28:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRit01067 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:27:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRdF08299 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:27:39 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A96419A.6B6C22F5@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:55:22 +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] L85B - acceptable ruling ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010222141252.00851290@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010222163152.0085e970@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 15:02 22/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > > > >Please explain that to Hubert Janssens next time you meet > >him. > > AG : why not ? Just tell me what the case was (ie, why some thought the > board was fouled, and others didn't) > > >Are you suggesting, Alain, that L85B has no place in the > >book ? > >That in all cases, the director ought to be certain of what > >happened ? > > AG : no. I do suggest that the provisional decision, given there is doubt, > is not free. If it is about LAs, the provisional decision should be that > there were LAs and that the choice was prompted by the UI. If it is about > MI vs systemic error, the provisional decision (waiting for the pair to > produce their system notes) should be that there was MI. If it is about a > fouled board, the provisional decision should be that it was not. In no > single occurence, the provisional decision should be a weighted score. > To cut it short, the provisional decision should be what the final decision > will be barring evidence of the contrary ; the 'default value' as > computer-users would say. > > A. Fine, you are talking about "provisional". Now give a "final" ruling. Remember that you have no way of knowing that this ruling will be appealed or not, and that it may turn out not to be "final". Carl gave as his "final" ruling : split the difference. Acceptable or not ? The case is really awkward : one side says the board was fouled, the other one says it wasn't. Under L85, the TD is required to rule as appropriate if he believes one or the other. But there is a L85B which tells him to give a ruling "that will make further play possible" if he cannot determine the facts to his satisfaction. My question is again : is "split-the-difference" acceptable in such a case. Your answer seems to be that such a case cannot arise. Well, it has arisen. -- 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 Feb 23 22:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBSF301183 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:28:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRqt01105 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:27:53 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRkF08345 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:27:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A96429A.ACB29830@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:59:38 +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] L85B - acceptable ruling ? References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@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 3:09 PM +0100 2/22/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Well, if by play you also mean the tournament, the > >competition, then surely this must be included. > > > >At this moment, the matter is in appeal. Surely in the > >meantime the players of the other teams have the right to > >know of a preliminary result of this match ? > > You mentioned three different results, expressed in VP. One if the > board was fouled, one if it wasn't, and a third the TD apparently > awarded. Which one was the result obtained at the table? > Which table ? The green one ? > I gather the problem has something to do with which teams play each > other in the next round. I suppose if the TD can't determine whether > the board was fouled, he should rule it wasn't, and proceed on that > basis. I don't know enough about running team contests to judge what > should happen if the AC decides later that it was. > > What I don't understand is where this third result comes from. > Well, I think that is obvious, from the TD. You are missing the point. The facts are in dispute. You say that the TD should rule "no fouled board". Why ? He decides he cannot determine "to his satisfaction" that the board was NOT fouled. There is ample evidence to both sides. Why should he rule in favour of one side, simply because that is the "default" value ? -- 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 Feb 23 22:28:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBRwk01125 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:27:59 +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.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRet01050 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:27:41 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-11-8.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.11.8]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NBRVF08229 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:27:33 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A964058.81243752@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:50:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was not going to comment on the comments about my comments, but you know I can't shut up. "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > > I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - > > I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the > > almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule > > in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about > > all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. > > > Very strange, since N/S are required to call the TD when they did, no > option. How could this be "almost unethical." > NS are not required to call the TD, sorry. They are allowed to acquiesce to the claim. > Declarer spread his hand, saying "ruffing a spade," and that seems to > satisfy L68: > > "A contestant also claims...when he shows his cards (unless he > demonstrably did not intend to claim)." > > and L68D says ",,,play ceases" > > There is a current popular belief among some TDs and ACs that following > the UI/MI Laws is "winning in court what could not be won at the table." > This a strange outlook, considering that the Laws do not permit players to > waive the penalty for an infraction. > There is no infraction in spreading your hand and showing 13 spades. You do not need to give a claim statement, you are merely loosing some rights you might have otherwise. When a claim is obvious, the opponents are acting "almost" unethically if they try and see it overturned by the TD. I believe this claim was obvious and I would not have asked to see it ruled upon. > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > > -- > ======================================================================== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 22:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBbM703817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:22 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NBb3t03723 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1NBatK12413 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? 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: <007601c09d15$9ce4faa0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Marv wrote: > However, ZOs might prefer to bar asking out of fear > that players might ask selectively (unethical if intentional, just dumb > otherwise). I think that is all David meant. Playing rubber I am permitted to ask even in Zone 1. My principle is to ask only when partner has revoked. If I am occasionally wrong and create UI, *and* partner doesn't avoid using it, *and* declarer may have been damaged then I will call the TD to adjust. Asking selectively should not be a problem for the ethical player. 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 Feb 23 22:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBbIl03803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NBb2t03719 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1NBas112394 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36:54 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? 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: Gordon Bower wrote: >> 9 2 >> A K J 8 7 >> Q 3 >> K Q 6 4 >> West East >> 7 6 A 5 4 3 >> 6 5 3 10 9 7 >> 10 4 2 8 7 6 >> J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 >> >> South >> K Q J 10 8 >> Q 5 >> A K J 9 5 >> A > I consider the > finesse to be substantially inferior, but not irrational -- give East > D108764 [and West the SA so there is no change of a squeeze] and the > finesse is the only way to make the contract; maybe your table feel will > tell you it is time to take an antipercentage line, maybe not. West, on lead against 7NT does not hold the spade ace - I promise. However, assuming East holds HT94 then there is also a finesse position in hearts when the ten is played on the 8. While decidedly antipercentage I see no reason to say that a trick "cannot be lost by normal play" - the concession stands. That said, were this a claim for 13 tricks I would uphold it on the grounds that declarer's intent is clearly to cash from the top. I would rule -1 even if East held SA, DTxxxx believing cashing diamonds first to be careless, rather than irrational. Although a declarer who said "Win in hand, CA, 4H, 2C and 5 diamonds at the end" would get 13 from me on the same distribution. 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 Feb 23 22:37:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NBbHq03797 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NBb2t03720 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:37:03 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1NBase12402 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36:55 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:36 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? 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: > I wouldn't say there is anything unethical about "no spades, partner" > any more than I would say there is anything unethical about taking time > to think before bidding. It does however have a similarly high risk of > passing UI unless you are very consistent. Just a quick question. Playing in England, suppose I know that partner has revoked am I obliged to turn over the revoke trick? Is it legal to ask for it to be left on the table and say nothing until partner finally notices? If I strongly suspect partner has revoked but am trying to construct a plausible hand for declarer consistent with the play is it legal to have the last trick left face up until I have finished my deliberations? Thanks, Tim -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Fri Feb 23 23:54:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NCrbx15209 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:53:37 +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-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 f1NCrUt15204 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:53:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14WHiw-000JRG-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:53:26 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:51:27 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: > > > >> I wouldn't say there is anything unethical about "no spades, partner" >> any more than I would say there is anything unethical about taking time >> to think before bidding. It does however have a similarly high risk of >> passing UI unless you are very consistent. > >Just a quick question. Playing in England, suppose I know that partner >has revoked am I obliged to turn over the revoke trick? Is it legal to >ask for it to be left on the table and say nothing until partner finally >notices? > Nope, I'd probably smack you with a PP if you tried it, as well as all the revoke penalties I could find along with a bastinado and garrotte. Blatant creation of UI. >If I strongly suspect partner has revoked but am trying to construct a >plausible hand for declarer consistent with the play is it legal to have >the last trick left face up until I have finished my deliberations? You leave the card face up until *you* are satisfied you know what's been played. Thereafter you turn it over and think about the hand. The salient question is: Were you thinking about the trick just completed (ok), or the play to the rest of the hand (not ok)? > >Thanks, > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 24 00:00:12 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NCwJ015699 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:58:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.92]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NCwCt15662 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 23:58:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-34.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14WHnV-000KHS-0Y for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:58:09 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:56:05 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , Tim West-meads writes >In-Reply-To: <007601c09d15$9ce4faa0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> >Marv wrote: > >> However, ZOs might prefer to bar asking out of fear >> that players might ask selectively (unethical if intentional, just dumb >> otherwise). I think that is all David meant. > >Playing rubber I am permitted to ask even in Zone 1. My principle is to >ask only when partner has revoked. If I am occasionally wrong and create >UI, *and* partner doesn't avoid using it, *and* declarer may have been >damaged then I will call the TD to adjust. Asking selectively should not >be a problem for the ethical player. This is my perception of ethical rubber bridge players in the UK. They don't ask often, when they do it's usually because partners *Has* revoked, and UI in general is well handled at clubs like the Wood and TGRs (the two high stake clubs in London). In the 20p/100 games nobody knows what's going on anyway, so it doesn't matter as much > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 24 00:04:59 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1ND1rN16965 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:01:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1ND1gt16894 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:01:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from modem-36.edhel.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.136.170.36] helo=default) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.13 #0) id 14WHfm-0004zV-00; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:50:11 +0000 Message-ID: <000001c09d98$fd293560$24aa883e@default> From: "larry bennett" To: "nick doe" Cc: "Bridge Laws" Subject: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 13:01:56 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C09D98.CD5D2F80" 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_0005_01C09D98.CD5D2F80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I found the document well layed-out, and of interest. Those concerned in = its origination deserve thanks. I look forward to further examples. I was happy with all the rulings bar one. When I saw the td ruling on = no. 13, my first thoughts were "whats the problem". I then read the = unanimous views of the ac, and both commentators, vehemently going = against that decision. When I gave the hand as a bidding problem to my local discussion group, = of 10 replies ( good club to top county players) 4 passed, 3 bid 5c, and = 3 bid 4s. This leads me to agree with Mike Amos's original ruling. Larry B ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C09D98.CD5D2F80 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I found the document well layed-out, = and of=20 interest. Those concerned in its origination deserve thanks. I look = forward to=20 further examples.
 
I was happy with all the rulings bar = one. When I=20 saw the td ruling on no. 13, my first thoughts were "whats the problem". = I then=20 read the unanimous views of the ac, and both commentators, vehemently = going=20 against that decision.
 
When I gave the hand as a bidding = problem to my=20 local discussion group, of 10 replies ( good club to top county players) = 4=20 passed, 3 bid 5c, and 3 bid 4s. This leads me to agree with Mike Amos's = original=20 ruling.
 
Larry B
 
------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C09D98.CD5D2F80-- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 00:27:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NDR5Q25791 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:27:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NDQvt25749 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:26:58 +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 f1NDQrt06982 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:26:53 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@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, 23 Feb 2001 08:26:22 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <200102222335.SAA07453@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 06:35 PM 2/22/01, Steve wrote: >At least that's my view. I think it is in accord with L73D1. We >normally interpret "steady tempo" to mean "take the same time in every >occurrence of a given type of situation, regardless of your cards," not >"take the same time for every call, regardless of the situation." Rich Colker (the ACBL National Recorder) has been campaigning to convince ACBL TDs/ACs to apply a more lenient standard to huddles taken in positions where huddles are to be expected, such as during complex artificial auctions or actively competitive ones. (Which in the ACBL may mean do ask a question or two before you shoot.) As far as I can tell, he hasn't made much headway. 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 Feb 24 00:49:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NDnhX26732 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:49:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.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 f1NDnat26727 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 00:49:37 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1NDkAT29190; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:46:10 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3A96429A.ACB29830@village.uunet.be> References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> <3A96429A.ACB29830@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:42:17 -0500 To: Herman De Wael From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? Cc: Bridge Laws Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 11:59 AM +0100 2/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: >Which table ? The green one ? No, the purple one with the yellow stripes.... The table at which the board was purportedly fouled. > > What I don't understand is where this third result comes from. >> > >Well, I think that is obvious, from the TD. Duh. So where did the TD get it? Did he just pull it out of his, um, ear? >You are missing the point. > >The facts are in dispute. > >You say that the TD should rule "no fouled board". Why ? >He decides he cannot determine "to his satisfaction" that >the board was NOT fouled. >There is ample evidence to both sides. >Why should he rule in favour of one side, simply because >that is the "default" value ? All right, you've got me there, I suppose. Would ruling that the board was fouled "allow play to continue"? Would ruling that the board was *not* fouled prevent play from continuing? If the TD can't determine which it is, does he have any inclination at all either way? If so, he should, I would think, go with that. If not, perhaps he should flip a coin. 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/AwUBOpZqar2UW3au93vOEQJGmgCfRZV2SSaBLxFTCRL+32hWURR3aNkAnAhl MGWVOs3bCFVfdHhTQ61Duzno =AkuN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 01:56:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NEtb827383 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:55:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe69.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.204]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NEtVt27379 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:55:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 06:55:24 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.128.208] From: "axman22" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2001 14:55:24.0823 (UTC) FILETIME=[A6FFEA70:01C09DA8] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Landau To: Bridge Laws Discussion List Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 07:26 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt > At 06:35 PM 2/22/01, Steve wrote: > > >At least that's my view. I think it is in accord with L73D1. We > >normally interpret "steady tempo" to mean "take the same time in every > >occurrence of a given type of situation, regardless of your cards," not > >"take the same time for every call, regardless of the situation." > > Rich Colker (the ACBL National Recorder) has been campaigning to > convince ACBL TDs/ACs to apply a more lenient standard to huddles taken > in positions where huddles are to be expected, such as during complex > artificial auctions or actively competitive ones. (Which in the ACBL > may mean do ask a question or two before you shoot.) As far as I can > tell, he hasn't made much headway. I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the unfair use of complex methods. roger pewick > 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 Feb 24 02:30:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NFTsD03793 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:29:54 +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 ([164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NFTjt03759 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:29:46 +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 QAA29223; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:25:38 +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 QAA12788; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:29:17 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010223163136.00858b80@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:31:36 +0100 To: Eric Landau , Bridge Laws Discussion List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> References: <200102222335.SAA07453@cfa183.harvard.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 08:26 23/02/01 -0500, Eric Landau wrote: >At 06:35 PM 2/22/01, Steve wrote: > >>At least that's my view. I think it is in accord with L73D1. We >>normally interpret "steady tempo" to mean "take the same time in every >>occurrence of a given type of situation, regardless of your cards," not >>"take the same time for every call, regardless of the situation." > >Rich Colker (the ACBL National Recorder) has been campaigning to >convince ACBL TDs/ACs to apply a more lenient standard to huddles taken >in positions where huddles are to be expected, such as during complex >artificial auctions or actively competitive ones. (Which in the ACBL >may mean do ask a question or two before you shoot.) As far as I can >tell, he hasn't made much headway. AG : I would be one of his hottest supporters. In 'actively competitive auctions', passing in a split second may mean more than hesitating a little bit. It would mean that we -unexpectedly- have no problem. Remember ? That's the reason why the stop procedure was introduced over skip bids. If one would suggest that the Stop be used in several cases of competitive auctions, I would support thze idea. For examples, when both sides have bid a game or more, or when the next-to-last bid (not call) was a skip bid. 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 Feb 24 02:41:34 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NFfOO07883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:41:24 +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 ([164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NFfGt07843 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 02:41:17 +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 QAA02467; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:37:16 +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 QAA20085; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:40:57 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010223164316.0085a2a0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:43:16 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? In-Reply-To: <3A96429A.ACB29830@village.uunet.be> References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@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 11:59 23/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: > >You say that the TD should rule "no fouled board". Why ? >He decides he cannot determine "to his satisfaction" that >the board was NOT fouled. >There is ample evidence to both sides. >Why should he rule in favour of one side, simply because >that is the "default" value ? AG : you said it : because that's the default value, because it is the most probable case and the most probable end decision. But it's strange there is evidence for both fouled and non-fouled. Because the board cannot be both fouled and non-fouled. At least one item must be wrong. In such a strange case, of course, the AC must do its job (perhaps the TD should appeal himself), but I can't see the grounds to create an artificial intermediate score. Well, perhaps it's time you give us the arguments of both sides, so that we can check whether they were genuine evidence ? 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 Feb 24 03:39:05 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NGcZM20098 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:38:35 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NGcSt20060 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:38:29 +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 <20010223163820.VXUN11526.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:38:20 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:21 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > >I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can >maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex >systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also >undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they >should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to >which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to >often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of >game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the >unfair use of complex methods. > Using "complex methods", provided that they are licensed by the relevant NCBO, is *NOT* "unfair", and you shouldn't be directing if you don't understand *and* accept that. For any pedants out there, I'd better specifically exclude "simple system" events and the like. Will you now propose that players should always play cards in the same tempo, and therefore those who have the ability to sort out complex plays after a few minutes thought should always give that degree of thought to each card they play, and therefore be penalised for slow play? And if not, maybe you will tell us why not? Brian. (declaration of interest - I'm a systems geek who has been known to play more than a couple of off-the-wall systems on OKBridge, and to sit there desperately trying to visualise the relevant page of the notes when the auction strays into the really obscure bits). -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 04:15:33 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NHF1Z03236 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:15:01 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1NHEtt03209 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 04:14:55 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:15:18 -0800 Message-ID: <00fc01c09dbc$1a5ba500$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3A964058.81243752@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 09:04:13 -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 Herman de Wael wrote: > I was not going to comment on the comments about my > comments, but you know I can't shut up. > > "Marvin L. French" wrote: > > > > From: "Adam Wildavsky" > > > > > > I find a portion of Herman's comments on Appeal Number 9 abhorrent - > > > I'm sorry this ever saw print. He wrote "This, together with the > > > almost unethical Director call by North/South, would urge me to rule > > > in favour of claimer in this one." If you'd like me to go on about > > > all the things that are wrong with this statement I shall. > > > > > Very strange, since N/S are required to call the TD when they did, no > > option. How could this be "almost unethical." > > > > NS are not required to call the TD, sorry. > They are allowed to acquiesce to the claim. But they didn't. They "queried this." Had they acquiesced, there would have been no TD call. Put these two facts together, and I think we can say the claim was disputed, whereupon (L68D) "the Director must be summoned immediately." Isn't that what happened? > > > Declarer spread his hand, saying "ruffing a spade," and that seems to > > satisfy L68: > > > > "A contestant also claims...when he shows his cards (unless he > > demonstrably did not intend to claim)." > > > > and L68D says ",,,play ceases" > > > > There is a current popular belief among some TDs and ACs that following > > the UI/MI Laws is "winning in court what could not be won at the table." > > This a strange outlook, considering that the Laws do not permit players to > > waive the penalty for an infraction. > > > > There is no infraction in spreading your hand and showing 13 > spades. I didn't say this case involved an infraction, did I? You inferred that. I was speaking generally of those who think that calling the TD is being a "BL," even though the Laws require it. Okay, I should have said "...considering that the Laws require players to call the TD under certain circumstances." Also, I should have used the word "irregularity" instead of "infraction." Claiming without a statement is an irregularity. > You do not need to give a claim statement, you are merely > losing some rights you might have otherwise. > When a claim is obvious, the opponents are acting "almost" > unethically if they try and see it overturned by the TD. > I believe this claim was obvious and I would not have asked > to see it ruled upon. > You would have accepted the claim, very generous of you. They did not accept the claim, and both the TD and AC said they were right. How can this be characterized as being unethical, or almost unethical? As the AC said, "North-South are entitled to exact their rights under the Law." -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 07:17:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NKG8223661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:16:08 +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 f1NKG0t23657 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:16:01 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-89-242.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.89.242]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA16585 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:15:28 GMT Message-ID: <002c01c09dd5$73903780$f259063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3A964058.81243752@village.uunet.be> <00fc01c09dbc$1a5ba500$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 20:15:06 -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 'The sooner patients can be removed from the depressing influence of general hospital life the more rapid their convalescence." ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Marvin L. French To: Bridge Laws Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Someone said: > I didn't say this case involved an infraction, did I? You inferred > that. I was speaking generally of those who think that calling > the TD is being a "BL," even though the Laws require it. Okay, > I should have said "...considering that the Laws require > players to call the TD under certain circumstances." Also, I > should have used the word "irregularity" instead of "infraction." > Claiming without a statement is an irregularity. > +=+ Law 68 D says " A claim should be accompanied at once by a statement of clarification....." The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says: "When a player _should_ do something ("a claim should be accompanied at once by a statement...") his failure to do it is an infraction of law." ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 07:45:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NKiks23958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:44:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NKiet23953 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 07:44:41 +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 <20010223204436.EWAD11526.mail.rdc1.md.home.com@BRIAN> for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:44:36 -0800 From: Brian Meadows To: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 15:44:39 -0500 Reply-To: brian@meadows.pair.com Message-ID: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:21 -0500, I wrote: Following up on my own post, but there you go.... >On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > >> >>I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can >>maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex >>systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also >>undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they >>should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to >>which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to >>often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of >>game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the >>unfair use of complex methods. >> > I took a swipe at Roger for this, but someone has just pointed out to me via private e-mail the alternative interpretation of what Roger wrote, which I missed when I read it the first time. OK, Roger, if that person is right about how you meant the above, I apologise for having a go at you. If my original interpretation was right, then I stand by every word of what I said. 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 Sat Feb 24 10:23:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1NNMk800876 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:22:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1NNMct00837 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:22:39 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugsp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.153]) by hall.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA22266 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:22:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:22:31 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herman De Wael" To: "Bridge Laws" Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 6:11 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > Gordon Bower wrote: > > > > On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 Laval_DUBREUIL@UQSS.UQuebec.CA wrote: > > > > > Hi BLMLrs, > > > > > > Board No 6: > > > North > > > 9 2 > > > A K J 8 7 > > > Q 3 > > > K Q 6 4 > > > West East > > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > > > South > > > K Q J 10 8 > > > Q 5 > > > A K J 9 5 > > > A > > > > > > South played 7NT (God knows why...) and received a H lead. > > > Before North finished placind dummy's cards, S spread his > > > hand on table an said "I have to give you a S trick". > > > > > They score 7NT -1 and change for the next round. Some > > > tables later, North then awoke "Hey partner, you had 13 quick > > > tricks on board 6 ...". He then called the TD and asked > > > concession be cancelled according to Law 71C: > > > > The correct answer is that conceding to the spade ace at > trick two is a normal line of play, so the concession > stands, but many others have answered this. > I hereby offer to play rubber bridge, for money, against anyone who sincerely believes that conceding an ace at trick two is normal play in a grand slam and would seriously consider it at the table. Do I have any takers? Anyone care to partner me? If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, what is? Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 11:20:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O0Jh219670 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:19:43 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1O0JZt19665 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:19:36 +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 QAA08108; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:19:27 -0800 Message-Id: <200102240019.QAA08108@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:22:31 EST." <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:19:22 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > I hereby offer to play rubber bridge, for money, against anyone who > sincerely believes that conceding an ace at trick two is normal play in a > grand slam and would seriously consider it at the table. Do I have any > takers? Anyone care to partner me? > > If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, what is? Oh, come on. I'm willing to bet we can find experts that have done exactly that, after misbidding a hand and getting too high. Once you bid a grand slam and find out it's hopeless (or you think you've found that out, as our protagonist in this case did), it's perfectly normal, and not at all irrational, to take whatever line of play is appropriate to make six and hold your losses to the minimum, -- 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 Feb 24 14:11:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O3AEH04719 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:10:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1O3A7t04714 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:10:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-61-231.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.61.231]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id DAA07131; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:09:36 GMT Message-ID: <002f01c09e0f$4e5d2880$e73d7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" , "Adam Beneschan" Cc: References: <200102240019.QAA08108@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:09:31 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'The sooner patients can be removed from the depressing influence of general hospital life the more rapid their convalescence." ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Adam Beneschan To: Bridge Laws Cc: Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:19 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, what is? > > > Oh, come on. I'm willing to bet we can find experts that have > done exactly that, after misbidding a hand and getting too high. > Once you bid a grand slam and find out it's hopeless (or you > think you've found that out, as our protagonist in this case did), > it's perfectly normal, and not at all irrational, to take whatever > line of play is appropriate to make six and hold your losses to > the minimum, > > -- Adam > +=+ I would say that if a player fails to recognize that he has thirteen tricks it is quite rational to concede one. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 14:15:27 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O3FGA04781 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:15:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1O3FAt04776 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:15:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.122.219.170] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14WVAn-0002tC-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:15:06 +0000 Message-ID: <000501c09e0f$f54c72e0$aadb7ad5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200102240019.QAA08108@mailhub.irvine.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 03:14:48 -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: > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > I hereby offer to play rubber bridge, for money, against anyone who > > sincerely believes that conceding an ace at trick two is normal play in a > > grand slam and would seriously consider it at the table. Do I have any > > takers? Anyone care to partner me? > > > > If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, what is? > > Oh, come on. I'm willing to bet we can find experts that have done > exactly that, after misbidding a hand and getting too high. Once you > bid a grand slam and find out it's hopeless (or you think you've found > that out, as our protagonist in this case did), it's perfectly normal, > and not at all irrational, to take whatever line of play is > appropriate to make six and hold your losses to the minimum. In the ACBL Life Masters' Pairs, this occurred: KQJ53 105 754 842 1087 9642 J 842 QJ1098 62 Q965 KJ73 A AKQ9763 AK3 A10 North, Eddie Kantar, and South, Mike Lawrence, arrived in 7NT by South (the bidding is not recorded). Winning the diamond lead, Lawrence cashed the ace of spades and led the nine of hearts, playing for one down rather than two down. Of course, he relied on a defensive error - but the fact remains that he actually played the hand that way. If Hirsch is serious about his offer, then I will take him up on it. I hope he will not mind, though, if I put my money on Lawrence. 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 Feb 24 14:37:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O3b2805026 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:37:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com [24.0.95.86]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1O3aut05021 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:36:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from cc68559a ([24.5.183.132]) by femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010224033653.HBPW21905.femail6.sdc1.sfba.home.com@cc68559a> for ; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:36:53 -0800 Reply-To: From: "Linda Trent" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 19:39:17 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <004f01c09b63$82ff2240$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > While on this subject, I have about as many actions taken against me with > "unwonted speed" as with "unmistakable hesitation" (L16) in situations > where tempo could matter. However, I don't believe there has been a single > NABC casebook tempo case that concerned a too-fast action. "Slow shows" > and "fast denies," but only slow gets caught, evidently. > > Marv > Marvin L. French, ISPE > San Diego, CA, USA > Orlando Case 23.... (but I do think that is the only one) :-) Linda -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 17:29:44 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O6RPK02832 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:27:25 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1O6RJt02828 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 17:27:20 +1100 (EST) Received: from hirschd (user-vcaugsp.dsl.mindspring.com [216.175.67.153]) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net (8.9.3/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA03902 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:27:15 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <00c201c09e2a$d2185940$0200000a@mindspring.com> From: "Hirsch Davis" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200102240019.QAA08108@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c09e0f$4e5d2880$e73d7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 01:27:10 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" ; "Adam Beneschan" Cc: Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 10:09 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > Grattan Endicott <=> > 'The sooner patients can be removed from > the depressing influence of general hospital > life the more rapid their convalescence." > ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) > <==-==> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Adam Beneschan > To: Bridge Laws > Cc: > Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:19 AM > Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > > > > > Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, > what is? > > > > > > Oh, come on. I'm willing to bet we can find experts that have > > done exactly that, after misbidding a hand and getting too high. > > Once you bid a grand slam and find out it's hopeless (or you > > think you've found that out, as our protagonist in this case did), > > it's perfectly normal, and not at all irrational, to take whatever > > line of play is appropriate to make six and hold your losses to > > the minimum, > > > > -- Adam > > > +=+ I would say that if a player fails to recognize > that he has thirteen tricks it is quite rational to > concede one. > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Agreed, and my apologies to all for my hyperbole. Now back to the original question: The original concession statement was "I have to give up a spade". Is it rational to play a spade at trick two on this layout? Further, does the original concession statement matter at all in determining a normal line of play for the purposes of 71C? > > North > > > 9 2 > > > A K J 8 7 > > > Q 3 > > > K Q 6 4 > > > West East > > > 7 6 A 5 4 3 > > > 6 5 3 10 9 7 > > > 10 4 2 8 7 6 > > > J 9 7 5 2 10 8 3 > > > > > > South > > > K Q J 10 8 > > > Q 5 > > > A K J 9 5 > > > A Shifting from trying to figure out the correct ruling to a generic comment about L71, and noting that since 71C has already lost the second sentence, IMO there's no real reason not to lose the first as well. Actually, the whole of L71 could be kept simple. Something like: "A concession, once made, shall stand, unless a player has conceded a trick that his side had in fact won prior to the concession, or a trick that could not be lost by any legal play of the cards. Any such tricks may be returned by the Director until the end of the correction period established under Law 79." Do we really need any more than this? Ah well, just a fantasy on my part... Hirsch -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 19:31:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1O8Ucw02973 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:30:38 +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 f1O8UWt02969 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 19:30:32 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-74-19.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.74.19]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA10123 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:30:02 GMT Message-ID: <001301c09e3c$11edd700$134a063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <200102240019.QAA08108@mailhub.irvine.com> <002f01c09e0f$4e5d2880$e73d7bd5@dodona> <00c201c09e2a$d2185940$0200000a@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:29:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott 'The sooner patients can be removed from the depressing influence of general hospital life the more rapid their convalescence." ~ 'The Lancet' (1917) <==-==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Hirsch Davis To: Bridge Laws Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 6:27 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? > > > > > > Oh, come on. I'm willing to bet we can find experts that have > > > done exactly that, after misbidding a hand and getting too high. > > > Once you bid a grand slam and find out it's hopeless (or you > > > think you've found that out, as our protagonist in this case did), > > > it's perfectly normal, and not at all irrational, to take whatever > > > line of play is appropriate to make six and hold your losses to > > > the minimum, > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > +=+ I would say that if a player fails to recognize > > that he has thirteen tricks it is quite rational to > > concede one. > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > Agreed, and my apologies to all for my hyperbole. > > Now back to the original question: The original concession statement was "I have to give up a > spade". Is it rational to play a spade at trick > two on this layout? > +=+ That indeed is the question the law poses. And it is a difficult bridge judgement that must be made. Every reader can form a view now that the core of the question is exposed. +=+ > > Shifting from trying to figure out the correct ruling > to a generic comment about L71, and noting that > since 71C has already lost the second sentence, > IMO there's no real reason not to lose the first as > well. Actually, the whole of L71 could be kept simple. > Something like: "A concession, once made, shall > stand, unless a player has conceded a trick that his > side had in fact won prior to the concession, or a > trick that could not be lost by any legal play of the > cards. Any such tricks may be returned by the > Director until the end of the correction period > established under Law 79." Do we really need any > more than this? Ah well, just a fantasy on my part... > > Hirsch > +=+ Fantasy? Well, we do have to pick up the pieces of Law 71 after our interim interpretation in '97. So your fantasy will do for the trigger to the discussion, thank you. [ Note that in 1997 we did not delete the second sentence, we provided a fresh interpretation of the law as it is written. It was ton who was uncomfortable with the Kaplan intention and asked the committee to change it.] ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sat Feb 24 21:28:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1OAS4209571 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:28:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OARtt09515 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:27:56 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-14-39.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.14.39]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1OARnS16361 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:27:50 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A96A2B2.D5124901@village.uunet.be> Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 18:49:38 +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] L85B - acceptable ruling ? References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> <3A96429A.ACB29830@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 11:59 AM +0100 2/23/01, Herman De Wael wrote: > >Which table ? The green one ? > > No, the purple one with the yellow stripes.... > I was talking about "the green table" which sometimes is needed to decide matches in all kinds of sports - the jury table. > The table at which the board was purportedly fouled. > Well, the result does not really matter - the balance was 10IMP, and when the board is considered fouled, that makes it 0IMP. > > > What I don't understand is where this third result comes from. > >> > > > >Well, I think that is obvious, from the TD. > > Duh. So where did the TD get it? Did he just pull it out of his, um, ear? > No, he split the difference and awarded 5IMP (he actually did it straight in VP, but you get the drift). > >You are missing the point. > > > >The facts are in dispute. > > > >You say that the TD should rule "no fouled board". Why ? > >He decides he cannot determine "to his satisfaction" that > >the board was NOT fouled. > >There is ample evidence to both sides. > >Why should he rule in favour of one side, simply because > >that is the "default" value ? > > All right, you've got me there, I suppose. Would ruling that the > board was fouled "allow play to continue"? Would ruling that the > board was *not* fouled prevent play from continuing? If the TD can't > determine which it is, does he have any inclination at all either > way? If so, he should, I would think, go with that. If not, perhaps > he should flip a coin. > Now that is a valid answer to my question. You believe that it is not acceptable to "split the difference", but that the TD ought to go with what he believes to be the most likely happenings. Thanks for your reply. That's one vote. What about the rest of you ? What do you think ? -- 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 Feb 25 03:22:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1OGLuv10257 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:21:56 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe3.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.107]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OGLot10253 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 03:21:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 08:21:42 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.128.208] From: "axman22" To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 10:19:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Feb 2001 16:21:42.0874 (UTC) FILETIME=[DFC58BA0:01C09E7D] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: Brian Meadows To: Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 02:44 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt > On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 11:38:21 -0500, I wrote: > > > Following up on my own post, but there you go.... > > > >On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: > > > >> > >>I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can > >>maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex > >>systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also > >>undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they > >>should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to > >>which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to > >>often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of > >>game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the > >>unfair use of complex methods. > >> > > > > I took a swipe at Roger for this, but someone has just pointed > out to me via private e-mail the alternative interpretation of > what Roger wrote, which I missed when I read it the first time. > > OK, Roger, if that person is right about how you meant the above, > I apologise for having a go at you. If my original interpretation > was right, then I stand by every word of what I said. > > Brian. It seemed to me that Brian's note was not very germane to my post so I am not sure what reason he feels calls for an apology. No hurt feelings here. But it does seem suggested that I use better words so I will. The articulation given to R.C.'s view was effectively that a pair that uses complex methods is to be rewarded [indemnified] for breaking tempo in various situations because it is unfair to expect them to not break tempo. My response was that all players should be expected to learn the tempo they need to make most of their actions- given the agreements they choose. That is to say that they should endeavor to minimize the UI they create. Further, they who employ complex methods create a higher expectation, not lower, to maintian a good tempo. What prompted my post was that I disagree that less ought to be expected from those who employ the more complex. That I found it necessary to expound upon the principle found in L73A very likely had something to do with inflaming the passion of Brian What seems relevant in forming my view is whether the result of successfully following the premise is likely to produce a satisfactory outcome. My conclusion is that good sport can not be realized without players endeavoring to minimize the UI. The view that players are expected to expend effort to recognize situations requiring the manufacture of a tempo break means that their attention is diverted from playing bridge, and I disagree with such an approach. The focus on fair play should not be on creating extraneous activities with which to get wrong. Toward RC's view however. It seems to me that the decision making is better left with the opponents. That is to say that it is the opponents who should be satisfied that a tempo break in such a situation was not used unfairly [thereby choosing to not seek a ruling]. I would suggest from a human nature viewpoint that where a pair has been endeavoring to act in tempo opponents would be more likely to view the subject tempo breaks as not creating unfair actions- than if the opponent had been endeavoring. > Will you now propose that players should always play cards in the > same tempo, and therefore those who have the ability to sort out > complex plays after a few minutes thought should always give that > degree of thought to each card they play, and therefore be > penalised for slow play? > > And if not, maybe you will tell us why not? > > Brian. > > (declaration of interest - I'm a systems geek who has been known > to play more than a couple of off-the-wall systems on OKBridge, > and to sit there desperately trying to visualise the relevant > page of the notes when the auction strays into the really obscure > bits). I wholeheartedly applaud Brian's proclivity to explore various methods. I think that the only restriction that ought to be placed on system is that it be employed in a fair manner, which is primarily to say that the users often enough are successful with good tempo [among a few other things concerning slow play and MI] and yes, I recognize that this view is not currently shared by more than a small minority. A long huddle is not normal tempo, unless it is normal. The cost of a long huddle is the advantage gained by depriving opponents of their share of the allotted time, and the creation of UI. The cost of varying tempo is the creation of UI. Imo, a huddle is justified more frequently during the play than in the bidding. Also, that during the play it is less likely to be tempo sensitive but I suggest that it is not sufficient reason to indemnify a pair that huddles so frequently that it disrupts progress of the game. What I also suggest is that using a consistent tempo so that variations are very infrequent is the fairest approach to play. regards 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 Sun Feb 25 07:20:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1OKK3001395 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:20:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from smtp1.san.rr.com (smtp1b.san.rr.com [24.25.193.37]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OKJut01359 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 07:19:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from marvin ([204.210.46.63]) by smtp1.san.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-0U10L2S100V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:20:19 -0800 Message-ID: <005101c09e9f$1bb661e0$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> Reply-To: "Marvin L. French" From: "Marvin L. French" To: "Bridge Laws" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: When to Call About a Hesitation Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 12:15:41 -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 The very capable NABC Appeals Manager, Linda Trent, wrote: > Marvin L. French wrote: > > > > While on this subject, I have about as many actions taken against me with > > "unwonted speed" as with "unmistakable hesitation" (L16) in situations > > where tempo could matter. However, I don't believe there has been a single > > NABC casebook tempo case that concerned a too-fast action. "Slow shows" > > and "fast denies," but only slow gets caught, evidently. > > > > Orlando Case 23.... Yes, Fall NABC, 1998. > > (but I do think that is the only one) :-) > The TD let the result from a fast 4S bid stand, as did the AC, so "unwonted speed" remains UI that hasn't resulted in a score adjustment in the NABC appeals process. I will not show the bidding or the deal because it is not pertinent to this subject. ACBL members can view the Orlando casebook by entering the "members only" area of the ACBL website, www.acbl.org. The AC decision in this case (result stands, as the TD said) seems quite correct. Even Ron Gerard, the tempo watchdog in the casebooks, and member of the AC in this case, did not see the UI as affecting the partner's (correct) decision at her next turn. However, the VERY experienced 4S bidder should have known better than to break tempo when he did. I see that the TD did not consider adjusting because "he had not been called at once when attention was drawn to an irregularity (L91BA)" and "could not establish that a fast bid had occurred." Actually attention had not been drawn to the fast pass when it occurred, so the opponents DID call the TD when attention was drawn to it (after completing the Swiss team match, before comparing). Of course they should have obtained agreement about the fast pass at the time it occurred, getting TD assistance immediately if no agreement could be reached. However, as has been discussed, the ACBL Election in regard to tempo problems (L16A1 option) is very unclear. Should the TD have been called when the dummy came down (her action after the fast pass was later questioned), in accordance with the L16A footnote? One opponent said he wanted to confer with partner as to whether the bid had been ultra-fast before calling the TD. That seems perfectly reasonable, and I still fail to see why calling the TD at sight of dummy is required when it is dummy's hand that shows a questionable action. Nothing that would affect the play can be done at that time, and many declarers get rattled by the TD call and associated talk, perhaps playing badly as a result. Marv Marvin L. French, ISPE Patron Member ACBL, R485937 San Diego, CA, USA -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 25 08:59:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1OLwkr14266 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 08:58:46 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1OLwet14262 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 08:58:40 +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 QAA07421 for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:58:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA28735 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:58:36 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 16:58:36 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102242158.QAA28735@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: Herman De Wael > You believe that it is not acceptable to "split the > difference", but that the TD ought to go with what he > believes to be the most likely happenings. If L12C3 is enabled, it's probably legal to do anything you like. That doesn't make it a good idea! Where there is no L12C3 (and even where there is), I think that _on questions of fact_ the TD and AC have to rule based on "preponderance of the evidence." Either the board was fouled or it wasn't. Somebody decides which and rules accordingly. Maybe half the time they get it wrong, but we know for sure that splitting the difference is wrong. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 25 15:58:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1P4vJO14911 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1P4vDt14907 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:57:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from Q4Z5P8 [203.17.19.138] by ausinfo.com.au [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R) for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 15:03:20 +1000 Message-Id: <1.5.4.32.20010225045832.0068d984@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" Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 14:58:32 +1000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Tom Strong Subject: [BLML] claim ? 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 The following hand was a part of a controversial appeals committee decision following a somewhat less controversial directors ruling. north S.6 H. 3 D. KQ10975 C. J10632 EAST WEST S.9742 S. AKQ85 H.AQJ105 H. 74 D.8 D. J4 C. 987 C. AKQ5 SOUTH S. J103 H. K9862 D. A632 C. 4 East West bid to the contract of six spades and received the opening lead of the ace of diamonds from North. He then switched to a small heart winning in the dummy. he then drew three rounds of trump and laid down his cards announcing that he did not even need the heart finesse. North South felt he did need it. They called the director who ruled one down. East West naturally appealed as they had nothing to loose. West told the director that he had been joking when he made the statement that he did not need the heart finese again. The Appeals Committee discussed the situation for an hour and then ruled that the contract made. It attracted much negative comment along the lines of "another Sydney special". I would be interested in comments about (a) the director's ruling Is this law 68? (b) the appeals committee's decisions -correct? Does it in effect disregard the Laws? regards 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 Sun Feb 25 20:29:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1P9SIi25754 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:28:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net [194.7.1.5]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1P9SBt25750 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:28:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-6-10.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.6.10]) by bru5-smtp-out1.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1P9S6S08422 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:28:07 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9790E8.45425C94@village.uunet.be> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 11:46:00 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] Concession cancelled ? References: <3A964564.547FFD94@village.uunet.be> <000a01c09def$7f8f0d80$0200000a@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hirsch Davis wrote: > > > > > The correct answer is that conceding to the spade ace at > > trick two is a normal line of play, so the concession > > stands, but many others have answered this. > > > > I hereby offer to play rubber bridge, for money, against anyone who > sincerely believes that conceding an ace at trick two is normal play in a > grand slam and would seriously consider it at the table. Do I have any > takers? Anyone care to partner me? > > If conceding an early trick in a grand slam is not irrational, what is? > > Hirsch > Well Hirsh, I believe that not conceding a trick to the ace of trumps would be irrational. Playing on simply because you think you cannot claim for down one is irrational. Change a few cards in the original lay-out and you will arrive at a stage where the only way to make 12 tricks is to knock out the ace of spades in the second trick. So no, it is not irrational to concede the second trick in a grand slam. And this player did exactly that ! He claimed for down one, probably counting 4 spade tricks and arriving at 16 or something. Sadly after conceding one. So no, it is not irrational. I have claimed for down one far too often to know that. -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Sun Feb 25 22:25:47 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PBPKR25934 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:25:20 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PBPFt25930 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:25:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010225112512.TWFV15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:25:12 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Bridge Laws" CC: Subject: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:25:46 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010225112512.TWFV15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was not at the table for this series of repeated revokes. But was involved adminstratively with dealing with the aftermath. In our region we have (at least one) extremely partially sighted player. As a consequence she often revokes. I have seen this when I have been directing. Her disability is well known. At a tournament last year the director after being called to several revoke problems at her table threatened to impose an additional procedural penalty if she continued to revoke. Your comments would be appreciated. In the worst incidence she apparently revoked three times in the play of one hand but there were only about six (hazy memory here) revokes in that session. 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 Sun Feb 25 22:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PBhS825968 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:43:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PBhMt25964 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:43:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-98-204.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.98.204]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA15267; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:42:50 GMT Message-ID: <002001c09f20$2cdc9f80$cc62063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Subject: [BLML] And again DWS Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:42:12 -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 "Faith, that's as well said as if I had said it myself." ~ Jonathan Swift. <==--==> +=+ In view of the number of enquiries I have spoken to Liz again. She tells me that David (Stevenson, 63 Slingsby Drive, Upton, Wirral, CH49 0TY) is still in Arrowe Park hospital today but may be sent home after seeing the consultant tomorrow. It seems they did not treat the abscess with surgery (said originally to be the intention) but with antibiotics (or whatever). It is now thought the cocktail of drugs administered has led to a reaction that is the reason for his readmission. ~ 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 Feb 25 22:43:52 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PBhgF25974 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:43:42 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz (mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz [203.96.92.3]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PBhct25970 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 22:43:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.2.9] by mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz with SMTP id <20010225114334.TXIW15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:43:34 +1300 From: Wayne Burrows Reply-To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz To: "Bridge Laws" CC: Subject: [BLML] Repeated Questions Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:44:09 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20010225114334.TXIW15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I was declarer in the following senario and I was not happy with my LHOs repeated questions and the directors lack of action. Your comments would be appreciated especially pertaining to how a director should handle this type of situation. Although I can also cope with comments about the appropriate response by a player in this situation. The bidding in our uncontested auction was: 1d 1s 2s 4s We were playing a variation of Precision and the diamond bid showed (in principle) four but we were allowed to judge to open with fewer diamonds in a balanced hand if we did not want to open 1nt=12-15. Before lead my RHO asked what 2s was, I replied we have no special partnership understanding and continued that our total partnership experience was based on the previous 2 days (maybe only 1 1/2 more hazy memory) as we had never played together before and that this auction had not occured and that we had only explicitly discussed the 1d opening. She continued could he have three spades. And again I replied we have no special partnership understanding. She then turned and asked my partner if he would ever raise with three. I attempted to immediately call the director but not before my partner began to give an answer as to his style. I believe this question was totally inappropriate. I did call the director. The director did not seem to address the issue of the inappropriate question but just tried to get the information about our agreements and experience which I repeated from the previous discussion. This took a long time as I needed to repeat some of the information. The director told us to play bridge and left. My RHO when into another tank to decide what to lead and came forth with - "How many points does 2s show?" To which I said I think we have covered that or words to that effect. And then there were more questions about 3s and 4s possibilities. I did not get the TD back but when next I was dummy I went and reported to him that the questions just continued when he left the table. 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 Sun Feb 25 23:51:45 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PCpEY26065 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:51:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PCp7t26061 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 23:51:08 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-74-226.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.74.226]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id MAA00563; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:50:32 GMT Message-ID: <005301c09f29$a1e9bf20$cc62063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: , "Tom Strong" References: <1.5.4.32.20010225045832.0068d984@mail.ausinfo.com.au> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 12:43:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Faith, that's as well said as if I had said it myself." ~ Jonathan Swift. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Tom Strong To: Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 4:58 AM Subject: [BLML] claim ? > The following hand was a part of a controversial appeals > committee decision following a somewhat less > controversial directors ruling. > +=+ Your words could imply a judgement. I would hope this appeal did not involve you as a contestant. The route to appeal is to the national authority, not to world opinion. Having said that, there do seem to be grounds on which to appeal to the national authority under Law 93C. +=+ > > East West bid to the contract of six spades and > received the opening lead of the ace of diamonds > from North. +=+ Here designated South+=+ > > He then switched to a small heart winning in the > dummy. he then drew three rounds of trump and laid > down his cards announcing that he did not even need > the heart finesse. North South felt he did need it. They > called the director who ruled one down. > East West naturally appealed as they had nothing to > loose. +=+ I take it this is just your little joke. An appeal must always be based upon belief that the ruling is flawed. Appeals made frivolously, which includes the 'nothing to lose' basis, should be punished. +=+ > > West told the director that he had been joking when he > made the statement that he did not need the heart > finese again. > The Appeals Committee discussed the situation for > an hour and then ruled that the contract made. > > +=+ If an appeal has been made to the national authority I will be surprised not to learn that it has made two findings of fact: 1. That the announcement by declarer that he did not need a second finesse stands part of the statement of clarification required by Law 68C. 2. That on the basis of the statement it would be within the definition of normal play to lead a Heart to the Ace before any other play. [Caveat: I base this view on an assumption that the report is accurate and that no germane information or evidence has been omitted.] ~ 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 Feb 26 01:49:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PEmFD11845 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:48:15 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailin6.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.79]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PEmAt11816 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:48:10 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.58]) by mailin6.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9BIO000.BEF for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:52:48 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-011-p-225-152.tmns.net.au ([203.54.225.152]) by mail1.bigpond.com (Claudes-Hyperactive-MailRouter V2.9c 1/4932687); 26 Feb 2001 00:49:01 Message-ID: <002901c09f3a$04124680$98e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:47:46 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott wrote: >The route to appeal is to the national authority, >not to world opinion. Having said that, there do >seem to be grounds on which to appeal to the >national authority under Law 93C. +=+ I believe the National Authority route has not been taken in Australia for at least 15 years, and it may be a door that is not easily opened here. In practice I disagree with Grattan about the National Authority being more appropriate than BLML. It is always possible that a correspondent has missed some cogent point and by submitting a hand to BLML one can check if it is one's own judgement, or that of the AC, that is flawed. This is useful because if one is to contribute to an improved appeals process, one wants to know for sure that the appeals process in question really was flawed. Tom Strong from Australia wrote: >> >> S.6 >. H. 3 >> D. KQ10975 >> C. J10632 >> S.9742 S. AKQ85 >> H.AQJ105 H. 74 >> D.8 D. J4 >> C. 987 C. AKQ5 >> S. J103 >> H. K9862 >> D. A632 >> C. 4 >> >> East West bid to the contract of six spades and >> received the opening lead of the ace of diamonds >> from South. >> >> He then switched to a small heart winning in the >> dummy. he then drew three rounds of trump and laid >> down his cards announcing that he did not even need >> the heart finesse. North South felt he did need it. They >> called the director who ruled one down. Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ If an appeal has been made to the national authority... This is Australia, so this concept at present seems to me to be theoretical rather than practical. It can be difficult enough even to submit an Appeal here, let alone go to the National Authority. Two separate appellants at our Nationals in January told me that when they expressed a desire to appeal, they had to consult an Appeals Advisor (who also happened to be one of the Directors). This Advisor told both players (on different days): "If you lose the appeal, your team will be fined 2 Victory Points" when the real situation was that if the appeal were to be deemed frivolous, the teams may be fined up to 2 VPs. I mention the above not as something for BLML to condemn, but to demonstrate that not all countries have the Appeals process as organised as England does. Returning to Tom Strong's post, I want to check privately whether the facts are as in Tom's post. If so, the AC's ruling is dreadful, and unlike those who think that there is nothing to be gained from airing dirty laundry, I think that by drawing attention to shoddy appeals decisions, we can try to take steps which prevent miscarriages of justice occurring in the future (assuming that the facts are as stated). Peter Gill Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 01:51:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PEpIo11866 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 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 mailin1.bigpond.com ([139.134.6.21]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PEpDt11862 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:51:13 +1100 (EST) Received: from gillp ([139.134.4.56]) by mailin1.bigpond.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with SMTP id G9BIT400.ZA4 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 00:55:52 +1000 Received: from CWIP-T-006-p-217-245.tmns.net.au ([203.54.217.245]) by mail3.bigpond.com (Claudes-Kickin-MailRouter V2.9c 5/8408135); 26 Feb 2001 00:52:05 Message-ID: <002e01c09f3a$7173ade0$98e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> From: "Peter Gill" To: "BLML" Subject: [BLML] Peter Newman Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:50:50 +1100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Peter Newman of BLML became the proud father of a baby boy last night, 7lb 11 oz, mother and baby both well. Sorry no dogs or cats but Peter's first child seemed worth a mention to his BLML friends. Peter Gill Sydney Australia. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 02:57:24 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PFut112032 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:56:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from freenet.carleton.ca (freenet1.carleton.ca [134.117.136.20]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PFunt12028 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:56:50 +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 KAA19245 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:56:37 -0500 (EST) Received: (ac342@localhost) by freenet10.carleton.ca (8.9.3+Sun/NCF-Sun-Client) id KAA12925; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:56:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 10:56:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102251556.KAA12925@freenet10.carleton.ca> From: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca (A. L. Edwards) To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Reply-To: ac342@freenet.carleton.ca Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > >I was not at the table for this series of repeated revokes. But was involved adminstratively with dealing with the aftermath. > >In our region we have (at least one) extremely partially sighted player. As a consequence she often revokes. I have seen this when I have been directing. > >Her disability is well known. > >At a tournament last year the director after being called to several revoke problems at her table threatened to impose an additional procedural penalty if she continued to revoke. > >Your comments would be appreciated. > >In the worst incidence she apparently revoked three times in the play of one hand but there were only about six (hazy memory here) revokes in that session. > Let me understand this. She is at least partially blind, her disability is well known, and the director wants to PENALIZE HER? Outrageous. Sounds like it's time for a new director. Tony (aka ac342) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 05:20:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PIJpG12334 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:19:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from heimdall.inter.net.il (heimdall.inter.net.il [192.114.186.17]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PIJht12330 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 05:19:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from inter.net.il (diup-1-213.inter.net.il [213.8.1.213]) by heimdall.inter.net.il (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AKX12306; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:18:37 +0200 (IST) Message-ID: <3A994DD3.A1B1EFFE@inter.net.il> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 20:24:19 +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 -February 2001 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 29th 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). ______________________ This is the second time we decided to add our lovely Human's nicknames ! """""""""""""""""""""" 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 Nickname (cats) Linda Trent - Panda(RB 2/2000), Gus, Gizmo (none) Dany Haimovich -Ghinghis - 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 Dodaie (1) Helen Thompson - Rex,Sheeba, Cobber (3) Alain Gottcheiner -Columbo - 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/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 08:25:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PLOjv23211 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:24:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu (cfa.harvard.edu [131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1PLOct23170 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 08:24:39 +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 QAA02862 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id QAA12353 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 16:24:34 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102252124.QAA12353@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Grattan Endicott" > +=+ I tend to think the tempo of [forcing] > passes should be measured rather than > quick or slow. I would have sympathy > with the Director who in some circumstances > ruled improper a purposed breach of the > statement in the laws that "players should > be particularly careful in positions in which > variations may work to the benefit of their > side". (As, for example, when made for the > sole purpose of giving partner time to think, > or if risking possibly giving a false impression > to opponents). ~ Grattan ~ +=+ As to the latter, I hope we all agree. L73F2 springs to mind. And of course there's L73B1 and others if the intention or effect of a break in tempo is to give information about one's own hand. But what about "giving partner time to think?" I'd prefer to phrase it as "avoiding receipt of UI," and it seems to me a good thing, not a bad one. It's one of the things screens are supposed to accomplish, for example. If we can accomplish the same end in other ways, why not? I suppose "benefit" in L73D1 can be interpreted to include avoiding being placed under legal restraints, but that seems far overbroad to me. Bridge should be about bidding (and playing) judgment, not about which actions are restricted. My example auction (2C-3S-P(!)-4S-..P) wasn't chosen entirely at random, by the way. (For illustration purposes, assume ACBL, but I'm sure an equivalent example could be produced in most other jurisdictions.) During responder's mandatory pause, _opener_ is the one who needs time to think; responder's first action is likely to be automatic on most hands. I find a certain pleasing symmetry in opener's pause, which opener himself is unlikely to need, giving responder time to think. But that's just my opinion. Have I missed some law besides 73D1, or do others besides Grattan think that law requires players to receive UI even if the receipt could be avoided? -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 10:11:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1PNB5f03852 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:11:05 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1PNAxt03844 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:11:00 +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 f1PNAss37849 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:10:55 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010225172014.00ab0dc0@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, 25 Feb 2001 18:10:27 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:54 AM 2/23/01, axman22 wrote: >----- Original Message ----- >From: Eric Landau > > > Rich Colker (the ACBL National Recorder) has been campaigning to > > convince ACBL TDs/ACs to apply a more lenient standard to huddles taken > > in positions where huddles are to be expected, such as during complex > > artificial auctions or actively competitive ones. (Which in the ACBL > > may mean do ask a question or two before you shoot.) As far as I can > > tell, he hasn't made much headway. > >I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can >maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex >systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also >undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they >should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to >which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to >often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff >delay of >game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to >temper the >unfair use of complex methods. For the most part I agree. The point Mr. Colker is trying to make, however, if I understand it correctly, has nothing to do with complex systems. Unfamiliar and difficult situations arise during auctions -- admittedly, perhaps, somewhat more often when using more complicated methods, but that's beside the point -- in which it is reasonable to expect any player to need more than their average time to call. When a player takes that extra time in such a situation we should not consider it to be a break in their "normal" tempo, even -- particularly! -- if they're careful to maintain a relative steady tempo in normal situations. Sometimes the only information passed by the tempo break is that the situation is unfamiliar and difficult, and we should not be overly quick to conclude that it might pass substantive information of the sort that might suggest a particular call, making it potential UI. I suppose this attitude, applied at levels of play for relatively inexperienced players, would to a degree make it easier for them to experiment with unfamiliar methods, by leading to a toleration of the sorts of huddles they take when their own methods may be confusing them, as they'd no longer be in peril (from their perspective) of having a good score taken away by some fortuitous coincidence of confused huddle and lucky guess, but some would argue that that's OK. Of course I agree with Roger that they should strive to master their methods, and, by doing so, come to the ability to make their bids -- or, as Mr. Colker would have it, their bids in normal situations -- in consistent tempo. But, again, this has little to do with complex systems, other than that what we mean by "relatively inexperienced" may apply to folks a bit more experienced in other aspects of the game when those unfamiliar methods are complex systems rather than simple ones. I most strongly agree with Roger that if those complex-system-mongers, or anyone else for that matter, plays at a tempo, even a consistent one, so slow as to consume more than their full allotted time, they should suffer delay of game penalties more stringent and far more frequently applied than they do given current practice. Indeed, as Roger says, what better way to temper the use of complex methods? Personally, I prefer to play relatively simple methods, and very much prefer fast games. For what it might be worth to the discourage-those-complex-systems crowd (with which I in no way associate myself), I play in special "fast pair" events held locally from time to time, and notice that the systems tend to run somewhat simpler than in the regular events, even though the standard of play runs rather higher. Perhaps instead of trying to legislate complex systems out of the game over the vehement objections of the complex-system partisans, we should focus our efforts on speeding up the game with reasonable and enforced time limits, let those multitudes who can handle complex methods only by taking undue extra time to do so be forced to avoid them, and let nature ultimately take its course regarding complex systems. 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 Feb 26 11:34:37 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1Q0XtQ13610 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:33:55 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1Q0Xmt13605 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:33:48 +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 TAA07773 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:40:02 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200102260040.TAA07773@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> From: Michael Farebrother To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Reply-To: blml@farebrother.cx In-reply-to: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 19:40:01 -0500 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On 24 February 2001 at 10:19, "axman22" wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Brian Meadows >> >On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 08:54:32 -0600, Roger Pewick wrote: >> >> I took a swipe at Roger for this, but someone has just pointed >> out to me via private e-mail the alternative interpretation of >> what Roger wrote, which I missed when I read it the first time. >> I is that person - and I didn't intend the post to be private. It was only when I got your (private) response that I realized that I had posted privately. I don't make that mistake often; but I do make it. Sorry Brian, Roger, and all. Brian, if you still have the email (I don't), please either send it back to me or post it. If you don't, it's not really important... The base of my comments were on Roger's "help curb those unfairly using complex methods" statement, which I believe was the one raising Brian's ire. I stated that I believed that Roger's opinion was not "people using complex methods are unfair" (which I've heard often enough to have it be a hot button for me as well), but "some (many?) of those using complex methods are also using improper tactics"; and provided examples of what that would mean. I also provided examples of people "unfairly using simple methods" (OBM, anyone?), and opined that I find that at least as offensive as people "forgetting" or imcompletely explaining complex methods, or (especially relay system) players taking more than their share of the allotted playing time. >> OK, Roger, if that person is right about how you meant the above, >> I apologise for having a go at you. If my original interpretation >> was right, then I stand by every word of what I said. I hope nobody has felt offended by statements that I have made attempting to defend people. > >The articulation given to R.C.'s view was effectively that a pair that uses >complex methods is to be rewarded [indemnified] for breaking tempo in >various situations because it is unfair to expect them to not break tempo. > >My response was that all players should be expected to learn the tempo they >need to make most of their actions- given the agreements they choose. That >is to say that they should endeavor to minimize the UI they create. This I can, of course, agree with. Having said that, there will be places in every system, no matter how complex, where players need to break tempo. It causes UI. This is not a problem, provided they "suck it up". Note that I'm not endorsing the "need more time in this auction" argument in the appeal; if it's obvious to the AC that the hesitation didn't suggest any LA over another, then they so rule, and away we go (pace "giving partner time to re-think his hand", of course; on that subject I have *NO OPINION*. And I am adamant on that). >The view that players are expected to >expend effort to recognize situations requiring the manufacture of a tempo >break means that their attention is diverted from playing bridge, and I >disagree with such an approach. The focus on fair play should not be on >creating extraneous activities with which to get wrong. > This I agree with (skip bids excepted; they're easy). If new "forced hesitations" come in that don't require diverting attention to note (i.e. no harder than remembering "skip" before making a jump bid, which you should know you're doing), fine - but that's a very narrow line, and I intend to keep it that way. The big problem I have with artificial systems (especially relay systems) is that the auction that takes 3 rounds at most tables takes 9 at ours, plus the time it takes for full disclosure (yes, I know there are things the opponents can do to minimize that time; but it should still be charged against the bidders). If the relay pair doesn't make an effort to use the same amount of time as ours - which means playing faster than "normal" to catch up for the 5 minute auctions - then they get an advantage over normal system pairs; "make an effort to catch up, please". I realize that's what late play penalties are for; getting them right and enforced is often difficult, especially in 2- or 3-board round games. I don't suggest any pairs actually do that; but it could be a problem, and I'm sure it has been a problem. 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 Feb 26 13:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1Q21nJ16430 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:01:50 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1Q21ht16425 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:01:44 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-94-129.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.94.129]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28944; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:01:12 GMT Message-ID: <002501c09f98$16b240c0$815e063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: Cc: "David Martin" , "michael amos" Subject: [BLML] DWS latest Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 01:57:04 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "Faith, that's as well said as if I had said it myself." ~ Jonathan Swift. <==--==> +=+ The medics have decided they want to keep him until Tuesday in order that he may enjoy the pleasures of a Barium enema on Monday. Apparently they are 'puzzled'. David sounded a little more like himself on the phone Sunday evening. ~ 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 Feb 26 13:02:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1Q21vw16436 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:01:57 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1Q21ot16431 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:01:51 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-94-129.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.94.129]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id CAA28951; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:01:14 GMT Message-ID: <002601c09f98$17ae05e0$815e063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Peter Gill" , "BLML" References: <002901c09f3a$04124680$98e136cb@gillp.bigpond.com> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 02:00:44 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "May none these marks efface, For they appeal from tyranny to God. " ('Sonnet on Chillon'). <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gill To: BLML Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2001 2:47 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? > Grattan Endicott wrote: > >The route to appeal is to the national authority, > >not to world opinion. Having said that, there do > >seem to be grounds on which to appeal to the > >national authority under Law 93C. +=+ > > I believe the National Authority route has not been > taken in Australia for at least 15 years, and it may > be a door that is not easily opened here. > > In practice I disagree with Grattan about the National > Authority being more appropriate than BLML> > +=+ I just believe the Australian Federation would find it preferable to have the opportunity to revise the AC's decisions, if it felt they were wrong, before they are hung out to dry with the washing. I find it difficult to believe that they would seek to deny, or at least inhibit, reference of a substantial question to the national authority for review under Law 93C. They must surely be jealous of the reputation of their appeals committees. I note, however, that very little is said in the account of the matter as to the reasons given by the AC for its judgement. One should not go too far without knowing more of that. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Mon Feb 26 21:00:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1Q9v2b24365 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:57:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1Q9utt24361 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:56:56 +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 KAA21123; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:52:56 +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 KAA07456; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:56:35 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010223164641.00844b00@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 16:46:41 +0100 To: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk, bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Can I see that one again? Cc: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:36 23/02/01 +0000, Tim West-meads wrote: >In-Reply-To: > > > >> I wouldn't say there is anything unethical about "no spades, partner" >> any more than I would say there is anything unethical about taking time >> to think before bidding. It does however have a similarly high risk of >> passing UI unless you are very consistent. > >Just a quick question. Playing in England, suppose I know that partner >has revoked am I obliged to turn over the revoke trick? Is it legal to >ask for it to be left on the table and say nothing until partner finally >notices? AG : I guess it is not allowed beyond normal 'consideration' time ; L74C4. 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 Feb 26 21:23:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QAMpk24400 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:22:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QAMit24396 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:22:45 +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 LAA16339; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:22:31 +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 LAA25564; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:22:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226112447.00863680@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:24:47 +0100 To: "axman22" , From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@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 08:54 23/02/01 -0600, axman22 wrote: >I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can >maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex >systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also >undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they >should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to >which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to >often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of >game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the >unfair use of complex methods. AG : you won't get my vote on that one. For one thing, why call complex methods unfair ? The most complex relay systems do not cause the opponents problems, if well explained, because complex sequences will only appear when the opponents don't need to get into the bidding (on strong, not very unbalanced hands). Also, playing a complex system doesn't mean you will play it slowly. After some training, one will even become more fluent than in 'natural' systems, because the systemic bid is known (do you ever hesitate when answering Stayman or Crowhurst ? Yet, for relay users, the answers are as autiomatical as that). Of course, if recurrent bidding problems causes them to slow tempo considerably, they will get penalized, but this must be equally true of every player. To put more pressure on a pair, only because they play 'otherwise', is not acceptable. A. >roger pewick > >> 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 Mon Feb 26 21:52:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QAppD24496 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:51:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QApit24491 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:51:45 +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 LAA11473; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:47:46 +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 LAA17626; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:51:24 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226115348.00796860@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:53:48 +0100 To: Herman De Wael , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] L85B - acceptable ruling ? In-Reply-To: <3A96A2B2.D5124901@village.uunet.be> References: <3A93B96B.F7D2EFC7@village.uunet.be> <3A951D7F.91C3419E@village.uunet.be> <3A96429A.ACB29830@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 18:49 23/02/01 +0100, Herman De Wael wrote: >Now that is a valid answer to my question. > >You believe that it is not acceptable to "split the >difference", but that the TD ought to go with what he >believes to be the most likely happenings. > >Thanks for your reply. >That's one vote. > >What about the rest of you ? What do you think ? AG : I vote quite the same. Weighted scores should be only used in cases where the result of the bidding or play can't be assessed. No other use is provided by the rules. 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 Feb 26 22:33:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QBXIr00174 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:33:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from resu1.ulb.ac.be (resu1.ulb.ac.be [164.15.59.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QBXBt00138 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:33:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id MAA24508; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:29:12 +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 MAA13981; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:32:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226123514.00870a50@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:35:14 +0100 To: wayne.burrows@xtra.co.nz, "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Repeated Questions In-Reply-To: <20010225114334.TXIW15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2 .9]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:44 25/02/01 +0000, Wayne Burrows wrote: >I was declarer in the following senario and I was not happy with my LHOs repeated questions and the directors lack of action. Your comments would be appreciated especially pertaining to how a director should handle this type of situation. Although I can also cope with comments about the appropriate response by a player in this situation. > >The bidding in our uncontested auction was: > >1d 1s >2s 4s > >We were playing a variation of Precision and the diamond bid showed (in principle) four but we were allowed to judge to open with fewer diamonds in a balanced hand if we did not want to open 1nt=12-15. > >Before lead my RHO asked what 2s was, I replied we have no special partnership understanding and continued that our total partnership experience was based on the previous 2 days (maybe only 1 1/2 more hazy memory) as we had never played together before and that this auction had not occured and that we had only explicitly discussed the 1d opening. > >She continued could he have three spades. And again I replied we have no special partnership understanding. > >She then turned and asked my partner if he would ever raise with three. I attempted to immediately call the director but not before my partner began to give an answer as to his style. I believe this question was totally inappropriate. I did call the director. The director did not seem to address the issue of the inappropriate question but just tried to get the information about our agreements and experience which I repeated from the previous discussion. AG : in the Brussels area, I know of at least two players who act the same way. I don't think any TD penalized them for doing so. And I don't think it is needed. They end up penalized for something else. On one occurence, the bidding went, unopposed : 1C (strong) 1D (0-7) 1NT (unbalanced, 16-19, 4+ hearts) 2D (3 card hearts exactly) He now asked *nine* new questions,to which I couldn't answer. The dialogue went more or less : - in which type of hand ? - in a hand with 3 hearts - could he have spades ? - don't know. Got 3 hearts - could he have bid 2H ? - not on a hand with 3 hearts - okay, just tell me the different hands on which he might bid 2D - all hand with 3 hearts, and no other and so on ... The correct attitude against this type of player, IMOBO, is : 1) to answer their questions, not more, and if possible make them sense the questions are without interest. Responses as 'undiscussed' or 'only bridge logic applies here' are useful in the case you gave us. 2) if the symptoms persist, to call the TD, not because many questions were asked, which he can't do anything against, but because 'with all those unnecessary questions, we will be late. If this happens, I'd like to say we aren't responsible for it.'. *then* the TD may act. I think that, at the point the questions went to the 'what about 3S and 4S' ?, it was time to call. This would give the grounds to a ruling according to L74B4 and possibly 74A2. 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 Feb 26 22:57:40 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QBvSC08817 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:57:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QBvLt08782 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:57:21 +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 f1QBvGf16026; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:16 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1QBvFV01352; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:15 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:15 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 LAA01315; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:14 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id LAA01458; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:13 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:57:13 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102261157.LAA01458@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL Subject: "Try this one:" simultaneous COOT; was: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: "Kooijman, A." > > Try this one: south dealer, but east and west simultaneously call OOT. > It better never happens. > > ton No one answered this. I think the straight forward approach for the TD is to toss a coin to decide which COOT will be treated as happening first. Even when the simultaneity has been resolved the situation is not easy. West, then East, bid before South (the dealer) has called. North can choose to accept West's bid if North accepts, then South can choose to accept East's bid if South accepts, South calls and the auction continues if South does not accept, North calls and L31B applies (silencing West) if North does not accept, then South can still choose to accept East's bid if South accepts, South calls and L31A applies to West if South does not accept, South calls and L31B applies (silencing West). There will be UI from withdrawn call and "L16 (lead penalties) may apply". If East, then West, COOT the penalties will be similar but not identical; if East's COOT is not accepted West is silenced (L31B). 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 Feb 26 23:00:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QC0G709785 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:00:16 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QC08t09745 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 23:00:09 +1100 (EST) Received: from jppals (DHCP-ivip-125.frw.uva.nl [145.18.125.125]) by hera.frw.uva.nl (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with SMTP id NAA00656 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:00:03 +0100 (MET) From: "J.P.Pals" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Subject: [BLML] MI & UI Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:58:06 +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 Dealer: West, game all, pairs event. A7532 T3 Q97 K87 JT K96 762 AK4 AT63 KJ42 QJ62 AT2 Q84 W N E S QJ985 p p 1NT* p 85 2S** p 3NT ?p 943 p p * 1NT = 16-18 ** 2S = limit with both minors, not alerted EW: LOL NS: reasonably competent, but relatively inexperienced players. After East's 3NT bid, South asks the meaning of 2S. East explains and South passes. At this point North calls the TD and states that he would have bid differently if he had known the meaning of 2S (no prizes for guessing what that meant…). TD explains that it's too late for L21b and warns for UI. 3NT is passed out. South leads the spade 4, 10, ace, 6. East wins the third round of spades, finesses the diamonds the wrong way because she "expected the long spades to be with South" and ends up one down. East starts shouting at North for illegally inviting a spade lead, North replies that he was not familiar with the LOL's old- fashioned bidding system, where 2S could very well have been natural, had no reason to inquire about a non-alerted 2S bid, and thought that there were possibilities to change his second pass. Do you adjust? If so, how? (If 2S had been alerted and North would have doubled, then even this East wouldn't have failed to make 11 tricks. Same case if North doubles 3NT for a spade lead). Thanks for comments. 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 Tue Feb 27 01:46:19 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QEjXd11177 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:45:33 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QEjPt11173 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:45:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14XOtt-00086y-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:45:21 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:41:45 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: "Try this one:" simultaneous COOT; was: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards References: <200102261157.LAA01458@tempest.npl.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <200102261157.LAA01458@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 <200102261157.LAA01458@tempest.npl.co.uk>, Robin Barker writes > >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> >> Try this one: south dealer, but east and west simultaneously call OOT. >> It better never happens. >> >> ton > One call is deemed subsequent to the other if it is either player's turn to call (Law 33). This is not the case. However there is an implication in the penalties to be given for an opening call out of rotation, which would incline me to rule that 4th seat called after 2nd seat. In this case we allow North to accept the 2nd seat BOOT. If he does we rule the 4th seat BOOT as a simple call at RHO's turn to call. If he doesn't accept we allow South to accept 4th seat's BOOT. If he does we treat 2nd seat's BOOT as UI (because the call has now been withdrawn). If the 4th seat BOOT is not accepted we revert to South, and apply law 31 to 2nd seat. This may or may not silence 4th seat, and if it does so we may have lead penalties. If 4th seat is not silenced then we are back to the simple case of "at RHO's turn to bid". Good fun >No one answered this. > >I think the straight forward approach for the TD is to toss a coin to >decide which COOT will be treated as happening first. > >Even when the simultaneity has been resolved the situation is not easy. > >West, then East, bid before South (the dealer) has called. > >North can choose to accept West's bid > if North accepts, then South can choose to accept East's bid > if South accepts, South calls and the auction continues > if South does not accept, North calls and L31B applies (silencing West) > if North does not accept, then South can still choose to accept East's bid > if South accepts, South calls and L31A applies to West > if South does not accept, South calls and L31B applies (silencing West). > >There will be UI from withdrawn call and "L16 (lead penalties) may apply". > > >If East, then West, COOT the penalties will be similar but not identical; if >East's COOT is not accepted West is silenced (L31B). > >Robin > -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 27 01:49:49 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QEnbW11193 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:49:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QEnSt11189 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 01:49:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by finch-post-12.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14XOxn-0008ZO-0C for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:49:23 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:45:55 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk In article , J.P.Pals writes >Dealer: West, game all, pairs event. > > A7532 > T3 > Q97 > K87 >JT K96 >762 AK4 >AT63 KJ42 >QJ62 AT2 > > Q84 W N E S > QJ985 p p 1NT* p > 85 2S** p 3NT ?p > 943 p p > >* 1NT = 16-18 >** 2S = limit with both minors, not alerted > >EW: LOL >NS: reasonably competent, but relatively inexperienced >players. > >After East's 3NT bid, South asks the meaning of 2S. >East explains and South passes. >At this point North calls the TD and states that he would >have bid differently if he had known the meaning of 2S >(no prizes for guessing what that meant…). >TD explains that it's too late for L21b and warns for UI. >3NT is passed out. >South leads the spade 4, 10, ace, 6. East wins the third >round of spades, finesses the diamonds the wrong way >because she "expected the long spades to be with South" >and ends up one down. >East starts shouting at North for illegally inviting a spade >lead, North replies that he was not familiar with the LOL's >old- >fashioned bidding system, where 2S could very well have >been natural, had no reason to inquire about a non-alerted >2S bid, and thought that there were possibilities to change >his second pass. I'd start by warning East to behave themselves. then I'd adjust on the basis of UI, and a H lead. 11 tricks 70% of the time, 10 tricks 30%. > >Do you adjust? If so, how? > >(If 2S had been alerted and North would have doubled, then >even >this East wouldn't have failed to make 11 tricks. Same case >if North >doubles 3NT for a spade lead). > >Thanks for comments. > >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/ -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 27 02:16:46 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QFGWd11231 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:16:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QFGPt11227 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:16:26 +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 QAA06721; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:12:27 +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 QAA13693; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:16:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226161830.00796560@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:18:30 +0100 To: Robin Barker , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au, A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: "Try this one:" simultaneous COOT; was: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards In-Reply-To: <200102261157.LAA01458@tempest.npl.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 11:57 26/02/01 GMT, Robin Barker wrote: > >> From: "Kooijman, A." >> >> Try this one: south dealer, but east and west simultaneously call OOT. >> It better never happens. >> >> ton > >No one answered this. > >I think the straight forward approach for the TD is to toss a coin to >decide which COOT will be treated as happening first. AG : since TFLB seems to consider that bidding OOT in lieu of one's RHO is not as absurd than in lieu of one's LHO (see the distingou in L31), I think we should consider that West mase the first bid. Also, the sum of the disadvantages to E/W will be lesser this way. Since there exists indeed no specification about that case, I would feel free to rule that way, sheltering under L12A1 if needed. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 02:25:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QFPAD11244 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:25:10 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QFP4t11240 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:25:05 +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 JAA16917 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:26:42 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226092530.0080c730@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:25:30 -0600 To: "Bridge Laws" From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 In-Reply-To: <002c01c09dd5$73903780$f259063e@dodona> References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3A964058.81243752@village.uunet.be> <00fc01c09dbc$1a5ba500$3f2ed2cc@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 08:15 PM 2/23/2001 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >+=+ Law 68 D says " A claim should be accompanied > at once by a statement of clarification....." > The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says: > "When a player _should_ do something ("a claim > should be accompanied at once by a statement...") > his failure to do it is an infraction of law." > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ Yes, but.... a) Does this mean that every time 'attention is called' to the irregularity of claiming w/o a statement, players are legally required to call a TD even if they intend to acquiese in the claim? b) In the actual case, did anyone 'call attention to the irregularity'? Certainly no-one did so _explicitly_, but did they do so implicitly? Curious and Concerned, 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 Feb 27 02:28:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QFSI911256 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:28:18 +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 f1QFSBt11252 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:28:12 +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 QAA21648; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:27:57 +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 QAA22074; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:27:51 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226163015.007cf100@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:30:15 +0100 To: "J.P.Pals" , "Bridge Laws Mailing List" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by rgb.anu.edu.au id f1QFSEt11253 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 12:58 26/02/01 +0100, J.P.Pals wrote: >Dealer: West, game all, pairs event. > > A7532 > T3 > Q97 > K87 >JT K96 >762 AK4 >AT63 KJ42 >QJ62 AT2 > > Q84 W N E S > QJ985 p p 1NT* p > 85 2S** p 3NT ?p > 943 p p > >* 1NT = 16-18 >** 2S = limit with both minors, not alerted > >EW: LOL >NS: reasonably competent, but relatively inexperienced >players. > >After East's 3NT bid, South asks the meaning of 2S. >East explains and South passes. >At this point North calls the TD and states that he would >have bid differently if he had known the meaning of 2S >(no prizes for guessing what that meant…). >TD explains that it's too late for L21b and warns for UI. >3NT is passed out. >South leads the spade 4, 10, ace, 6. East wins the third >round of spades, finesses the diamonds the wrong way >because she "expected the long spades to be with South" >and ends up one down. >East starts shouting at North for illegally inviting a spade >lead, AG : East is the culprit. Would North have doubled if he had known ? It's unclear, but I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. In that case, the lead would have been a spade. Regardlees of what happened at the table after the infraction, one should adjust, granting North his double. >(If 2S had been alerted and North would have doubled, then >even >this East wouldn't have failed to make 11 tricks. Same case >if North >doubles 3NT for a spade lead). AG : you mean South understood North's remark, but East didn't ? I'd rather believe East was trying to create an incident. According to L12C2, you should try and answer the question : 'is it at all possible that East would misplay the Diamonds ?' (taking into account, as usual, bad play, but not absurdities). According to your answer, you would give either 3NT -1 or 3NT +2. I would give the former, YMMV. Regards, A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 02:41:00 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QFejM11269 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:40:45 +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 f1QFedt11265 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:40:40 +1100 (EST) Received: (from cix@localhost) by technetium.cix.co.uk (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f1QFeVl00287 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:40:31 GMT X-Envelope-From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:40 +0000 (GMT) From: twm@cix.compulink.co.uk (Tim West-meads) Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI 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: > > After East's 3NT bid, South asks the meaning of 2S. > East explains and South passes. > At this point North calls the TD and states that he would > have bid differently if he had known the meaning of 2S I don't expect players to know exactly when bids can be changed after MI so I don't think this TD call is wrong. In reality I suspect he *might* rather than *would* have bid differently. > (no prizes for guessing what that meant…). My instinct says that any "i" arising because opponents infract should be AI (to the non-offending pair) rather than UI. After all if it is UI then NS are damaged by the infraction because the UI restricts their choices and so we adjust to a lead that might have been found without the UI. Just treat it as AI all along and perhaps people will remember their alerts. Note: I can find no legal justification for this approach. > TD explains that it's too late for L21b and warns for UI. Obviously I think the warning is out of place (unless it was a warning to E). I'm tempted to go for TD error on the adjustment. > 3NT is passed out. > South leads the spade 4, 10, ace, 6. East wins the third > round of spades, finesses the diamonds the wrong way > because she "expected the long spades to be with South" > and ends up one down. Why then "no prizes" for guessing what North meant. North's statement makes it clear where the spade length is - but then this should be UI to E (caused by the infraction) so I guess E is obliged to play S for spade length. My head is spinning so I'll stop now. 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 Feb 27 02:43:42 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QFhaV11285 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:43:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QFhUt11281 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:43:30 +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 JAA24051 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:44:26 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:43:15 -0600 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.20010225045832.0068d984@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 02:58 PM 2/25/2001 +1000, Tom Strong wrote: > north > S.6 > H. 3 > D. KQ10975 > C. J10632 > EAST WEST > S.9742 S. AKQ85 > H.AQJ105 H. 74 > D.8 D. J4 > C. 987 C. AKQ5 > SOUTH > S. J103 > H. K9862 > D. A632 > C. 4 > > East West bid to the contract of six spades and received the opening >lead of the ace of diamonds from North. He then switched to a small heart >winning in the dummy. he then drew three rounds of trump and laid down his >cards announcing that he did not even need the heart finesse. North South >felt he did need it. They called the director who ruled one down. > East West naturally appealed as they had nothing to loose. West told >the director that he had been joking when he made the statement that he did >not need the heart finese again. > The Appeals Committee discussed the situation for an hour and then >ruled that the contract made. It attracted much negative comment along the >lines of "another Sydney special". > I would be interested in comments about > (a) the director's ruling Is this law 68? Yes. > (b) the appeals committee's decisions -correct? Does it in effect >disregard the Laws? No and no, IMHO. I think the correct ruling on this hand is one down. Playing early to the heart A is careless and inferior but not irrational by any means [given his comment]. And, again, I am lenient about claims. OTOH, I don't think the AC ruling 'disregards the laws'. If the AC judges that the class of player involved would not have cashed the heart A until after taking his diamond ruff or playing the clubs, then it would be irrational to play for the drop of the heart K from RHO after having successfully finessed LHO for that card. That's clearly and manifestly irrational, IMHO. So I don't agree with the AC ruling, but I don't think it's an egregious breach of the laws or anything like that. It's a judgement call, and I don't agree with their judgement. > regards > Tom 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 Feb 27 03:00:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QG0Jm15217 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:00:19 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.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 f1QG0At15183 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:00:11 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1QFuxT10103 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:56:59 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:59:16 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] MI & UI Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 12:58 PM +0100 2/26/01, J.P.Pals wrote: >East starts shouting at North for illegally inviting a spade >lead, 1. Disciplinary penalty (shouting at opps is not nice; accusing them of cheating is worse.) 2. Procedural penalty (failure to call TD). >North replies that he was not familiar with the LOL's >old-fashioned bidding system, where 2S could very well have >been natural, had no reason to inquire about a non-alerted >2S bid, and thought that there were possibilities to change >his second pass. Sound perfectly reasonable to me. >Do you adjust? If so, how? Not a chance. >(If 2S had been alerted and North would have doubled, then >even this East wouldn't have failed to make 11 tricks. Same case >if North doubles 3NT for a spade lead). So what? EW made their bed when they failed to alert 2S. If E drew a wrong inference from North's explanation to the TD that he would have bid differently if 2S had been alerted, that's just too bad. I'm no expert though, so I'm probably 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/AwUBOpp9iL2UW3au93vOEQKzBgCgkaFolb5ZqYGUHbKnSdyCNOg2YlgAoJsQ So7ThJxPz6poAmCYsK55JmnA =EoXy -----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 Feb 27 03:00:39 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QG0Es15197 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:00:14 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailout1.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 f1QG06t15158 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:00:07 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout1.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1QFusT10083 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:56:54 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20010226161830.00796560@pop.ulb.ac.be> References: <3.0.6.32.20010226161830.00796560@pop.ulb.ac.be> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:58:12 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: "Try this one:" simultaneous COOT; was: [BLML] OLOOT with two cards Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 4:18 PM +0100 2/26/01, alain gottcheiner wrote: >Also, the sum of the disadvantages to E/W will be lesser this way. Should we be concerned about reducing the disadvantage to the offending side? 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/AwUBOpp9g72UW3au93vOEQKYUwCggsDHckrYdyuuCnFd3AwF/nvz3d8An3Yf 9Z4RUDJ0URA/LuDK3hjbN5O2 =oA9d -----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 Feb 27 04:00:29 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QH02M06186 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:00:02 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QGxst06134 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 03:59:55 +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 RAA09471; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:55:55 +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 RAA12962; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 17:59:34 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010226180200.00828160@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:02:00 +0100 To: Ed Reppert , Bridge Laws From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Protecting the OS, was : simultaneous COOT In-Reply-To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010226161830.00796560@pop.ulb.ac.be> <3.0.6.32.20010226161830.00796560@pop.ulb.ac.be> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:58 26/02/01 -0500, Ed Reppert wrote: > >Should we be concerned about reducing the disadvantage to the offending side? AG : this would quite deserve a new thread. I think the spirit of some items in the law is to do its best to let the offending side to escape with only what is needed to restore equity. One would decide any debatable case in favor of the NOS, of course, but whenever they would not be at any disadvantage whatever the ruling, then we'd consider minimizing disadvantage to the OS. Several laws act that way ; one can mention 31A1, 42B1-2, 62A and above all 48A. Comments highly appreciated. 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 Feb 27 04:49:09 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QHmpG09517 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:48:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com (larry-rp.irvine.com [63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QHmjt09513 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 04:48:46 +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 JAA28484; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:48:40 -0800 Message-Id: <200102261748.JAA28484@mailhub.irvine.com> To: "Bridge Laws" CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 25 Feb 2001 11:25:46 GMT." <20010225112512.TWFV15770362.mta2-rme.xtra.co.nz@[192.168.2.9]> Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 09:48:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Wayne Burrows wrrote: > I was not at the table for this series of repeated revokes. But was > involved adminstratively with dealing with the aftermath. > > In our region we have (at least one) extremely partially sighted > player. As a consequence she often revokes. I have seen this when > I have been directing. > > Her disability is well known. > > At a tournament last year the director after being called to several > revoke problems at her table threatened to impose an additional > procedural penalty if she continued to revoke. > > Your comments would be appreciated. > > In the worst incidence she apparently revoked three times in the > play of one hand but there were only about six (hazy memory here) > revokes in that session. Well, the director seems to have handled this in just about the most boorish and insensitive way possible. However, at the risk of sounding insensitive myself, it appears to me that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. People come to bridge tournaments to play bridge, which is a game in which people follow suit if they're able. When someone revokes, it messes up the game so that it becomes something besides bridge. Occasional revokes do happen, or course; but if someone revokes repeatedly, it does cut into the other customers' enjoyment of the game to a level they shouldn't be expected to have to deal with. I have no problem with accommodating people with disabilities, but asking the other bridge players to play a whole round of some game that isn't bridge is, I think, too much to expect. Somehow, I'm afraid this lady will need to be told she has to use Braille cards to be allowed to play in tournaments. *How* this should be done is something I'm not qualified to comment on, since I'm not an expert in diplomacy. That's one reason I'm not a director. Now, the thing that really caught my eye was this sentence: > In our region we have (at least one) extremely partially sighted > player. Does it seem odd to anyone else to see the words "extremely" and "partially" together like this? It's sort of like referring to somebody's politics as "extremely middle-of-the-road." "Extreme", by definition, has to do with the extremities, or the outer edges of things, and it just seems like trying to put it together with the word "partially", which implies "not totally" and therefore *not* at an extremity, is contradictory. End of pedantic rant. -- 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 Feb 27 05:29:20 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QISOe12579 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:28:24 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (f147.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.147]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QISHt12544 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 05:28:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:28:10 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 18:28:10 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:28:10 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2001 18:28:10.0709 (UTC) FILETIME=[DF4CC850:01C0A021] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan >Somehow, I'm afraid this lady will need to be told she has to use >Braille cards to be allowed to play in tournaments. *How* this should >be done is something I'm not qualified to comment on, since I'm not an >expert in diplomacy. That's one reason I'm not a director. Whee, should she bring all 36 decks? Also, do you know any manufacturer that makes braille cards where the dots don't show on the back? The only time I've used braille cards they were homemade, and if you've ever used a stylus for writing braille, reading it backwards by sight is second-nature. >Now, the thing that really caught my eye was this sentence: > > > In our region we have (at least one) extremely partially sighted > > player. > >Does it seem odd to anyone else to see the words "extremely" and >"partially" together like this? It's sort of like referring to >somebody's politics as "extremely middle-of-the-road." "Extreme", by >definition, has to do with the extremities, or the outer edges of >things, and it just seems like trying to put it together with the word >"partially", which implies "not totally" and therefore *not* at an >extremity, is contradictory. End of pedantic rant. It is not odd to me. One can be at an extremity of some range smaller than the whole spectrum that could have been referenced. After all, the shirt I'm wearing is extremely green, I'm extremely close to off-topic, and I'm an extremely average player. This does remind me of the parody newsclip for Extreme Bridge I read once. It's not for the faint of heart, so I'll e-mail it by request only. -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 Tue Feb 27 07:17:55 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QKHNM06504 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:17:23 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1QKHGt06500 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 07:17:18 +1100 (EST) Received: from brianbaresch (sdn-ar-001kslawrP292.dialsprint.net [158.252.182.30]) by scaup.prod.itd.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA24912 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 11:54:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <200102261356280160.0090B750@mail.earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Calypso Version 3.20.01.00 (3) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:56:28 -0600 From: "Brian Baresch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >>Somehow, I'm afraid this lady will need to be told she has to use >>Braille cards to be allowed to play in tournaments. *How* this should >>be done is something I'm not qualified to comment on, since I'm not an >>expert in diplomacy. That's one reason I'm not a director. > >Whee, should she bring all 36 decks? I've heard of someone, some time ago, who did just that -- the joy they get from the game is worth the (one-time) financial investment. A word to the director beforehand will ensure that the proper boards are used in that player's section. I suspect that cards and boards will be difficult to find (braille cards are available, but generally in larger format than bridge cards). More practical might be some large-index cards; I've seen those at tournaments now and again when a player needed them. >Also, do you know any manufacturer >that makes braille cards where the dots don't show on the back? Bicycle makes some, and I think others do too. And as with anything else, there's eBay. >>Does it seem odd to anyone else to see the words "extremely" and >>"partially" together like this? Ridiculous. Why not just say "a severe vision impairment"? Brian Baresch, baresch@earthlink.net Lawrence, Kansas, USA Editing, writing, proofreading -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 08:07:15 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QL6sl06572 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:06:54 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QL6lt06567 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:06:48 +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 NAA32563; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:06:36 -0800 Message-Id: <200102262106.NAA32563@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 10:28:10 PST." Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:06:36 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Todd Zimnoch wrote: > >From: Adam Beneschan > >Somehow, I'm afraid this lady will need to be told she has to use > >Braille cards to be allowed to play in tournaments. *How* this should > >be done is something I'm not qualified to comment on, since I'm not an > >expert in diplomacy. That's one reason I'm not a director. > > Whee, should she bring all 36 decks? Also, do you know any manufacturer > that makes braille cards where the dots don't show on the back? The only > time I've used braille cards they were homemade, and if you've ever used a > stylus for writing braille, reading it backwards by sight is second-nature. I've played against blind players at regional tournaments. When this happens, there's been one director basically assigned to that table to accommodate them. I don't know how they do things logistically, but it shouldn't require 36 decks---just two, with the director setting up the blind player's hand beforehand, probably while the previous hand is being played, perhaps using a hand record. Only the blind player would need to get Braille cards. Then again, I play in the Los Angeles area, where tournaments are a pretty good size. It might be difficult at a smaller tournament to assign one director permanently to a blind person's table. > This does remind me of the parody newsclip for Extreme Bridge I read once. > It's not for the faint of heart, so I'll e-mail it by request only. Is this anything like Jay Leno's version of the XPGA? I only saw a promotional clip for this, but as I recall, it showed a bunch of players trying to tackle someone who was trying to make a putt. Plus a bunch of scantily clad cheerleaders, of course. Sure, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks! -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 08:15:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QLFaS06595 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:15:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from hotmail.com (oe65.law8.hotmail.com [216.33.240.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QLFUt06591 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:15:31 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:15:23 -0800 X-Originating-IP: [63.44.134.188] From: "Roger Pewick" To: "blml" References: <4.3.2.7.1.20010223082135.00b47770@127.0.0.1> <3.0.6.32.20010226112447.00863680@pop.ulb.ac.be> Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:15:11 -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: 26 Feb 2001 21:15:23.0812 (UTC) FILETIME=[3B7ECE40:01C0A039] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk ----- Original Message ----- From: alain gottcheiner To: axman22 ; Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 4:24 AM Subject: Re: [BLML] Re: gerard0201.txt | At 08:54 23/02/01 -0600, axman22 wrote: | >I think that all players should endeavor to find a tempo at which they can | >maintain with reasonable consistency. For players that undertake complex | >systems where they often need extra time to consider, do they not also | >undertake a standard to find their consistent tempo? In other words they | >should often enough behave so as to be transparent in those situations to | >which R.C. refers. And it should be that if their tempo is so slow as to | >often consume more than their share of the allotted time that stiff delay of | >game penalties be imposed for the privilege. What better way to temper the | >unfair use of complex methods. | | AG : you won't get my vote on that one. For one thing, why call complex | methods unfair ? The most complex relay systems do not cause the opponents | problems, if well explained, because complex sequences will only appear | when the opponents don't need to get into the bidding (on strong, not very | unbalanced hands). | Also, playing a complex system doesn't mean you will play it slowly. After | some training, one will even become more fluent than in 'natural' systems, | because the systemic bid is known (do you ever hesitate when answering | Stayman or Crowhurst ? Yet, for relay users, the answers are as | autiomatical as that). | Of course, if recurrent bidding problems causes them to slow tempo | considerably, they will get penalized, but this must be equally true of | every player. To put more pressure on a pair, only because they play | 'otherwise', is not acceptable. | | A. | | | >roger pewick I say that a player's method ought to be restricted only in his ability to employ it in a fair manner. I hold that the only sensible way to accomplish it is to make known what is fair and then have the individual judge how to meet the standard. At his turn he thinks for one second and bids and his next he thinks for 10 seconds and bids and his next he thinks for 5 seconds and bids. He is not acting in a fair manner. His tempo is 10 seconds but he communicates how much a problem he has with each turn therby getting the power of seven or eight turns for the price of three. If the player at his turn thinks for one second and bids at ten seconds, and his next he thinks for 10 seconds and bids at ten seconds, and his next he thinks for 5 seconds and bids at ten seconds he is acting in a fair manner. Now, what bridge authorities say is unfair is the use of conventions after a 9 hcp 1NT opening, an opening bid that does not meet the rule of 20 or whatever, or using the stripe-tailed multi. Well, what makes this game interesting is that 15 words can only communicate so much and the genius of each player is allowed to exploit what he can from them. To curb in any way that genius destroys what makes the game interesting. But what bridge players are taught is that in order to play the hand in 7 minutes that as soon as the thinking is done they are to act so as to save time for when they need it. This practice is hazardous indeed because it conveys messages by means other than bids and plays. Messages that no human with the instinct for survival can ignore for long. This issue, the striking a balance between the time allotted for fairness and the time needed to do one's best in a fair way, is probably the most important in competitive bridge and is one that the rules should provide a good solution for the players. Just as there are only so many things that can be communicated safely by bids there are only so many calculations a player can make in an allotted amount of time. It ought to be left to the within his The only thing the rules can safely do is say what the boundaries are and to leave it to the participants to understand their limitations and manage their resources in a fair way. So, with respect to R.C.'s mandatory pause. I find it objectionable to put upon players the requirement to recognize when the situation exists and when it doesn't. This does not solve the players' problems, it create them. To recognize they will have to pause to make the distinction, and when the situation was in fact not present there can be repercussions. To my thinking a very unsatisfactory arrangement except for bridge lawyers. Regards, 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 Tue Feb 27 08:27:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QLOhO06615 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:24:43 +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 (f214.law3.hotmail.com [209.185.241.214]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QLObt06611 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:24:38 +1100 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:24:30 -0800 Received: from 134.134.248.29 by lw3fd.law3.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:24:30 GMT X-Originating-IP: [134.134.248.29] From: "Todd Zimnoch" To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:24:30 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Feb 2001 21:24:30.0842 (UTC) FILETIME=[818CF5A0:01C0A03A] Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk >From: Adam Beneschan > > This does remind me of the parody newsclip for Extreme Bridge I read >once. > > It's not for the faint of heart, so I'll e-mail it by request only. > >Is this anything like Jay Leno's version of the XPGA? I only saw a >promotional clip for this, but as I recall, it showed a bunch of >players trying to tackle someone who was trying to make a putt. Plus >a bunch of scantily clad cheerleaders, of course. > >Sure, I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks! ESPN2 with no censors. Follow this link at your own risk: http://www.thestranger.com/1999-09-16/grab_bag.html -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 Tue Feb 27 09:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QMBaC06705 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:11:36 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QMBQt06697 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:11:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-31-61.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.31.61]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06537 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:10:55 GMT Message-ID: <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:07:20 -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 "May none these marks efface, For they appeal from tyranny to God. " ('Sonnet on Chillon'). <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Grant Sterling To: Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:43 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? > > So I don't agree with the AC ruling, but I don't > think it's an egregious breach of the laws or > anything like that. It's a judgement call, and I > don't agree with their judgement. > +=+ But that won't do, will it? It may be inferior, but irrational it is not, for _any_ class of player who says he has the contract in top tricks, to play those tricks in any order*. That includes playing first to the Ace Hearts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [*he is not required to cut communications or block suits] -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 09:11:53 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1QMBbf06706 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:11:37 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from scooby.lineone.net (doggy.lineone.net [194.75.152.224]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1QMBSt06698 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:11:29 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host213-123-31-61.dialup.lineone.co.uk [213.123.31.61]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id WAA06480 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 22:10:53 GMT Message-ID: <000801c0a041$154f2280$3d1f7bd5@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws" References: <005801c09d04$a44fd820$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com><3A964058.81243752@village.uunet.be><00fc01c09dbc$1a5ba500$3f2ed2cc@san.rr.com> <3.0.6.32.20010226092530.0080c730@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 21:31:50 -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 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "May none these marks efface, For they appeal from tyranny to God. " ('Sonnet on Chillon'). <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Grant Sterling To: Bridge Laws Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 3:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] Brighton Appeals 2000 > At 08:15 PM 2/23/2001 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: > >+=+ Law 68 D says " A claim should be accompanied > > at once by a statement of clarification....." > > The Scope and Interpretation of the Laws says: > > "When a player _should_ do something ("a claim > > should be accompanied at once by a statement...") > > his failure to do it is an infraction of law." > > ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > Yes, but.... > a) Does this mean that every time 'attention is called' > to the irregularity of claiming w/o a statement, players > are legally required to call a TD even if they intend to > acquiese in the claim? > +=+ There is no requirement to draw attention to an irregularity or infraction of which a player is aware. My purpose here was to correct a false statement made; this omission is an infraction not an irregularity. +=+ > > b) In the actual case, did anyone 'call attention > to the irregularity'? Certainly no-one did so > _explicitly_, but did they do so implicitly? > +=+ I do not think 'implicitly' satisfies the requirement in Law 9; the calling attention has to be explicit. ~ 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 Feb 27 13:11:31 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1R2ArN23358 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:10:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from gadolinium.btinternet.com (gadolinium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.111]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1R2Ajt23323 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:10:47 +1100 (EST) Received: from [62.7.3.219] (helo=pbncomputer) by gadolinium.btinternet.com with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14XZb6-0001zd-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:10:41 +0000 Message-ID: <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:10:26 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan wrote: > +=+ But that won't do, will it? It may be inferior, > but irrational it is not, for _any_ class of player > who says he has the contract in top tricks, to > play those tricks in any order. Quite so, and I think this point may be generally accepted. It leads, however, to the following absurdity: a player on lead with SAKQJ and H3 claims the rest in 3NT (or 7NT), believing that H3 is good. It is not, for an opponent has H4 and four minor-suit winners. How do we rule? Well, I know how I would rule, for my position on claims has been stated a long time ago (and dismissed as unworkable). But I think that there are some others on BLML who would rule that declarer makes no more tricks, on the principle given above by Grattan. Now, either we state some algorithm that will allow us to decide such cases "equitably" (for example, "it is irrational for a player who claims all tricks not to be deemed to play his currently highest card whenever it is his turn"), or we adopt the approach known to long-time readers of this list as the "DBclaim". This may be briefly stated as follows: a claim is accompanied by a statement; any cards not explicitly covered by that statement are deemed to be played in that legal order most disadvantageous to the claimer. But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim "works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate implementation. I repeat, however, that it is time some kind of decision were made. We may all enjoy discussing what would or would not be irrational for some player we have never met. But such discussion is not only fruitless but retrogressive, for whatever its upshot, the average player (and the average TD or AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules actually 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 Tue Feb 27 13:56:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1R2u6409263 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:56:06 +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-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 f1R2txt09225 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:56:00 +1100 (EST) Received: from mailgate.asimere.com ([62.49.206.98] helo=asimere.com) by anchor-post-33.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 14XaIt-000CXI-0X for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:55:55 +0000 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 02:52:07 +0000 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: "John (MadDog) Probst" Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> In-Reply-To: <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@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 <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer>, David Burn writes >Grattan wrote: > >> +=+ But that won't do, will it? It may be inferior, >> but irrational it is not, for _any_ class of player >> who says he has the contract in top tricks, to >> play those tricks in any order. > >Quite so, and I think this point may be generally accepted. It leads, >however, to the following absurdity: a player on lead with SAKQJ and H3 >claims the rest in 3NT (or 7NT), believing that H3 is good. It is not, >for an opponent has H4 and four minor-suit winners. How do we rule? >Well, I know how I would rule, for my position on claims has been stated >a long time ago (and dismissed as unworkable). But I think that there >are some others on BLML who would rule that declarer makes no more >tricks, on the principle given above by Grattan. > >Now, either we state some algorithm that will allow us to decide such >cases "equitably" (for example, "it is irrational for a player who >claims all tricks not to be deemed to play his currently highest card >whenever it is his turn"), or we adopt the approach known to long-time >readers of this list as the "DBclaim". I am beginning to be swayed by the merits of the DBclaim. Like David, I wish there were a better solution. Given the "AKQJ 3" problem as a start point, we _could_ shuffle the 5 cards and deal them till the 3 appears and award on this basis. We won't accept this solution of course. However it leads us to the point where we could award the matchpoint average of 20% of each of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 tricks (the probabilities that a shuffled "AKQJ 3" would yield) - and that, given current technology and good software, is plausible, equitable to the NOs and IMO legal. Is this a step forward? > This may be briefly stated as >follows: a claim is accompanied by a statement; any cards not explicitly >covered by that statement are deemed to be played in that legal order >most disadvantageous to the claimer. > >But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on >claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and >nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim >"works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require >any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. >It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game >down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would >applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate >implementation. > >I repeat, however, that it is time some kind of decision were made. We >may all enjoy discussing what would or would not be irrational for some >player we have never met. But such discussion is not only fruitless but >retrogressive, for whatever its upshot, the average player (and the >average TD or AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules >actually are. > >David Burn >London, England -- John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |icq 10810798 451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |OKb ChienFou London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john@asimere.com +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 Feb 27 15:27:56 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1R4RRN03756 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:27:27 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from msn.com (cpimssmtpe05.msn.com [207.46.181.44]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1R4RLt03726 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:27:22 +1100 (EST) Received: from uymfdlvk - 63.48.237.221 by msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:27:13 -0800 Message-ID: <041201c0a075$614c9300$cd33393f@uymfdlvk> Reply-To: "Chris Pisarra" From: "Chris Pisarra" To: References: Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 20:25:54 -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 Todd wrote > Whee, should she bring all 36 decks? There is a blind player here on the West Coast who does just that--he has a full set of boards. They are passed out, along with the regular boards, and the section double-duplicates. Then his table, and his table alone, uses his boards and the braille cards, everyone else using the regular set. Before he had a full set, his wife would sit and duplicate hands for him--but this process is better, quicker and easier. > Also, do you know any manufacturer > that makes braille cards where the dots don't show on the back? The only > time I've used braille cards they were homemade, and if you've ever used a > stylus for writing braille, reading it backwards by sight is second-nature. Many years ago when I played poker with a blind guy, I could read Braille backwards, but no more. I suppose that perhaps someone could/would/does take advantage, but I guess that's the price of accommodating everyone. Chris -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Tue Feb 27 18:04:54 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1R74IX03735 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:04:18 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1R74Dt03706 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:04:13 +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 SAA13830 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:07:38 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:57:16 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:01:26 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 27/02/2001 06:02:06 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: >The DBclaim [unspecified cards assumed to be played in worst way - RH] >"works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require >any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. >It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game >down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would >applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate >implementation. I suggest a slightly less radical approach - perhaps the WBF should remove the words *for the class of player involved* from the footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71. At least then the subjective evaluation of a player's ability will then no longer be an issue. 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 Feb 27 23:54:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RCqei06896 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:40 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqPt06826 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.58]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqKF00837 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:52:21 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9B9A9E.3CD8B98A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:16:30 +0100 From: Herman De Wael X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bridge Laws Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Burn wrote: > > Grattan wrote: > > > +=+ But that won't do, will it? It may be inferior, > > but irrational it is not, for _any_ class of player > > who says he has the contract in top tricks, to > > play those tricks in any order. > > Quite so, and I think this point may be generally accepted. It leads, > however, to the following absurdity: a player on lead with SAKQJ and H3 > claims the rest in 3NT (or 7NT), believing that H3 is good. It is not, > for an opponent has H4 and four minor-suit winners. How do we rule? > Well, I know how I would rule, for my position on claims has been stated > a long time ago (and dismissed as unworkable). But I think that there > are some others on BLML who would rule that declarer makes no more > tricks, on the principle given above by Grattan. > Indeed, so would I, and why not ? When we can ascertain that a player believes all his cards are winners, then, yes, by all means, be strict : 5 tricks to defenders. Your example is not very good if you want to convince me, David. The cases that have caused problems do not center round such principles like "when a player believes all cards are good, he is deemed to play them in any order". The cases that have caused problems rather center round problems such as - a player has not stated how he will play - which statement do we provide for him. In your example, the player made a statement "all high". We agree what we should do after that. Suppose however that the player says nothing. Now we need to create a statement for him. If we find out that he means that he wants all tricks, then the ruling is as you suggest. But if we find that he was merely claiming for 4 tricks, then we give him 4. Those are the problems that still arise, and I don't believe we need to be as severe as DB in many cases. But the one above is not such - 5 tricks to defenders, I say. > Now, either we state some algorithm that will allow us to decide such > cases "equitably" (for example, "it is irrational for a player who > claims all tricks not to be deemed to play his currently highest card > whenever it is his turn"), or we adopt the approach known to long-time > readers of this list as the "DBclaim". This may be briefly stated as > follows: a claim is accompanied by a statement; any cards not explicitly > covered by that statement are deemed to be played in that legal order > most disadvantageous to the claimer. > Well, David, you fail to understand that sometimes players forget to give an explicit statement. I am in favour of allowing them an implicit statement (of course with doubtful points against him) and then be quite severe on that implicit statement. > But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on > claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and > nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim > "works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require > any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. > It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game > down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would > applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate > implementation. > Well, as I said, I've never understood there to be a problem with claims. Those that reach blml are a small fraction of the cases that no one sees any problems with. > I repeat, however, that it is time some kind of decision were made. We > may all enjoy discussing what would or would not be irrational for some > player we have never met. But such discussion is not only fruitless but > retrogressive, for whatever its upshot, the average player (and the > average TD or AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules > actually are. > > David Burn > London, England > -- 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 Feb 27 23:54:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RCqfA06903 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqRt06834 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:28 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.58]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqNF00878 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:52:24 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9B9B1F.20148A7E@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:18:39 +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: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "John (MadDog) Probst" wrote: > > > I am beginning to be swayed by the merits of the DBclaim. Like David, I > wish there were a better solution. Given the "AKQJ 3" problem as a > start point, we _could_ shuffle the 5 cards and deal them till the 3 > appears and award on this basis. We won't accept this solution of > course. However it leads us to the point where we could award the > matchpoint average of 20% of each of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 tricks (the > probabilities that a shuffled "AKQJ 3" would yield) - and that, given > current technology and good software, is plausible, equitable to the NOs > and IMO legal. Is this a step forward? > No it is not. What is wrong with being severe on a claimer who sees the hand wrong ? What I find abhorrant is the view that we must be severe on someone who makes a hasty claim, or a deficient claim statement. -- 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 Feb 27 23:54:25 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RCqgP06915 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:43 +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-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqUt06850 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:52:30 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-1-58.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.1.58]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1RCqPF00912 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:52:26 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9B9C8E.FD3FA482@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:24:46 +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: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk richard.hills@immi.gov.au wrote: > > David Burn wrote: > > >The DBclaim [unspecified cards assumed to be played in worst way - RH] > >"works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require > >any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. > >It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game > >down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would > >applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate > >implementation. > > I suggest a slightly less radical approach - perhaps the WBF > should remove the words *for the class of player involved* > from the footnote to Laws 69, 70 and 71. At least then the > subjective evaluation of a player's ability will then no > longer be an issue. > That won't do either. Suppose I claim saying "on a double squeeze". You would probably not allow it of me. Now suppose I claim saying "executing the simple safety". You would have difficulty deciding what my level is, and if I know this. Then suppose I claim "finessing the queen". You would be right in assuming I know how to do that. Now you say that this is unacceptable, and you wish to drop the "level of play" element of this decision. But then which claims will you give me and which not ? You then need to define the "standard level of play". Something which would be far more difficult. And would lead to more rulings. I would never claim on a double squeeze, and not even on a safety play. But I would claim on a finesse. If the "standard level" be less than a finesse, then you would have a ruling, while now you don't have a difficult ruling. And if the standard would include safety plays, I might start claiming even more, and be awarded contracts that are cold for everyone, but not for me. No, dropping the "for the level of the player" from the footnote is certainly a step in the wrong direction. We need that bit, and it causes far less problems than if it were removed. -- 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 Feb 28 00:19:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RDIgx16092 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:18:42 +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-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 f1RDIat16057 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 00:18:36 +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 f1RDISX14311 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 08:18:28 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.1.20010227080002.00b44920@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, 27 Feb 2001 08:18:01 -0500 To: Bridge Laws Discussion List From: Eric Landau Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 09:10 PM 2/26/01, David wrote: >But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on >claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and >nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim >"works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require >any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. >It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game >down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would >applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate >implementation. > >I repeat, however, that it is time some kind of decision were made. We >may all enjoy discussing what would or would not be irrational for some >player we have never met. But such discussion is not only fruitless but >retrogressive, for whatever its upshot, the average player (and the >average TD or AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules >actually are. I don't think it will be possible to come up with a complete set of rules that will cover everything. We can cover 95% of the territory, but if we try for 100% we cannot avoid creating obviously exception-worthy cases at the margins. What we can and should do is look for simple rules that cover the straightforward issues (L70C gives us a start), and leave the complex marginal ones to be sorted out case by case. The ACBL has made a good start with their rule that when running a suit from one hand, we assume that the cards will be played from the top down. David's example case would be covered by a rule that when cashing more than one suit from the same hand, with the order left unspecified in the claim statement, claimer should be assumed to attempt to run the suits in the least advantageous order. I'd go for a rule that said that when a suit might be run by either finessing or dropping an outstanding card, and either is consistent with the claim statement, claimer is assumed to take the least advantageous choice regardless of prior play (which would settle the current thread about repeating unproven finesses). And so on. A handful or two of such rules would cover 95%+ of the cases and produce a significant improvement in the consistency of claims rulings without straight-jacketing TDs and ACs into being forced to make obviously inequitable rulings in the rare subtle cases. 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 Feb 28 02:13:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RFCLG16958 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:12:21 +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 f1RFCEt16954 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:12:15 +1100 (EST) Received: from pacific (host62-6-68-30.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.68.30]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA25485; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:11:41 GMT Message-ID: <000401c0a0cf$832fdb80$1e44063e@pacific> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "bridge-laws" Cc: "john probst" , "David Martin" , "Grattan Endicott" Subject: [BLML] DWS Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:10:09 -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; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:10:04 +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 KAA29797 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:11:43 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010227101029.007d9c90@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:10:29 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 10:07 PM 2/26/2001 -0000, Grattan Endicott wrote: >> So I don't agree with the AC ruling, but I don't >> think it's an egregious breach of the laws or >> anything like that. It's a judgement call, and I >> don't agree with their judgement. >> >+=+ But that won't do, will it? It may be inferior, >but irrational it is not, for _any_ class of player >who says he has the contract in top tricks, to >play those tricks in any order*. That includes >playing first to the Ace Hearts. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ I agree with you. But I think that it is a judgement call as to what counts as 'inferior' or 'irrational', and I think the AC made a judgement. We agree that they made the wrong judgement. So be it. Whenever you allow people to make judgements, you must accept that some percentage of those judgements will be made incorrectly. Some percentage of voting citizens will made bad decisions about who to vote for. Some percentage of juries will convict innocent defendants [or, which I but very few other people think is just about as bad, acquit guilty ones]. Some percentage of TD's and AC's will make bad rulings. That doesn't mean that I think it's _good_ that people get things wrong. I don't. But it is absolutely inevitable as long as you give them the ability to make decisions. The Burn solution is to simply remove the judgement. That, of course, has the virtue of removing all bad judgements, and promoting consistency. That is has disadvantages as well seems obvious to me--it promotes consistency at the cost of forbidding the justice that results from _good_ judgements. I value that justice much more than consistency. Now I am aware that the Burn response is, in part, that there is no such thing as 'justice' apart from whatever the law defines as justice. I simply disagree. People have a concept of what bridge is and how it is to be played that is antecedent to and independent of the laws, and so it is quite possible for a law to be a bad law or a ruling to be 'unjust' even if it corresponds to the law. {This is true outside of bridge as well, I think, FWIW.} Sorry to give a long response to a short point. 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 Feb 28 03:53:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RGqeR19825 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:52:41 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1RGqXt19784 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 03:52:34 +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 KAA23677 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:54:18 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010227105303.007c6290@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> X-Sender: cfgcs@ux1.cts.eiu.edu X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:53:03 -0600 To: From: Grant Sterling Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <004e01c0a062$743a7080$db03073e@pbncomputer> References: <3.0.6.32.20010226094315.00796e10@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <000901c0a041$166351a0$3d1f7bd5@dodona> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:10 AM 2/27/2001 -0000, David Burn wrote: >Now, either we state some algorithm that will allow us to decide such >cases "equitably" (for example, "it is irrational for a player who >claims all tricks not to be deemed to play his currently highest card >whenever it is his turn"), or we adopt the approach known to long-time >readers of this list as the "DBclaim". This may be briefly stated as >follows: a claim is accompanied by a statement; any cards not explicitly >covered by that statement are deemed to be played in that legal order >most disadvantageous to the claimer. > >But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on >claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and >nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim Why is it "time" to do one or the other? Saying it this way implies that something very bad has been allowed to happen for some time, and if we don't stop it now it will get worse. What is this very bad thing that must at all costs be prevented? Is the bad thing simply the fact that people on BLML will not be able to agree on some claim cases what the correct ruling should have been? That doesn't strike me as being so horrible. >"works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require >any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. The supressed premise is "any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or official is always a bad thing". That is precisely the premise I deny. >It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game >down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would >applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate >implementation. > >I repeat, however, that it is time some kind of decision were made. We >may all enjoy discussing what would or would not be irrational for some >player we have never met. But such discussion is not only fruitless but >retrogressive, for whatever its upshot, the average player (and the >average TD or AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules >actually are. So perhaps then this is the very bad thing you had in mind that would occur if we do not act now. That the "average player" (TD, AC) will not have a hope of understanding what the rules actually are. This, I agree, would be a bad thing to some extent. But: a) I don't think it's a horribly bad thing if the average player doesn't know the exact apparatus by which the laws are applied. Many games can function perfectly adequately with the players knowing the broad outline of the rules and the officials applying the details. b) I think the players don't understand the rules we have now _not_ because those rules are flawed, but because the players are not being taught them adequately. I would much prefer that our energies be directed towards telling people "please always make a statement of how you're playing the hand when claiming" rather than towards hammering them when they fail to do so. I think that a few simple educational proceedures regarding the laws as they now exist would go much farther towards producing orderly and efficient games than changing the laws will produce. I assume you will agree that no change in the laws, whether drastic or mild, will have any effect unless the TD's, AC's, and players are educated as to what that change entails. I suggest, then, that we try the experiment of teaching the current laws before concluding that they have failed. c) I don't see that there is such a problem anyway. The number of claims that get disputed on BLML is a tiny, tiny fraction of all claims that are made, and is even a small fraction of all the possibly-disputable claims that are made. From "many claims on BLML provoke serious disagreement such that no consensus can be reached" we really cannot deduce "the average player cannot hope to have an understanding of what the rules actually are", or that TD's or AC's cannot. I think you will produce far, far more confusion and inconsistency by radically changing the laws of bridge regarding claims than currently exists. I have no objection to the development of criteria that will make the job of the TD or AC easier. But I do not think that making strict criteria that will eliminate all judgment in such cases is a pressing necessity--I don't even think it would be good for the game. >David Burn >London, England Respectfully, Grant Sterling -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 04:22:10 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RHLl929991 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:21:47 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mailhub.irvine.com ([63.206.153.98]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RHLet29951 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 04:21:41 +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 JAA19551; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:21:32 -0800 Message-Id: <200102271721.JAA19551@mailhub.irvine.com> To: Bridge Laws CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:16:30 +0100." <3A9B9A9E.3CD8B98A@village.uunet.be> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:21:31 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Herman wrote: > > But it is time to do one or the other. If we don't, then threads on > > claims are going to continue to generate far more heat than light, and > > nothing constructive is ever going to be done as a result. The DBclaim > > "works" in that it mandates a consistent approach that will not require > > any form of subjective thinking on behalf of any player or any official. > > It does not "work" in that it will discourage claims and slow the game > > down. If some "equitable" alternative could be substituted, then I would > > applaud its inventor and be entirely happy with its immediate > > implementation. > > > > Well, as I said, I've never understood there to be a problem > with claims. Those that reach blml are a small fraction of > the cases that no one sees any problems with. That's my main problem with the DBclaim approach. Frankly, had the rule about claiming been, from the very beginning, that the claimer must specify how every card is going to be played, so that it isn't deemed to be played in the stupidest possibly way, I wouldn't object. The biggest problem with the DBclaim approach is that it would require a massive retraining of bridge players in order to solve a problem that comes up once in a blue moon. After all, the majority of hands involve a claim at some point (although many of those claims are very late in the hand). It's like using a Scud missile to kill a gnat. -- 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 Feb 28 07:54:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RKrCn22856 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:53:12 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1RKr6t22852 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:53:06 +1100 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by psa836.la.asu.edu (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RE3rs03245 for bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:03:53 GMT From: David J Grabiner Organization: Arizona State University Mathematics Departmentt To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:35:55 +0000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.0.28] Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both vulnerable. QJx AKJ KTxxx xx T9x xxxx xx Tx xx Jxx KQxxxx AJTx AKx Qxxxxx AQx x N S 1NT(a) 4D(b) (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced 5D 5H 6D 6H P At the end of the auction, South calls the TD to correct the incorrect explanation. The TD instructs the players to play on. The lead is the CK, and 6H makes six for +1430. Facts ascertained by TD: N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid 4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had forgotten the convention. TD ruling: Contract adjusted to 4H making six, +680. Explained as an attempt to give a fair result, since N-S weren't trying to get to slam but could have done so. N-S appeal, claiming that 4H is an impossible contract after the 5D bid, and that neither North nor South made a bid which should lead to an adjusted score. How would you rule with and without L12C3 allowed? (Technically, it's not allowed in the ACBL, but TD's and AC's use it anyway.) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 08:46:16 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RLjrv22889 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:45:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1RLjlt22885 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:45:47 +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 NAA26364; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:45:41 -0800 Message-Id: <200102272145.NAA26364@mailhub.irvine.com> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au CC: adam@irvine.com Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:35:55 GMT." <01022714035203.03214@psa836> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 13:45:40 -0800 From: Adam Beneschan Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner wrote: > Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both > vulnerable. > > QJx > AKJ > KTxxx > xx > T9x xxxx > xx Tx > xx Jxx > KQxxxx AJTx > AKx > Qxxxxx > AQx > x > > N S > 1NT(a) 4D(b) (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced > 5D 5H > 6D 6H > P > > At the end of the auction, South calls the TD to correct the incorrect > explanation. The TD instructs the players to play on. The lead is the > CK, and 6H makes six for +1430. > > Facts ascertained by TD: N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. > South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he > should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid > 4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI > problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the > DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had > forgotten the convention. > > TD ruling: Contract adjusted to 4H making six, +680. Explained as > an attempt to give a fair result, since N-S weren't trying to get to > slam but could have done so. > > N-S appeal, claiming that 4H is an impossible contract after the 5D > bid, and that neither North nor South made a bid which should lead to > an adjusted score. > > How would you rule with and without L12C3 allowed? (Technically, it's > not allowed in the ACBL, but TD's and AC's use it anyway.) Score stands. L12C3 doesn't apply. North did not have any UI and did not commit any infraction. South's only possible infraction was that the UI may have suggested 5H over some stronger action (without the UI, 5D should be some sort of slam try, if anything). But this didn't cause any damage, since North got them to slam anyway. (I can't find any reason to believe the auction might have gotten to 7D or 7H if screens had been in use.) The TD applied a rule that does not exist. Perhaps if N or S had asked the director, very politely, "We're not familiar with the rules; could you read us the rule that applies here?" . . . -- Adam -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 09:57:01 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RMu2f24803 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:56:02 +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 f1RMttt24770 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 09:55:55 +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 WAA62354 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:55:45 GMT Received: by localhost with Microsoft MAPI; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:56:39 -0000 Message-ID: <01C0A110.8B2FFAE0.tsvecfob@iol.ie> From: "Fearghal O'Boyle" To: "'bridge-laws@octavia.anu.edu.au'" Subject: RE: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 22:56:38 -0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet E-mail/MAPI - 8.0.0.4211 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk David Grabiner asked: Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both vulnerable. QJx AKJ KTxxx xx T9x xxxx xx Tx xx Jxx KQxxxx AJTx AKx Qxxxxx AQx x N S 1NT(a) 4D(b) (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced 5D 5H 6D 6H P At the end of the auction, South calls the TD to correct the incorrect explanation. The TD instructs the players to play on. The lead is the CK, and 6H makes six for +1430. Facts ascertained by TD: N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid 4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had forgotten the convention. TD ruling: Contract adjusted to 4H making six, +680. Explained as an attempt to give a fair result, since N-S weren't trying to get to slam but could have done so. N-S appeal, claiming that 4H is an impossible contract after the 5D bid, and that neither North nor South made a bid which should lead to an adjusted score. How would you rule with and without L12C3 allowed? (Technically, it's not allowed in the ACBL, but TD's and AC's use it anyway.) We have MI and UI. Does the UI suggest 5H over some other logical alternative? I don't think so. Score stands. 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 Feb 28 10:04:08 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RN40W27669 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:04:00 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from cfa.harvard.edu ([131.142.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RN3rt27625 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:03:54 +1100 (EST) Received: from cfa183.harvard.edu (cfa183 [131.142.25.59]) by cfa.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix M-S 0.1) with ESMTP id SAA26501 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:03:46 -0500 (EST) Received: (from willner@localhost) by cfa183.harvard.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2/cfunix S 0.5) id SAA05928 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:03:46 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:03:46 -0500 (EST) From: Steve Willner Message-Id: <200102272303.SAA05928@cfa183.harvard.edu> To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > From: David J Grabiner > Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both > vulnerable. > > QJx > AKJ > KTxxx > xx > T9x xxxx > xx Tx > xx Jxx > KQxxxx AJTx > AKx > Qxxxxx > AQx > x > > N S > 1NT(a) 4D(b) (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced > 5D 5H > 6D 6H > P > N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. > South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he > should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid > 4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI > problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the > DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had > forgotten the convention. As others have said, MI doesn't seem to be important, and only South has UI. I think 5H is OK; whatever 5D means, South can hardly bid less. But I think pass is a LA over 6D. Why shouldn't North be showing a suit? It is hardly clear to play the slam in hearts if you don't have clear agreement that North has shown support. And 6H is surely suggested over 6H by the UI. So it looks like 6D=. Outside the ACBL, I think the score would stand because of the less strict definition of LA. I don't see any need for a weighted score. The adjustment to 4H makes no sense, but at least it wasn't avg-. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 10:26:36 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RNQHx05612 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:26:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1RNQAt05577 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:26:10 +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 ESMTP id OAA15836 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:41:29 -0900 Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:25:48 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <3A9B9C8E.FD3FA482@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 Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Herman De Wael wrote: [in reply to a proposal to delete "for the class of player involved"] > That won't do either. > > Suppose I claim saying "on a double squeeze". You would > probably not allow it of me. Now suppose I claim saying > "executing the simple safety". You would have difficulty > deciding what my level is, and if I know this. Then suppose > I claim "finessing the queen". You would be right in > assuming I know how to do that. > > Now you say that this is unacceptable, and you wish to drop > the "level of play" element of this decision. But then > which claims will you give me and which not ? You then > need to define the "standard level of play". Something > which would be far more difficult. No such need at all. If you make a statement you get to do whatever you say you'll do in your statement. It's possible your opponents will ask you to be a little more specific than "executing the simple safety" but that should be a simple matter of a one-sentence fix (and if there's more than one possible simple safety, shame on you for an improper claim.) Anything not covered by your statement would be assumed to be handled in the most unfavourable non-irrational manner. Can "irrational" be specified purely objectively? I think it can be. A play that sometimes loses and never gains is irrational - inadmissible strategies, they call them in game theory. Beyond that you have to make some tough decisions. "The only rational thing to do is play the cards the very best way you can" turns everyone into an expert which most of us think is a Bad Thing. Adopting a minimum standard of play bogs us down in regulations. Or, you can simply say "except for the dominated clearly irrational lines, all other lines are rational though some are inferior (some are 1% instead of 99% lines, even)." > No, dropping the "for the level of the player" from the > footnote is certainly a step in the wrong direction. > We need that bit, and it causes far less problems than if it > were removed. I respectfully disagree, and would love to see it removed. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 10:37:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1RNaom09327 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:36:51 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1RNait09293 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:36:45 +1100 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (roc-24-95-202-125.rochester.rr.com [24.95.202.125]) by mailout4-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f1RNXMb25176 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:33:26 -0500 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: erepper1@pop-server.rochester.rr.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <200102272303.SAA05928@cfa183.harvard.edu> References: <200102272303.SAA05928@cfa183.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 18:35:06 -0500 To: Bridge Laws From: Ed Reppert Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >The adjustment to 4H makes no sense, but at least it wasn't avg-. As far as I can see, neither adjustment (4H or avg-) is legal. Though I agree we in the ACBL see entirely too much of the latter. 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/AwUBOpw6Cr2UW3au93vOEQLlxgCgrHGIu3Gheb2s3Em+PeV3kpqwKfsAnA6n hYYAIl2dAVK6JirvAAXDr++y =q4yP -----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 Feb 28 12:45:35 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S1j4h21074 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:45:04 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1S1ixt21070 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:44:59 +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 MAA29551 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:48:26 +1100 (EST) From: richard.hills@immi.gov.au Received: from c3w-notes ([20.18.100.39]) by C3W-FWB.au.csc.net; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:38:02 +0000 (EST) Subject: Re: [BLML] Fiddler on the Roof To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au.gov.au Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:42:12 +1000 Message-ID: X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on C3External/C3X(Release 5.0.6 |December 14, 2000) at 28/02/2001 12:42:51 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 *claim?*, Grant Sterling wrote: [big snip] >Now I am aware that the Burn response is, in part, >that there is no such thing as 'justice' apart from >whatever the law defines as justice. I simply >disagree. People have a concept of what bridge is >and how it is to be played that is antecedent to and >independent of the laws, and so it is quite possible >for a law to be a bad law or a ruling to be 'unjust' >even if it corresponds to the law. {This is true >outside of bridge as well, I think, FWIW.} A parallel comment was made by Frank Thomas, technical director of the U.S. Golf Association: >Golfers have an intuitive understanding of a need for >rules which will protect the traditions of the game >and preserve the challenge it offers. This is the >invisible bond between golfers and rules-making bodies. New technology created a golf ball with an asymmetrical dimple design. This golf ball may have resulted in users reducing their hooks and slices. To preserve the *tradition* of golf, the USGA revised their specifications for golf balls. In bridge, new bidding technology created the Stripe- Tailed Ape Double. This tactic had an anomalous edge versus vul opponents who could make a minor suit slam. To preserve the *tradition* of bridge, the WBF slightly increased the score for successful redoubled contracts. What further revision of the Laws are needed to preserve the *tradition* of bridge alive after technological change? Two suggestions I wish to make for Laws revisions to preserve traditional bridge: a) Amendment of L25A to specifically cater for the new technology of bidding boxes; and, b) Inversion of L72B3 to specifically cater for the new technology of active ethics. Best wishes R -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 14:55:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S3sXl21175 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:54:33 +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.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 f1S3sRt21171 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 14:54:27 +1100 (EST) Received: from tripack.ihug.co.nz (p968-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.195.206]) by smtp2.ihug.co.nz (8.9.3/8.9.3/Debian 8.9.3-21) with ESMTP id QAA14349 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:54:20 +1300 X-Authentication-Warning: smtp2.ihug.co.nz: Host p968-apx1.akl.ihug.co.nz [203.173.195.206] claimed to be tripack.ihug.co.nz Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010228163830.009ea4a0@pop3.ihug.co.nz> X-Sender: tripack@pop3.ihug.co.nz X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:52:50 +1300 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: patrick carter Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk On the hand below South clearly did not take advantage of any UI from hearing the MI and E/W were clearly not disadvantaged by the MI given to them in the bidding. Any Director or Appeals Committee that wants to take away any part of North-South's good result (whether 680, A- or whatever) should take a break from the game and concentrate on their day job with the IRS. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ David Grabiner wrote: Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both vulnerable. QJx AKJ KTxxx xx T9x xxxx xx Tx xx Jxx KQxxxx AJTx AKx Qxxxxx AQx x N S 1NT(a) 4D(b) 5D 5H 6D 6H P (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced At the end of the auction, South calls the TD to correct the incorrect explanation. The TD instructs the players to play on. The lead is the CK, and 6H makes six for +1430. Facts ascertained by TD: N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid 4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had forgotten the convention. TD ruling: Contract adjusted to 4H making six, +680. Explained as an attempt to give a fair result, since N-S weren't trying to get to slam but could have done so. N-S appeal, claiming that 4H is an impossible contract after the 5D bid, and that neither North nor South made a bid which should lead to an adjusted score. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 16:36:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S5ZUF07205 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:35:30 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au (mta04.mail.au.uu.net [203.2.192.84]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1S5ZQt07201 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:35:26 +1100 (EST) Received: from master ([63.12.23.2]) by mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au with SMTP id <20010228053524.QCCT17033.mta04.mail.mel.aone.net.au@master> for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:35:24 +1100 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228163348.0085bb20@pop.ozemail.com.au> X-Sender: ardelm@pop.ozemail.com.au X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:33:48 +1100 To: From: Tony Musgrove Subject: [BLML] Just checking Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk I think this situation has been covered many times on list, but this is the first time I can recall having to deal with it. So would simply like to check my understanding of L16 here. Dealer South, EW Vul North 10 7 6 3 2 10 6 J A 10 9 4 3 West East A Q 8 9 5 5 4 Q J 9 3 2 A Q 10 7 6 2 K 8 4 Q 7 9 8 6 South K J 4 A K 8 7 9 5 3 K J 2 Bidding West North East South == == == 1NT 2D 2S ...pass pass 3D all pass East allegedly passed out of tempo but denied by West (or at least claimed not to have affected her bidding). East claimed to have been considering bidding hearts except for the vulnerability! Director was called as soon as 3D was bid, and allowed auction and play to continue. Later director was called back when North revoked. The 1 trick penalty allowed 3D to make. Director then ruled that 3D was not an automatic call in this situation (less than 75% of the field under Aust. rules) so adjusted contract back to 2S making 10 tricks. So EW -170. For NS, because of the revoke, I gave the table result (NS -110). Is this correct? When dealing with a split score, does one simply replace the adjusted score with an average to find the score of the other players, and then calculate the match points for each of the two split scores separately? Cheers, Tony (Sydney) -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 19:55:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S8t6W08399 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:55:06 +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 f1S8swt08354 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:54:59 +1100 (EST) Received: from dodona (host62-6-69-232.dialup.lineone.co.uk [62.6.69.232]) by scooby.lineone.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id IAA01008; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:54:26 GMT Message-ID: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> From: "Grattan Endicott" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" Cc: "Grattan Endicott" References: Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:54:28 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Grattan Endicott "The highest possible stage in moral culture is when we recognize that we ought to control our thoughts." - Charles Darwin. <==--==> ----- Original Message ----- From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:25 PM Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? > > > > Anything not covered by your statement would be > assumed to be handled in the most unfavourable > non-irrational manner. Can "irrational" be specified > purely objectively? I think it can be. A play that > sometimes loses and never gains is irrational - > inadmissible strategies, they call them in game > theory. Beyond that you have to make some > tough decisions. > ================================ +=+ It has been pointed out to me that the English Bridge Union, through its Laws & Ethics Committee, has recently decreed that when a player claims tricks it is irrational for that player not to play suits from the top, but not irrational to play suits in order 'A' as distinct from order 'B'. So that with A K 2 in a suit it is irrational to lose a trick in it unless an opponent has three cards left in it; but with A K 2 in Spades plus Heart King, and claiming all the tricks, if the Heart Ace is not yet played it is not irrational for that player to lose to the Heart Ace and the remaining diamonds. In my personal view this constitutes 'best practice' under the current law; I do believe it should be qualified by a condition that, subject to his explicit statement, the claimer shall not be deemed to play cards unnecessarily in a sequence that interrupts communications between hands or blocks a suit. I would have no problem with insertion of a footnote to the law along these lines. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 20:38:43 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S9bxI23786 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:37:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1S9bpt23738 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:37:52 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id KAA16137; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:37:48 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 10:41:30 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 <01K0N2OQBBV2003TV3@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:36:34 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:31:37 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:36:04 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk This is a marvellously instructive problem for TD-teaching programs or for an examination. I will use it. The TD solving this up to the end (the calculation of the results) can be chief TD in the main events in his/her country. > I think this situation has been covered many times on list, but > this is the first time I can recall having to deal with it. So > would simply like to check my understanding of L16 here. > > Dealer South, EW Vul > > North > 10 7 6 3 2 > 10 6 > J > A 10 9 4 3 > West East > A Q 8 9 5 > 5 4 Q J 9 3 2 > A Q 10 7 6 2 K 8 4 > Q 7 9 8 6 > South > K J 4 > A K 8 7 > 9 5 3 > K J 2 > > Bidding > West North East South > == == == 1NT > 2D 2S ...pass pass > 3D all pass > > East allegedly passed out of tempo but denied by West (or > at least claimed not to have affected her bidding). East > claimed to have been considering bidding hearts except for the > vulnerability! Director was called as soon as 3D was bid, and allowed > auction and play to continue. Later director was called back > when North revoked. The 1 trick penalty allowed 3D to make. Are you sure? How do NS collect 5 tricks in normal play? More generally: we have to check whether the revoke didn't give NS an extra trick. > Director then ruled that 3D was not an automatic call in this > situation > (less than 75% of the field under Aust. rules) so adjusted contract > back to 2S making 10 tricks. So EW -170. very good. For NS, because of the > revoke, I gave the table result (NS -110). > > Is this correct? We agree that a revoke is not considered to be within the range of normal play. So damage related to that revoke should not get redress. BUT!!! Even when NS hadn't revoked their score would not equalize the score they had collected without the infraction (the 3diamond bid). So there is consequent damage. And the decision to give them -110 is not right. What to do then? This is a neglected subject, which we should address. But it is somewhat complicated and TD-live is difficult enough. Let us assume the top in this event to be 10. NS would have received 8 for +170. For - 110 they receive 1 mp. If the result had been +100 (3D - 1) the score would have been 4mp. Now we can calculate the consequent and the subsequent damage. The revoke trick costed them 3mp (subsequent damage) and the 3D-bid without the revoke would have costed 4mp (consequent damage). The redress should be restricted to the consequent damage, being 4 mp. (I follow Tony's description, if NS do win only 4 tricks anyhow, regardless the revoke there is no subsequent damage) I am interested in your opinion about this approach. When dealing with a split score, does one > simply replace the adjusted score with an average to find the > score of the other players, and then calculate the match points for > each of the two split scores separately? Not in my country. Following your decisions the frequencies of NS get an (extra) -110 for this pair and EW get -170 for this pair; then the mp's for NS and EW need to be calculated independently, which means that the scores for NS and EW playing each other not necessarily add up to the top. Who passed the (my) exam? > Cheers, > > Tony (Sydney) 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 Feb 28 20:51:23 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1S9mY727540 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:48:34 +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 f1S9mRt27500 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 20:48:28 +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 KAA12864; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:48:12 +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 KAA00977; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:48:05 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228105032.0082ba60@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:50:32 +0100 To: Adam Beneschan , "Bridge Laws" From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Blind Revokes Cc: adam@irvine.com In-Reply-To: <200102261748.JAA28484@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 09:48 26/02/01 -0800, Adam Beneschan wrote: > >Does it seem odd to anyone else to see the words "extremely" and >"partially" together like this? It's sort of like referring to >somebody's politics as "extremely middle-of-the-road." "Extreme", by >definition, has to do with the extremities, or the outer edges of >things, and it just seems like trying to put it together with the word >"partially", which implies "not totally" and therefore *not* at an >extremity, is contradictory. End of pedantic rant. AG : 'partially sighted' means 'having lost the other part of one's sight'. 'Extremely partially sighted' means the lost part is much bigger than the ramaining one. For mathematicians, what remains of the poor lady's sight is an infinitesimal. It is no more surprising to be 'extremely partially sighted' than to be 'extremely short-sighted', because 'partially sighted' is to be considered as an adjectival locution, not as a combination adjective + adverb. One piece of evidence of this is that you can't insert another adverb between the two words without it sounding false. 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 Feb 28 21:06:26 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SA2sY02661 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:02:54 +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 f1SA2lt02619 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:02:47 +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 f1SA2cf26414; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:39 GMT Received: (from root@localhost) by herschel.npl.co.uk (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f1SA2c007729; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:38 GMT Received: by herschel.npl.co.uk XSMTPD/VSCAN; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:37 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 KAA07019; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:36 GMT Received: (from rmb1@localhost) by tempest.npl.co.uk (8.9.1b+Sun/8.9.1) id KAA07033; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:36 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:02:36 GMT From: Robin Barker Message-Id: <200102281002.KAA07033@tempest.npl.co.uk> To: A.Kooijman@DWK.AGRO.NL Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Ton you write: > > We agree that a revoke is not considered to be within the range of normal > play. So damage related to that revoke should not get redress. BUT!!! > Even when NS hadn't revoked their score would not equalize the score they > had collected without the infraction (the 3diamond bid). So there is > consequent damage. And the decision to give them -110 is not right. What to > do then? This is a neglected subject, which we should address. But it is > somewhat complicated and TD-live is difficult enough. > > Let us assume the top in this event to be 10. NS would have received 8 for > +170. For - 110 they receive 1 mp. If the result had been +100 (3D - 1) the > score would have been 4mp. Now we can calculate the consequent and the > subsequent damage. The revoke trick costed them 3mp (subsequent damage) and > the 3D-bid without the revoke would have costed 4mp (consequent damage). The > redress should be restricted to the consequent damage, being 4 mp. (I follow > Tony's description, if NS do win only 4 tricks anyhow, regardless the revoke > there is no subsequent damage) I understand this approach and have seen it outlined by Grattan and others, I have never known of such a calculation (in terms of MPs or IMPs) in real life. I am unclear where the laws permit such an approach: it does not seem to be "the most favourable result" that was "likely" or "at all probable" (L12C2) nor does it seem to "achieve equity" (L12C3). Robin -- Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 21:11:03 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SA8IX04576 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 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 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 f1SA8Bt04535 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:08:12 +1100 (EST) Received: from mach.vub.ac.be (mach.ulb.ac.be [164.15.128.3]) by resu1.ulb.ac.be (8.8.8/3.17.0.ap (resu)) id LAA08502; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:04:12 +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 LAA15926; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:07:49 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228111016.00832de0@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:10:16 +0100 To: David J Grabiner , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] Ruling (ACBL, equity?) In-Reply-To: <01022714035203.03214@psa836> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 13:35 27/02/01 +0000, David J Grabiner wrote: >Sectional tournament at clubs in the ACBL, matchpoint scoring, both >vulnerable. > > QJx > AKJ > KTxxx > xx >T9x xxxx >xx Tx >xx Jxx >KQxxxx AJTx > AKx > Qxxxxx > AQx > x > >N S >1NT(a) 4D(b) (a) 12-15 (b) Intended as Texas, not announced >5D 5H >6D 6H >P > >At the end of the auction, South calls the TD to correct the incorrect >explanation. The TD instructs the players to play on. The lead is the >CK, and 6H makes six for +1430. > >Facts ascertained by TD: N-S play both Jacoby and Texas transfers. >South's bid of 4D indicates no slam interest (probably a mistake; he >should have bid 2D followed by 4C, but didn't). North would have bid >4H if he had remembered the convention. South was aware of the UI >problem but decided that 5D, if it meant anything, was a cue-bid of the >DA, and since South held this card, he concluded that North had >forgotten the convention. > >TD ruling: Contract adjusted to 4H making six, +680. Explained as >an attempt to give a fair result, since N-S weren't trying to get to >slam but could have done so. AG : what is the number of the law that says you can't score a slam where you didn't inted to ? The TD applied his idea of fair(y) bridge, which obviously is not the idea contained in the laws. If at all possible, one should tell him never again to do so. Also, I've learned to base my decisions on specific article(s) of the Laws. Any other decision being void. Isn't it the way it is done in the Americas ? The only problem on the deal is that South recieved UI that North didn't understand the bidding. But, 4D being a non-slammish bid, 5D and 6D, if they are to be taken at face value (and why shouldn't they ?) can only be based on an incredibly strong heart fit. So, South may surely be allowed to bid 6H, because it's the right bid if partner holds Qx - AKJx - KJ10xx - Qx, which is what can be expected from partner. (of course, I would expect Qx - AKJx - AKJxx - xx, but South's haznd tells him it isn't so) And South didn't have the LA of passing 5D or 6D, because North's bids do *not* show eight diamonds and a heart void. Regards, Alain. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 21:22:21 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SAJWD07447 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:19:32 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SAJPt07443 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:19:25 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA25673; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:19:22 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 11:23:17 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 <01K0N45ICIFO003TKM@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:18:20 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:13:23 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:18:18 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] claim ? To: "'Grattan Endicott'" , Bridge Laws Mailing List Cc: Grattan Endicott Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BB@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 > > > > > > > > > Anything not covered by your statement would be > > assumed to be handled in the most unfavourable > > non-irrational manner. Can "irrational" be specified > > purely objectively? I think it can be. A play that > > sometimes loses and never gains is irrational - > > inadmissible strategies, they call them in game > > theory. I think it can't be. Forbo, last weekend. A strong Dutch pair playing a Belgium pair with at least one former international player (sorry Herman); the Dutch bidding to a grandslam with a given choice between 7C and 7S. The choice is made: 7C after which this player comes down with club QJ bare. Declarer has A9642, gets angry, throws his cards (closed) on the table and walks away (7S is cold). After a short while play continues. RHO has K73 and plays the 3 on the Q and the 7 on the J, after which the ace catches the K and T, 7C made. Now the Belgium pair calls for the director and wants the board to be established as unplayable, after all the consternation caused by declarer. Not covering with the K on the J more than sometimes looses and never gains (it was obvious that declarer held the ace). Was this play irrational? It reminds me of the J9 in diamonds (trumps)at LHO with Txxx in diamonds in dummy and RHO on lead (without diamonds)and LHO conceding 3 tricks. Is this irrational? I am almost sure that had there been claims in both cases, the TD had decided that not covering with the K and playing the D9 in trick 10 to be irrational. I have my doubts that we can solve this problem in another way than advocated by David Burn, who is too quiet at the moment and whom I missed in Forbo, which is an impossible solution. ton > Beyond that you have to make some > > tough decisions. > > ================================ > +=+ It has been pointed out to me that the English > Bridge Union, through its Laws & Ethics Committee, > has recently decreed that when a player claims > tricks it is irrational for that player not to play suits > from the top, but not irrational to play suits in order > 'A' as distinct from order 'B'. So that with A K 2 in a > suit it is irrational to lose a trick in it unless an > opponent has three cards left in it; but with A K 2 > in Spades plus Heart King, and claiming all the tricks, > if the Heart Ace is not yet played it is not irrational > for that player to lose to the Heart Ace and the > remaining diamonds. In my personal view this > constitutes 'best practice' under the current law; > I do believe it should be qualified by a condition that, > subject to his explicit statement, the claimer shall > not be deemed to play cards unnecessarily in a > sequence that interrupts communications between > hands or blocks a suit. I would have no problem > with insertion of a footnote to the law along these > lines. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ > > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================== > ========== > (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email > majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with > "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. > A Web archive is at > http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-> LAWS/ > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 21:35:17 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SAWSY07460 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:32:28 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from rhenium (rhenium.btinternet.com [194.73.73.93]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SAWMt07456 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:32:23 +1100 (EST) Received: from [213.1.195.218] (helo=pbncomputer) by rhenium with smtp (Exim 3.03 #83) id 14Y3u6-0003lQ-00 for bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:32:18 +0000 Message-ID: <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> From: "David Burn" To: "Bridge Laws Mailing List" References: <001a01c0a164$2889e0a0$e845063e@dodona> Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 10:32:03 -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 Grattan wrote: [Gordon Bower] > > Anything not covered by your statement would be > > assumed to be handled in the most unfavourable > > non-irrational manner. Can "irrational" be specified > > purely objectively? I think it can be. A play that > > sometimes loses and never gains is irrational - > > inadmissible strategies, they call them in game > > theory. Beyond that you have to make some > > tough decisions. I wonder about this. Suppose that hearts are trumps and you are on lead with SA and H3, having lost no trick. You believe that there are no outstanding trumps. Now, in seven hearts, it would be irrational not to play the three of hearts before the ace of spades. You might be wrong about the trump suit - if you are, someone might have the singleton two. Thus, it can never lose and sometimes gain to play the three of hearts first. It would, however, be irrational to play a spade before playing the three of hearts, since this can never gain and sometimes lose. However, if you were to claim the last two tricks in this position without stating a line of play, you would (under the current law) lose a trick to the two of hearts. In six hearts, of course, it would be irrational to play the heart first, since if someone has the singleton non-two of hearts, you have gone down in a cold contract. However, if you were to claim in this position without stating a line of play, you would (under current practice in most jurisdictions and under the principle stated below) be considered to have gone down (by playing the heart first). [Grattan Endicott] > +=+ It has been pointed out to me that the English > Bridge Union, through its Laws & Ethics Committee, > has recently decreed that when a player claims > tricks it is irrational for that player not to play suits > from the top, but not irrational to play suits in order > 'A' as distinct from order 'B'. So that with A K 2 in a > suit it is irrational to lose a trick in it unless an > opponent has three cards left in it; but with A K 2 > in Spades plus Heart King, and claiming all the tricks, > if the Heart Ace is not yet played it is not irrational > for that player to lose to the Heart Ace and the > remaining diamonds. In my personal view this > constitutes 'best practice' under the current law; > I do believe it should be qualified by a condition that, > subject to his explicit statement, the claimer shall > not be deemed to play cards unnecessarily in a > sequence that interrupts communications between > hands or blocks a suit. I would have no problem > with insertion of a footnote to the law along these > lines. ~ Grattan ~ +=+ We haven't "decreed" it - one of us just said it in a meeting last week, and everyone else agreed with it. It might be as well to refine it a little in order to deal explicitly with the trump suit. In a recent case, an AC held that a player who had a lot of solid trumps and a side winner left when he claimed would not "rationally" have failed to play off some or all of his trumps before the winner (of course, the defender with the outstanding small trump could ruff the winner). This is almost certainly true, but unfortunately, contrary to law, and the decision had to be reversed. However, as can perhaps be seen from my example above, there is no simple answer to the question of whether it is "rational" for a claimer to play trumps first or side winners first. To give another example, you have SA HKQ. Spades are trumps. You believe that there are no outstanding trumps and that HKQ are good. You therefore claim. As it happens, you are wrong about the hearts but right about the spades. Should you be considered to have cashed SA before playing a heart, thus losing two tricks? David Burn London, England -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 21:42:07 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SAdH507488 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:39:17 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SAdAt07484 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 21:39:11 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id LAA02688; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:39:08 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 11:43:00 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 <01K0N4V5UNJ6003TZZ@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:39:01 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:34:04 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:39:00 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'Robin Barker'" , "Kooijman, A." Cc: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BC@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > I understand this approach and have seen it outlined by > Grattan and others, > I have never known of such a calculation (in terms of MPs or > IMPs) in real > life. That is one of our problems, we tend to solve all kinds of irregularities without considering 'real life'. And not just in bridge. > > I am unclear where the laws permit such an approach: it does not seem > to be "the most favourable result" that was "likely" or "at > all probable" > (L12C2) nor does it seem to "achieve equity" (L12C3). It certainly does achieve 'my' idea of equity. Bolder: I can't think of a more equitable result. ton > Robin > > -- > Robin Barker | Email: Robin.Barker@npl.co.uk > CMSC, Building 10, | Phone: +44 (0) 20 8943 7090 > National Physical Laboratory, | Fax: +44 (0) 20 8977 7091 > Teddington, Middlesex, UK. TW11 OLW | WWW: http://www.npl.co.uk > -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 22:10:22 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SB73008497 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:07:03 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net [194.7.1.6]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SB6tt08493 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:06:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from village.uunet.be (uu212-190-2-228.unknown.uunet.be [212.190.2.228]) by bru5-smtp-out2.be.uu.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id f1SB6kF21927 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:06:48 +0100 (MET) Message-ID: <3A9CD96D.C4DAEBE6@village.uunet.be> Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 11:56:45 +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] Just checking References: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@fdwag002s.fd.agro.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk "Kooijman, A." wrote: > > This is a marvellously instructive problem for TD-teaching programs or for > an examination. I will use it. The TD solving this up to the end (the > calculation of the results) can be chief TD in the main events in his/her > country. > I think the case is too difficult for an exam. I believe the whole of blml would fail this. Maybe not such a bad idea, we can do with a little pegging down now and then. > > > I think this situation has been covered many times on list, but > > this is the first time I can recall having to deal with it. So > > would simply like to check my understanding of L16 here. > > > > Dealer South, EW Vul > > > > North > > 10 7 6 3 2 > > 10 6 > > J > > A 10 9 4 3 > > West East > > A Q 8 9 5 > > 5 4 Q J 9 3 2 > > A Q 10 7 6 2 K 8 4 > > Q 7 9 8 6 > > South > > K J 4 > > A K 8 7 > > 9 5 3 > > K J 2 > > > > Bidding > > West North East South > > == == == 1NT > > 2D 2S ...pass pass > > 3D all pass > > > > East allegedly passed out of tempo but denied by West (or > > at least claimed not to have affected her bidding). East > > claimed to have been considering bidding hearts except for the > > vulnerability! Director was called as soon as 3D was bid, and allowed > > auction and play to continue. Later director was called back > > when North revoked. The 1 trick penalty allowed 3D to make. > > Are you sure? How do NS collect 5 tricks in normal play? More generally: we > have to check whether the revoke didn't give NS an extra trick. > > > Director then ruled that 3D was not an automatic call in this > > situation > > (less than 75% of the field under Aust. rules) so adjusted contract > > back to 2S making 10 tricks. So EW -170. > > very good. > > For NS, because of the > > revoke, I gave the table result (NS -110). > > > > Is this correct? > > We agree that a revoke is not considered to be within the range of normal > play. So damage related to that revoke should not get redress. BUT!!! > Even when NS hadn't revoked their score would not equalize the score they > had collected without the infraction (the 3diamond bid). So there is > consequent damage. And the decision to give them -110 is not right. What to > do then? This is a neglected subject, which we should address. But it is > somewhat complicated and TD-live is difficult enough. > Which is exactly why this case is not for an exam. But why it is extremely interesting for blml. > Let us assume the top in this event to be 10. NS would have received 8 for > +170. For - 110 they receive 1 mp. If the result had been +100 (3D - 1) the > score would have been 4mp. Now we can calculate the consequent and the > subsequent damage. The revoke trick costed them 3mp (subsequent damage) and > the 3D-bid without the revoke would have costed 4mp (consequent damage). The > redress should be restricted to the consequent damage, being 4 mp. (I follow > Tony's description, if NS do win only 4 tricks anyhow, regardless the revoke > there is no subsequent damage) > > I am interested in your opinion about this approach. > I agree completely with it. Separate the consequent and subsequent damage and just give back the consequent one. Correct. > When dealing with a split score, does one > > simply replace the adjusted score with an average to find the > > score of the other players, and then calculate the match points for > > each of the two split scores separately? > > Not in my country. Nor anywhere, I should imagine. in this case, that score would be (170-110)/2 = 30 and that is not a bridge score. You cannot put that in a frequency table. If the whole field are in 170, then +30 or -110 are equal bottoms. No reason to do that. You should always use 170, then -110, then average. > Following your decisions the frequencies of NS get an (extra) -110 for this > pair and EW get -170 > for this pair; then the mp's for NS and EW need to be calculated > independently, which means that the scores for NS and EW playing each other > not necessarily add up to the top. > See my alternate method, not accepted, but yielding complementary results for all tables except this one. > Who passed the (my) exam? > One more question though. How to add these two rulings ? If I understand correctly, you give one side +170, and the other +170, minus 4 MP. What would you use for the other tables? +170/-110 ? or +170 to both ? this way, the revoke did not affect the other tables at all. I believe it should continue to do so. Maybe we should simply let +170 stand and divide the 4MP that we give at one table, into several -0.4MP given to the other tables. Seems crazy but should be acceptable. After all, those pairs that did not revoke should be rewarded. They are when the revoke happens in real play, so why not now ? -- Herman DE WAEL Antwerpen Belgium http://www.gallery.uunet.be/hermandw/index.html -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 22:32:02 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SBTBY09883 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:29:11 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SBT1t09879 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:29:02 +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 MAA01615; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:28:47 +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 MAA18249; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:28:40 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228123107.0082dc40@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:31:07 +0100 To: "Kooijman, A." , "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking In-Reply-To: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BA@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 10:36 28/02/01 +0100, Kooijman, A. wrote: >> Dealer South, EW Vul >> >> North >> 10 7 6 3 2 >> 10 6 >> J >> A 10 9 4 3 >> West East >> A Q 8 9 5 >> 5 4 Q J 9 3 2 >> A Q 10 7 6 2 K 8 4 >> Q 7 9 8 6 >> South >> K J 4 >> A K 8 7 >> 9 5 3 >> K J 2 >> >> Bidding >> West North East South >> == == == 1NT >> 2D 2S ...pass pass >> 3D all pass >> >> East allegedly passed out of tempo but denied by West (or >> at least claimed not to have affected her bidding). East >> claimed to have been considering bidding hearts except for the >> vulnerability! Director was called as soon as 3D was bid, and allowed >> auction and play to continue. Later director was called back >> when North revoked. The 1 trick penalty allowed 3D to make. > >Are you sure? How do NS collect 5 tricks in normal play? More generally: we >have to check whether the revoke didn't give NS an extra trick. > >> Director then ruled that 3D was not an automatic call in this >> situation >> (less than 75% of the field under Aust. rules) so adjusted contract >> back to 2S making 10 tricks. So EW -170. > >very good. > > > For NS, because of the >> revoke, I gave the table result (NS -110). >> >> Is this correct? > >We agree that a revoke is not considered to be within the range of normal >play. So damage related to that revoke should not get redress. BUT!!! >Even when NS hadn't revoked their score would not equalize the score they >had collected without the infraction (the 3diamond bid). So there is >consequent damage. And the decision to give them -110 is not right. What to >do then? This is a neglected subject, which we should address. But it is >somewhat complicated and TD-live is difficult enough. > >Let us assume the top in this event to be 10. NS would have received 8 for >+170. For - 110 they receive 1 mp. If the result had been +100 (3D - 1) the >score would have been 4mp. Now we can calculate the consequent and the >subsequent damage. The revoke trick costed them 3mp (subsequent damage) and >the 3D-bid without the revoke would have costed 4mp (consequent damage). The >redress should be restricted to the consequent damage, being 4 mp. (I follow >Tony's description, if NS do win only 4 tricks anyhow, regardless the revoke >there is no subsequent damage) > >I am interested in your opinion about this approach. AG : there doesn't seem to be any law to allow it, even though it might be fair. We will all agree that the contract of 3D was attained based on an irregularity ; what happens in this contract verges on the irrelevant. Let's ask the three traditional questions : 1) was there an infraction ? Answer : yes, the use of UI by West. After having described his hand in very satisfactory manner with his 2D bid, surely to pass 2S would have been the majority decision. The 3D bis was clearly (or could have been clearly) suggested by East's tempo. BTW, whether West admits having been influenced is not essential : he will never. 2) is there a link between the infraction and the good E/W score ? Yes, there is. Thus their score, ay least, should be corrected. 3) Did N/S make a gigantic bridge aberration which would cut this link ? Either they did, and their score should remain, while probably adjusting E/W's. Or they didn't, and asses the score as 2S making as many tricks as is reasonably possible. (is a revoke such an error ? adhuc sub judice lis est) If you prefer this wording, either the error is flagrant, and N/S get their bad score, or it isn't, and back we are to the 'normal' score without the infraction. As usual with decisions with which I don't agree, I'll merely ask : tell me on which article of the rules or complements to it you sound that you could give back by such subtle arithmetics *part* of the mps lost. 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 Feb 28 22:50:13 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SBnrK16553 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:49:53 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from swarm.mosquitonet.com (swarm.mosquitonet.com [206.129.11.16]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SBnkt16519 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:49:47 +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 ESMTP id CAA16712 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:26:37 -0900 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 02:10:54 -0900 (AKST) From: Gordon Bower To: Bridge Laws Mailing List Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> 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, 28 Feb 2001, David Burn wrote: [some good points about what happens when declarer claims and the position isn't quite what declarer believed it to be] Some fine points about a wrinkle we have to deal with in handling claims. My excluding-inadmissible-strategies method was indeed conceived only to handle premature claims, not claims where the claimer is under a misimpression of the what the hand actually is. I should have stated that more clearly. (And if you asked me in a completely unrelated context, "is it irrational for me to not notice which cards have already been faced?" I would say yes, though I do so with remarkable frequency.) In such cases I think we have to look at all the lines that would be non-irrational if claimer's view of the hand were correct, see which one causes the most damage to him when it blows up in his face, and assign that result. I agree it is currently an open question just *how* badly we make declarer play after his error in visualizing the opponents' hands is exposed. I don't have any foolproof recipes to offer for that situation. Fortunately in the case of one forgotten trump it is usually quite easy to work out what the most damaging instant for it to appear will be. 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 Feb 28 23:25:11 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SCOnL27765 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:24:49 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt (fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt [194.65.5.200]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SCOgt27761 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:24:43 +1100 (EST) Received: from rui ([212.55.173.233]) by fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with SMTP id <20010228122350.CUHM14023.fep01-svc.mail.telepac.pt@rui> for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:23:50 +0000 Reply-To: From: "Rui M.L.Marques" To: "Bridge Laws" Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:16:51 -0000 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: <3A9CD96D.C4DAEBE6@village.uunet.be> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk > > I agree completely with it. Separate the consequent and > subsequent damage and just give back the consequent one. > Correct. > RM: Agreed > One more question though. > > How to add these two rulings ? > > If I understand correctly, you give one side +170, and the > other +170, minus 4 MP. > > What would you use for the other tables? +170/-110 ? or +170 > to both ? > this way, the revoke did not affect the other tables at > all. I believe it should continue to do so. RM: I slightly disagree. For one side, +170. For the other that gets the MPs of 170 minus 4 mps, that is an AAS and you should simply score the field one result short (as when you give a percentage score). > > Maybe we should simply let +170 stand and divide the 4MP > that we give at one table, into several -0.4MP given to the > other tables. > > Seems crazy but should be acceptable. RM: TD´s life is too difficult already for that.. > After all, those pairs that did not revoke should be > rewarded. They are when the revoke happens in real play, so > why not now ? RM: Because such is life?... > -- > Herman DE WAEL -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 23:27:50 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SCRjR27777 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:27:45 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from stargate.agro.nl (cpc.agro.nl [145.12.10.1]) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f1SCRct27773 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:27:39 +1100 (EST) Received: by stargate.agro.nl; (8.8.8/1.3/10May95) id NAA27598; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:27:36 +0100 (MET) Received: FROM mgate.nic.agro.nl BY agro009s.nic.agro.nl ; Wed Feb 28 13:31:28 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 <01K0N8N3GGJO003U57@AGRO.NL>; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:27:03 +0200 Received: by agro005s.nic.agro.nl with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:22:06 +0100 Content-return: allowed Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:27:02 +0100 From: "Kooijman, A." Subject: RE: [BLML] Just checking To: "'alain gottcheiner'" , "Kooijman, A." , "'Tony Musgrove'" , bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Message-id: <67378DEA146DD21194C20000F87B08BA01B8B7BF@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: > As usual with decisions with which I don't agree, I'll merely > ask : tell me > on which article of the rules or complements to it you sound > that you could > give back by such subtle arithmetics *part* of the mps lost. > > A. We all agree that the last word in L16A: 'damage', relates to consequent damage. Do we? In 'real life' damage can be a combination of subsequent and consequent developments. In which case we have to split them to be able to decide the amount of redress. That is what I did: establishing the consequent damage, related to the most favourable result that was likely etc. (being + 170), in accordance with 12C2. Let me emphasis once more: this complicated situation arises because NS in this case are damaged anyway, with or without the revoke. They are entitled to get redress for the part they can't overcome whatever they do (the consequent damage, law 16). Let us assume that NS doubled 3D and where going to make 5 tricks without a revoke (let Tony tell how?), but had to pay a penalty trick because of a revoke, allowing EW to make the contract. In that situation there is no consequent damage anymore, the normal result being + 200 to NS transfered into - 670 by the revoke. A top becoming a bottom. All subsequent damage. In my opinion this is not just a subtle approach developed behind my desk, but a 'consequent' interpretation of the laws. ton -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 23:43:32 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SCgg829886 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:42:42 +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 f1SCgZt29846 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:42:36 +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 NAA00310; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:38:36 +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 NAA07925; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:42:12 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228134440.00860430@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:44:40 +0100 To: bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au From: alain gottcheiner Subject: [BLML] Brighton, better late than never Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk Hello everyone, Yes, you already exchanged some threads about Brighton appeals. I got some acrobatic problems, which are only solved today. Let me then jump in and make several comments about the rulings. On case # 5 : I don't agree with the sentence "successful defence not likely enough". I would have thought that, on the bidding given (2H being a weak bid, isn't it ?), there would be very limited hope, in North's view, to make 4 tricks without scoring a ruff, and that with the big hand in West, one should come in early enough with SK to try and find partner's reentry. Even if one is wrong (the right defence being letting partner in with CA to play hearts through), it can be done afterwards. A good player would not fail to lead hid diamond. Stating that it is 'not likely enough' seems harsh. On case # 6 : I could stomach the principle that a positive bid may be made on a lightish hand, but ... Did I really read 'without a 4-card major ?' In this case, there is misinformation, isn't it ? Even if it is, as I suspect, 'either strong or no 4-card major', the description is incomplete. There is evidence of this : if South denied 4 hearts, North wouldn't have needed to show a weakish 4-card heart suit. Addressing the case of the word 'constructive', which is used by CC editors but not defined : it means, in principle, that partner is expected to move on higher than he has already committed himself, with a hand that he deems quite good for his bidding up to now. In short, it means it is good news to partner. For example, playing forcing NT, I would call 1S-2S a constructive bid. Thus a relay, being in essence forcing, may not be qualified as 'constructive', although one could understand it as 'at least hinting at game', in which case this hand does not qualify. Taking 'constructive' as synonymous for 'general force' is wrong : playing Benji 2C, the 2D response is a relay, but it is consistent with the weakest hand possible, and thus may not be called 'constructive'. Partner having decided to bid at least up to 2M or 3m, the 2D bid doesn't suggest him the least bit to go any further. I'd rether consider 'constructive' as synonymous to 'encouraging'. BTW, if 'constructive' means 'forcing', the wording of 14.2.2. would be pleonastic. On case #12 : South has passed 2C. Perhaps he felt his partner might have misbid, but I don't see where it is disallowed. But if this was the case, he should have bid 3C. It covers both cases, after all. Over 2D, I would have passed, hoping they will play 2D in a cue-bid. 3C is strange indeed, letting them out of the mess. But the auction, especially West's pass over 2D, is strong indication that the bid was somehow explained as clubs only. Did the AC investigate this ? If it was, the only infraction would be that of non-damaging misinformation on the CC, with its associated PP, but no redress for the deal. On case #13 : I feel North was very careful not to take advantage. A more energic bid (5S, perhaps) is a LA after South has shown values (by his double) and hinted (by his tempo) that theyu were transferable. As North, after the double, and without the tempo, I would perhaps have bid 5C or 5S. But I would have felt I must restrain from doing so after South's tempo, and make the conservative bid of 4S in order not to take advantage. Surely no one would feel North was doing anything irregular. On case #14 : to Herman : playing lebensohl, a double is not for penalties, it merely shows a good flat hand (kind of a natural 2NT response). It is thus the right bid. Please tell me why I'm wrong in all those cases. A. -- ======================================================================== (Un)Subscribing? Want the archives? email majordomo@rgb.anu.edu.au with "(un)subscribe bridge-laws" or just "help" in the BODY of the message. A Web archive is at http://rgb.anu.edu.au/bridge-cgi/lwgate/BRIDGE-LAWS/ From owner-bridge-laws Wed Feb 28 23:47:06 2001 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by rgb.anu.edu.au (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f1SCkxt01401 for bridge-laws-outgoing; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:46:59 +1100 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: rgb.anu.edu.au: majordomo set sender to owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au using -f Received: from 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 f1SCkqt01357 for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 23:46:53 +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 NAA01388; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:42:54 +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 NAA11121; Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:46:31 +0100 (MET) for Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20010228134859.008ac740@pop.ulb.ac.be> X-Sender: agot@pop.ulb.ac.be X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 13:48:59 +0100 To: Gordon Bower , Bridge Laws Mailing List From: alain gottcheiner Subject: Re: [BLML] claim ? In-Reply-To: References: <000701c0a171$b23a1060$dac301d5@pbncomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-bridge-laws@rgb.anu.edu.au Precedence: bulk At 02:10 28/02/01 -0900, Gordon Bower wrote: > > >On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, David Burn wrote: >[some good points about what happens when declarer claims and the position >isn't quite what declarer believed it to be] > >Some fine points about a wrinkle we have to deal with in handling >claims. My excluding-inadmissible-strategies method was indeed conceived >only to handle premature claims, not claims where the claimer is under a >misimpression of the what the hand actually is. I should have stated that >more clearly. (And if you asked me in a completely unrelated context, "is >it irrational for me to not notice which cards have already been faced?" I >would say yes, though I do so with remarkable frequency.) AG : here is a strong argument to say that one shouldn't let West finesse. Suppose that the finesse for the C10 was wrong. Then West could (remember GB/Belgium?) ask for everything that was done after the claim to be cancelled, including his statement that he would have finessed. Surely it can't be right to let him escape both if the C10 is onside and if it is offside. Else, claiming in uncertain deals would be the way to ensuring a good score however the cards are dealt. 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/